OBSERVARE
Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 15, N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025
17
DE-SECURITIZATION OF THE IMMIGRATION POLICY IN PORTUGAL:
SEPARATION BETWEEN MIGRATION MANAGEMENT AND INTERNAL
SECURITY
CONSTANÇA URBANO DE SOUSA
constanca.urbano.sousa@gmail.com
She has a law degree from the Faculty of Law of the University of Coimbra, a postgraduate
degree in European Law and a PhD in Law from the University of Saarland, Germany. She is an
Associate Professor at the Law Department of the Autonomous University of Lisbon, an
Integrated Researcher at Ratio Legis and a Collaborator at OBSERVARE (Portugal). Since 1999,
she has been a member of the Odysseus Network - Acedemic Network for Legal Studies on
Immigration and Asylum in Europe (Free University of Brussels). She is the coordinator and
Professor of the Postgraduate Programme in Migration Law.
She is the author of a vast bibliography on immigration and asylum law and the European
Union's area of freedom, security and justice. She is Chairman of the Supervisory Board of SIRP.
She was an Invited Associate Professor at the Higher Institute of Police Sciences and Internal
Security (1998-2015) and at the Faculty of Law of Universidade Nova de Lisboa (2004-2006,
2018-2020), where she taught European Immigration and Asylum Law. Between 2006 and 2012
she was Senior Technical Counsellor at the Portuguese Permanent Representation to the EU
(REPER), responsible for coordinating the Justice and Home Affairs section. She was Minister of
Internal Administration in the XXI Government, a member of the Portuguese Parliament (XIII and
XIV Legislatures) and a member of the Human Rights Committee of the Members of the Inter-
Parliamentary Union (IPU).
Abstract
The extinction of the Foreigners and Borders Service (Serviço de Estrangeiros e Fronteiras -
SEF) on 29 October 2023 and the subsequent transfer of its responsibilities for managing
immigration and asylum procedures to the newly established Agency for Integration,
Migration, and Asylum (Agência para a Integração, Migrações e Asilo – AIMA), marked a
significant shift in Portugal’s migration policy. This institutional reform represents the
culmination of a process aimed at de-securitising the state’s approach to international
migration by distinctly separating migration management from internal security
considerations. From October 2023 onwards, the management of migratory flows is no longer
a police function, with the documentation of immigrants being entrusted to a purely
administrative agency. To comprehend the implications of this reform, it is essential to
examine both the evolution of Portuguese immigration policy and the unique characteristics
of SEF. The first section of this article explores the general evolution of immigration policy in
Portugal, characterised by the country's transformation in the 1990s into a significant
destination for diverse migratory flows. The second section provides an overview of the now-
defunct Immigration and Borders Service. Finally, the article discusses the rationale behind
its dissolution and the replacement of its functions in immigration and asylum management
by an administrative (non-police) agency that has also inherited the integration and anti-
discrimination responsibilities of the High Commission for Migration.
Keywords
Immigration and Borders Service; Agency for Integration, Migration and Asylum; de-
securitization of migration policy.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 17-34
De-Securitization of the Immigration Policy in Portugal: Separation between Migration
Management and Internal Security
Constança Urbano de Sousa
18
Resumo
A extinção do Serviço de Estrangeiros e Fronteiras (SEF), em 29 de outubro de 2023, e a
subsequente transferência das suas responsabilidades em matéria de gestão da imigração e
dos procedimentos de asilo para a recém-criada Agência para a Integração, Migrações e Asilo
(AIMA), marcaram uma mudança significativa na política de imigração portuguesa. Esta
reforma institucional representa o culminar de um processo que tem como objetivo a
dessecuritização da abordagem do Estado em relação às migrações internacionais, separando
claramente a sua gestão de considerações de segurança interna. A partir de outubro de 2023,
a gestão dos fluxos migratórios deixou de ser uma função policial, tendo a documentação dos
imigrantes sido confiada a um organismo puramente administrativo. Para compreender as
implicações desta reforma, é essencial examinar tanto a evolução da política de imigração
portuguesa como as caraterísticas únicas do SEF. A primeira secção deste artigo explora a
evolução geral da política de imigração em Portugal, caracterizada pela transformação do país
num destino significativo de diversos fluxos migratórios. A segunda secção apresenta uma
visão geral do extinto Serviço de Estrangeiros e Fronteiras. Por último, o artigo discute a
lógica subjacente à sua dissolução e à substituição das suas funções de gestão da imigração
e do asilo por uma agência administrativa (não policial) que herdou igualmente as
responsabilidades de integração e de luta contra a discriminação do Alto Comissariado para
as Migrações.
Palavras-chave
Serviço de Estrangeiros e Fronteiras; Agência para a Integração, Migrações e o Asilo;
dessecuritização da política de migração.
How to cite this article
Sousa, Constança Urbano de (2024). De-Securitization of the Immigration Policy in Portugal:
Separation between Migration Management and Internal Security. Janus.net, e-journal of
international relations. VOL 15 N.º 2, November 2024-April 2025, pp. 17-34.
https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.15.2.2.
Article received on 22 July 2024 and accepted for publication on 15 September 2024.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 17-34
De-Securitization of the Immigration Policy in Portugal: Separation between Migration
Management and Internal Security
Constança Urbano de Sousa
19
DE-SECURITIZATION OF THE IMMIGRATION POLICY IN
PORTUGAL: SEPARATION BETWEEN MIGRATION
MANAGEMENT AND INTERNAL SECURITY
CONSTANÇA URBANO DE SOUSA
Introduction
The dissolution of the Foreigners and Borders Service (Serviço de Estrangeiros e
Fronteiras - SEF) on 29 October 2023, and the transfer of its responsibilities for managing
immigration and asylum procedures to a newly created administrative body, the Agency
for Integration, Migration, and Asylum (Agência para a Integração, Migrações e Asilo –
AIMA), represent a landmark change in Portugal’s migration policy.
Understanding the scope of this reform requires an appreciation of the unique
characteristics of the Portuguese migration management system in place until October
2023, which involved two public entities: the SEF and the High Commission for Migration.
The Foreigners and Borders Service (SEF) combined a range of competencies related to
border control, immigration, and asylum — functions that, in other countries, are typically
divided among various police and administrative agencies. SEF’s role in managing
documentation for immigrants and asylum seekers has now been transferred to AIMA.
Its border control and policing responsibilities have been distributed among other police
forces, including the Public Security Police (responsible for air border control), the
National Republican Guard (responsible for maritime border control), and the Judicial
Police (responsible for investigating migration-related migration-related crimes such as
smuggling, recruitment of irregular foreign labour, marriage of convenience as well as
human trafficking).
The High Commission for Migration, a public administrative entity, was responsible for
defining and evaluating public policies on migration, promoting the attraction of
immigrants (despite not having competencies in visa issuance or residence permits), and
supporting their integration and social inclusion. It also combated discrimination and
fostered intercultural and religious dialogue (article 3 of Decree-Law No. 31/2014, of 27
February, repealed by Decree-Law no. 41/2023, of 2 June). Curiously, it was also
responsible for the inclusion of the Roma community, even though they are
predominantly Portuguese citizens, not immigrants. The High Commission for Migration
was also abolished in October 2023, with its responsibilities absorbed by AIMA.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 17-34
De-Securitization of the Immigration Policy in Portugal: Separation between Migration
Management and Internal Security
Constança Urbano de Sousa
20
To fully understand this reform, it is necessary to consider both the evolution of
Portuguese immigration policy and the unique role that SEF played in this context. The
first part of this article reviews the general evolution of immigration policy in Portugal,
which was significantly influenced by the country’s transformation in the 1990s into a
destination for diverse and growing migratory flows. The second part provides a brief
overview of the now-defunct Foreigners and Borders Service. Finally, the article examines
the factors that led to its dissolution and the establishment of a new administrative
agency focused on immigration and asylum management, as well as integration and anti-
discrimination policies, previously overseen by the High Commission for Migration.
1. Portuguese Immigration Policy: An Overview
Portugal, traditionally a country of emigration, has in recent decades transformed into a
significant destination for immigration, attracting a growing number of immigrants from
increasingly distant and diverse origins.
Until the 1974 Revolution, which established democracy in Portugal, the dictatorial
regime's primary focus was on controlling emigration. The state imposed strict
regulations to prevent the departure of young men needed for the colonial war, and to
forestall potential anti-regime movements abroad (Galvanese, 2020). It was only after
1975 that a substantial number of immigrants, primarily from Portugal’s former African
colonies, began arriving, with immigration accelerating significantly in the 1980s (Pires
& Pinho, 2007).
Evolution of Legal Immigrant Numbers in Portugal (1980-2023)
(Source: SEF, 2023; AIMA,2024)
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 17-34
De-Securitization of the Immigration Policy in Portugal: Separation between Migration
Management and Internal Security
Constança Urbano de Sousa
21
In 1980, Portugal had only 50,000 immigrants, mostly from Portuguese-speaking
countries. By the end of 2023, this number had surged to 1.04 million immigrants with
residence permits (AIMA, 2024), constituting around 10% of the population. Additionally,
there are about 400,000 immigrants undergoing regularisation processes managed by
AIMA, which succeeded SEF in its administrative role regarding immigration and asylum
(Decree-Law No. 41/2023 of 2 June).
Over recent decades, the immigration landscape in Portugal has not only grown
quantitatively but also evolved structurally. While Brazil remains the primary country of
origin for migratory flows to Portugal, the number of immigrants from distant countries
such as India, Nepal, and Bangladesh has increased exponentially in recent years (SEF,
2023).
Unlike other European countries, international migration in Portugal has not been a
significant topic of political debate until recently. However, the increasing diversity of
migratory flows has introduced greater ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity, which,
unfortunately, has fuelled the far-right narrative portraying immigration as a threat to
national identity. On the other hand, the securitisation of international migration, coupled
with media coverage of irregular migration flows and associated humanitarian tragedies—
especially in the Mediterranean, the world’s deadliest border—has contributed to a
perception of invasion and security threats. Such negative perceptions, largely driven by
the far-right, can lead to restrictive regulatory frameworks that end up causing more
dramatic and inhumane flows of irregular immigration (Sousa, 2019).
Until 4 June 2024, when Decree-Law No. 37-A/2024 of 3 June came into effect, which
made the 15th amendment to the Immigration Law (Law No. 23/2007 of 4 July), Portugal
had a permanent mechanism for regularising immigrant workers who entered without
the appropriate visa but were engaged in professional activities. This mechanism
prevented immigrant workers from being trapped in irregularity, which would have
heightened their vulnerability, increased exploitation, and hindered integration. However,
the current centre-right government (PSD/CDS) repealed this scheme, arguing that it
was too lenient and reflected a so-called ‘open-door’ policy that failed to control migratory
flows from the outset. In particular, the government considered regularisation to be a
powerful pull factor for irregular immigration, such as entry under visa exemptions for
short stays or with short-stay visas that do not qualify for residence, resulting in hundreds
of thousands of pending cases. Consequently, from 4 June 2024 onwards, any immigrant
worker entering without a residence visa would be unable to regularise their residence
status.
It is important to acknowledge the practical difficulties associated with the regularisation
regime due to the significant increase in applications for residence permits by immigrant
workers. However, these challenges largely stem from insufficient human resources in
the responsible government departments, inadequate investment in digital solutions, and
the inability of Portugal’s consular network to keep pace with the realities of migration.
In any case, a restrictive immigration law will not prevent Portugal from being a
destination for migratory flows; it will merely render them irregular. This is a lesson
taught by the evolution of Portuguese immigration law, which has consistently
demonstrated the inefficacy of restrictive measures in managing immigration effectively.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 17-34
De-Securitization of the Immigration Policy in Portugal: Separation between Migration
Management and Internal Security
Constança Urbano de Sousa
22
1.1 Immigration Laws in Portugal: From 1980 to 2007
Before the 1980s, the regulation of the entry, residence, and expulsion of immigrants
was fragmented across various laws enacted in the 1960s and 1970s.
In 1981, Decree-Law No. 264-B/81 of 3 September consolidated immigration legislation
into a single framework, representing the first comprehensive immigration law in
democratic Portugal. Under this law, immigrants were generally required to possess a
consular visa to establish residence in national territory (Article 11). Furthermore,
engaging in professional activities required a prior work visa issued by the Foreigners
Service (Article 16), an autonomous entity within the Public Security Police that was the
precursor to the SEF, established in 1986 (Decree-Law No. 440/86 of 31 December).
Legalising residence within Portugal was only allowed under exceptional circumstances
(Article 15). This legislation, aimed at curbing the influx of immigrants and the creation
of a specialised police force for this purpose, reflects a reactive immigration policy in
response to the growing immigrant population during the 1980s (Pires & Pinho, 2007).
Despite the emphasis on legal immigration from the source, an increasing number of
foreigners continued to reside and work illegally in Portugal. As a result, the first
extraordinary regularisation process for immigrant workers took place in 1992 (Decree-
Law No. 212/92 of 12 October), enabling the legalisation of approximately 16,000
individuals (Sousa, 2000; Malheiros & Baganha, 2001).
Portugal's accession to the Schengen Agreements required a new legal framework for
migration, particularly in terms of combating irregular immigration. Consequently, in
1993, the centre-right Social Democratic Party government enacted a new Immigration
Law (Decree-Law No. 59/93 of 3 March). According to Baganha (2005), this law aimed
at a policy of "zero immigration," being highly restrictive and selective concerning entry,
effectively curbing migratory flows (except for family reunification purposes) and
preventing irregular settlement on national territory (Baganha, 2005: p. 32).
The law required immigrant workers to enter the country with a work visa issued by
Portuguese consulates, following a favourable opinion from the General Labour
Inspectorate (Article 26). This visa allowed a stay of up to 90 days, extendable for a
maximum of 60 days (Article 18). To obtain a residence permit, immigrants needed a
residence visa (Article 19), provided that their purpose for residence was deemed viable
and they had means of subsistence and adequate housing conditions (Article 28). Only
in exceptional cases of recognised national interest could a residence permit be granted
to those who had not entered the country with a residence visa (Article 64). The Decree-
Law also reinforced the legal framework for combatting irregular immigration by
introducing sanctions for carriers transporting individuals denied entry (Article 101) and
criminalising immigrant smuggling (Article 93). However, this stringent legal framework
did not prevent irregular immigration, as many immigrants continued to enter with short-
term visas or under visa waiver arrangements and remain in the country illegally
(Baganha, 2005).
The implementation of the Schengen Agreement in March 1995, which abolished border
controls with other member states, allowed immigrants from Eastern European countries
to enter Portugal on short-term visas issued by other states, subsequently remaining
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 17-34
De-Securitization of the Immigration Policy in Portugal: Separation between Migration
Management and Internal Security
Constança Urbano de Sousa
23
illegally. This, combined with the demand for labour and what Góis and Marques describe
as the “integration of the Portuguese market into the expansion plan of global migration
industries” (Góis & Marques, 2018: p. 130), led to a structural shift in immigration
patterns in the 1990s. Besides a significant increase in immigration, there was a
diversification of origins, with a notable rise in immigrants from Eastern Europe and
Brazil, rather than predominantly from Portuguese-speaking African countries (Malheiros
& Baganha, 2001; Baganha, 2005; Góis & Marques, 2018).
As Góis and Marques (2018) note, since Portugal no longer controlled the issuance of
Schengen visas by other countries, nor the entry of immigrants under visa waiver
regimes, migration management policy began to be influenced by market forces.
Consequently, a new pool of irregular immigrant workers emerged, prompting a second
extraordinary regularisation process in 1996, regulated by Law No. 17/96 of 24 May. This
process granted residence permits to approximately 30,000 immigrant workers (Sousa,
2000; Malheiros & Baganha, 2001). It was also a sign that the management of
immigration from the outset, through the issuing of work visas by Portuguese consulates,
was inadequate, as it did not prevent the entry of more immigrants to meet labour needs
(Góis, 2022).
In this context, the Socialist Party, which came into power in 1995, implemented several
changes to the immigration policy, incorporating programme objectives aimed at
enhancing the social and economic integration of immigrants into its government agenda.
In 1996, it established the High Commissioner for Immigration and Ethnic Minorities
(Pires & Pinho, 2007), which was later succeeded by the High Commission for Migration.
This institution was abolished in 2023, with its responsibilities being transferred to the
newly created Agency for Integration, Migration, and Asylum (AIMA).
In 1998, a third immigration law was introduced: Decree-Law No. 244/98 of 8 August.
This law continued to prioritise the regulation of migratory flows at their source (Góis,
2022), establishing a complex system of consular visas based on the purpose of the
applicant’s stay (Article 27). Immigrant workers were required to obtain a work visa,
valid for one year, with different categories depending on the nature of the professional
activity (Articles 36 and 37). Alternatively, they could apply for a residence visa to
undertake professional activities. These visas could only be granted with the approval of
the Institute for Labour Development and Inspection (or, in the case of the Autonomous
Regions, the relevant regional secretariat). The admission of immigrant workers was
restricted to a maximum period of two years (Article 42) and was limited to job vacancies
that could not be filled by EU citizens or immigrants legally residing in Portugal (Article
41). Although it was not formally a quota system, it effectively operated as one.
Overall, this law was restrictive and bureaucratic, leading to a new wave of irregular
immigration, predominantly from Eastern Europe, to meet the labour demands in various
sectors of the economy, such as construction and tourism (Baganha, 2005). Even the
exceptional regime for the regularisation of immigrants in the national interest (Article
88) failed to curb the rise in the number of irregular migrant workers. Baganha argued
that this regime made “Portugal a more attractive country for labour trafficking networks”
(Baganha, 2005, p. 33). A new influx of migrants from Eastern Europe, particularly from
Ukraine, Russia, and Moldova, further contributed to the increase in irregular migrant
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 17-34
De-Securitization of the Immigration Policy in Portugal: Separation between Migration
Management and Internal Security
Constança Urbano de Sousa
24
workers. By the end of 2000, there were 41,401 pending applications for residence
permits under the exceptional regime outlined in Article 88 of Decree-Law No. 244/98 at
the Foreigners and Borders Service (Baganha, 2005).
In response to the potential need for another extraordinary regularisation process,
Decree-Law No. 4/2001, of 10 January, significantly revised the legal framework for
labour immigration. On the one hand, it introduced work visas within an annual quota
system for job opportunities in specific sectors, based on a report approved by the
government following consultation with the Institute for Employment and Vocational
Training and after considering the views of employers’ associations and trade unions
(Article 36). On the other hand, it established the "stay permit," a type of residence
permit that allowed irregular immigrant workers to regularise their status provided they
had an employment contract, supported by information from the General Labour
Inspectorate (Article 55). The stay permit was valid for one year and could be extended
up to a maximum of five years (Article 55(5)). This mechanism of permanent
regularisation effectively linked the control of migratory flows to the regulation of the
labour market, as the administrative regularisation of immigrants was contingent upon
the regulation of their employment relationship (Pires & Pinho, 2007).
Baganha argued that this regime validated "the functioning of the market a posteriori,
tacitly acknowledging the complete ineffectiveness of existing regulatory mechanisms,"
and that the maximum validity of the stay permit implied that labour needs were seen
as temporary and circumstantial (Baganha, 2005, p. 35). In Góis’s view, the labour
market's demand for cheap labour influenced immigration policy, shifting it from a
restrictive approach to “a semi-open door based on the cyclical needs of the labour
market” (Góis, 2022, p. 94).
Between 2001 and 2003, a total of 183,655 immigrants were regularised under this
scheme (SEF, 2004). This included not only immigrants from Portuguese-speaking
countries such as Brazil (37,920) and Angola (8,533), but also a significant number from
Eastern Europe, particularly Ukraine (64,595), Moldova (12,632), Romania (10,926), and
Russia (7,047).
In 2003, the newly elected centre-right government (PSD/CDS) concluded that this
flexible regime for the permanent regularisation of immigrant workers had contributed
to a substantial increase in irregular immigration. Consequently, the government
introduced significant amendments to the 1998 Immigration Law through Decree-Law
No. 34/2003 of 25 February. The main changes were as follows: First, the stay permit
regime was abolished (Article 20), without prejudice to pending applications (Article 18)
and the renewal of permits already granted (Article 19). New immigrants were required
to obtain the appropriate visa from a Portuguese consulate. Additionally, the revised
Article 36 of the 1998 Immigration Law established a system of mandatory annual quotas
for the admission of immigrant workers. Finally, the right to family reunification was
restricted to immigrants who had held a residence permit for at least one year (new
wording of Article 56).
However, the system of compulsory quotas for the admission of immigrant workers
introduced in 2003 proved to be a failure. It was highly bureaucratic and did not reflect
the realities of migration. In 2004, only around 10% of the labour needs identified in the
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 17-34
De-Securitization of the Immigration Policy in Portugal: Separation between Migration
Management and Internal Security
Constança Urbano de Sousa
25
mandatory annual quota were met through the admission of regular immigrant workers
(Baganha, 2005). Consequently, labour shortages continued to be filled through irregular
immigration.
Main Immigration Laws in Portugal
Year
Law
Decree-Law no. 264-B/81
Immigration Law
Decree-Law 440/86
Creation of the Foreigners and Borders
Service (SEF)
Decree-Law no. 212/92
1st process of extraordinary regularisation of
immigrant workers
Decree-Law no. 59/93, of 3 March
Immigration Law
Law 17/96
2nd process of extraordinary regularisation of
immigrant workers
Decree-Law no. 244/98
Immigration Law
Decree-Law no. 4/2001
“Stay Permit” – permanent regularisation of
immigrant workers
Decree-Law 34/2003
Immigration Law
Regulatory Decree no. 6/2004
Regularisation of immigrant workers
Law no. 23/2007, of 4 July
Immigration Law
Law 28/2019
Regularisation of irregular immigrant
workers
Law 73/2021
Restructuration of the Portuguese border
control system
Decree-Law 41/2023
Creation of the Agency for Integration,
Migration and Asylum (AIMA)
Decree-Law 37-A/2024
Repeal the regularisation of irregular
immigrant workers
Due to the inadequacies of this system, additional extraordinary regularisation processes
took place in 2003. Firstly, under the Luso-Brazilian Agreement of 2003 (approved by
Decree No. 40/2003 of 19 September), the residence status of approximately 30,000
Brazilian workers was regularised. Secondly, a regulatory measure (Article 71 of
Regulatory Decree No. 6/2004, of 26 April) was adopted, which regularised the stay of
over 50,000 immigrant workers (Baganha, 2005) whose status had been normalised with
the Social Security and Tax Authorities. This further confirmed the structural shift in
immigration to Portugal: it was no longer predominantly from Portuguese-speaking
countries but increasingly from more distant regions with no historical ties to Portugal,
including both European countries such as Ukraine, Romania, and Moldova, and non-
European countries such as Pakistan and India (Baganha, 2005).
1.2. The 2007 Immigration Law: A Brief Characterisation
In 2007, Portugal adopted the current Immigration Law (Law No. 23/2007 of 4 July),
which has since undergone 15 amendments, the latest introduced by Decree-Law No.
37-A/2024 of 3 June.
Until 2020, the issuance of residence visas for immigrants wishing to work in Portugal
was subject to a non-binding quota of work opportunities (Article 59). However, the 2007
legislation recognised the challenges of enforcing a regulated migratory pathway from
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 17-34
De-Securitization of the Immigration Policy in Portugal: Separation between Migration
Management and Internal Security
Constança Urbano de Sousa
26
the outset due to various factors, such as the inadequacy of the Portuguese consular
network to address migratory flows, excessive bureaucracy, and the difficulty of
reconciling supply and demand for labour remotely. To address these challenges, the law
established a mechanism for the permanent regularisation of immigrant workers (Article
88(2)). It also extended this possibility to other categories of immigrants, such as self-
employed individuals, students, family members of immigrants, or those with specific
humanitarian needs (e.g., immigrant children or particularly vulnerable individuals, such
as victims of labour exploitation). Additionally, the law aligned more closely with human
rights principles by expanding the right to family reunification, enhancing procedural
guarantees (Articles 98 et seq.), and setting legal limits on entry refusals and expulsions
to protect immigrants' rights to private and family life—particularly those with minor
children residing in Portugal, over whom they exercise parental responsibility, or those
considered de facto Portuguese, having been born and lived in Portugal since before the
age of 10 (Articles 36 and 135) (Sousa, 2023).
The non-binding quota system for the admission of immigrant workers failed to regulate
labour immigration from the outset. Consequently, from 2020 onwards, it was
successively suspended by the State Budget Laws of 2020, 2021, and 2022. In 2022, the
quota system was repealed by Law No. 18/2022 of 25 August, which also introduced a
work-seeking visa (Article 57-A) allowing foreigners to enter and legally reside for up to
six months to seek employment. Upon securing a job, they could then obtain a residence
permit. Furthermore, the so-called "expression of interest" regime (Article 88(2) of the
Immigration Law), initially conceived as an exceptional mechanism, was made more
flexible. It allowed for the permanent regularisation of immigrant workers who entered
without the appropriate visa, or without any visa, provided they had a work contract and
social security registration. Initially, this mechanism required that the immigrant had
entered and remained legally in the country. However, Law No. 59/2017 of 31 July
expanded this to include those who only had a job offer and had entered legally, even
without a regular stay. As of 2019, the regime was extended to workers who had entered
Portugal irregularly, provided their social security situation had been regularised for at
least 12 months (new Article 88(6) introduced by Law No. 28/2019 of 29 March).
This flexible regularisation regime has faced criticism from those who believe it creates
a "pull factor" for irregular immigration and encourages labour exploitation (Gil, 2022).
Using this argument, the current centre-right government (PSD/CDS) adopted Decree-
Law No. 37-A/2024 of 3 June, which abolished this regime.
It is understandable that, for those seeking better living conditions, the possibility of
regularisation in Portugal is a decisive factor in their migratory project and their choice
of destination. However, this regime only benefited immigrants already integrated into
the labour market, preventing them from remaining in an irregular and vulnerable
situation. It was also a humane and fair approach, as a state that accepts social security
contributions from an immigrant cannot keep them in a clandestine status, which only
exacerbates their vulnerability to exploitation. The abolition of this permanent
regularisation mechanism will not halt immigration; it will only make it irregular. This is
especially worrying given Portugal’s structural labour shortages across various sectors,
both skilled and unskilled, which are heavily reliant on immigrant workers.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 17-34
De-Securitization of the Immigration Policy in Portugal: Separation between Migration
Management and Internal Security
Constança Urbano de Sousa
27
It was in the context of a Portugal open to immigration that the Socialist Party, which
governed from 2015 to 2024, promoted the dissolution of the Foreigners and Borders
Service (SEF). Its responsibilities for immigrant documentation and asylum were
transferred to a purely administrative agency, AIMA, which also assumed responsibilities
in the field of integration. To fully understand the scale of this institutional reform in
Portuguese immigration policy, it is essential to first comprehend what SEF was, as will
be explored in the following section.
2. The Foreigners and Borders Service (SEF): A Unique Border, Immigration and
Asylum Police Force
2.1. Immigration Management Before SEF
The precursor to SEF can be traced back to the political police of the dictatorship that
ruled Portugal from 1933 until the Revolution of 25 April 1974, which established
democracy and the rule of law. During Salazar’s dictatorship, the primary concern was
not immigration but emigration. The regime focused on controlling the emigration of
Portuguese citizens, fearing the loss of young men needed for the colonial wars and the
potential for organised opposition movements abroad (Galvanese, 2020). The State
Surveillance and Defence Police, established by Decree-Law No. 22.992 of 29 August
1933, was tasked with preventing and repressing crimes of a political and social nature
(Article 3), as well as controlling borders, detaining Portuguese citizens attempting to
emigrate without proper documentation, preventing the entry of undocumented or
undesirable foreigners, and maintaining records of foreign nationals (Article 4). In 1945,
it was replaced by the International and State Defence Police (PIDE), under the Ministry
of the Interior (Decree-Law No. 35.046 of 22 October 1945), which maintained its role
in controlling emigration, border security, and the residence of foreign nationals.
In 1969, the General Directorate of Security (DGS) succeeded PIDE, maintaining its
status as a political police force with authority over emigration, immigration, and border
control (Article 3 of Decree-Law No. 49.401 of 24 November 1969, and Article 13 of
Decree-Law No. 368/72 of 30 September). This included overseeing the entry, stay, and
activities of foreigners in Portugal, issuing opinions on visa applications, granting
residence permits, supervising the employment of irregular immigrants, and controlling
land, sea, and air borders by its Foreigners and Borders Service Directorate (Article 43
of Decree-Law No. 368/72 of 30 September).
Following the 1974 Revolution, the DGS was abolished (Decree-Law No. 171/74 of 25
April), and its immigration and border control functions were temporarily transferred to
the Judicial Police and the Tax Guard, respectively. In May 1974, Decree-Law No. 215/74
of 22 May granted the Public Security Police (PSP) powers over immigration matters,
including overseeing the entry and stay of foreigners, issuing opinions on visas, granting
residence permits, and supervising the employment of immigrant workers (Article 1).
Border control, including the authority to refuse entry to undocumented, suspicious, or
undesirable foreigners, was assigned to the Fiscal Guard (Article 2 of Decree-Law No.
215/74 of 22 May). Later that year, the Foreigners Service Directorate was established
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 17-34
De-Securitization of the Immigration Policy in Portugal: Separation between Migration
Management and Internal Security
Constança Urbano de Sousa
28
within the PSP (Decree-Law No. 651/74 of 22 November). In 1976, this department was
separated from the PSP and placed under the direct authority of the Minister of Internal
Affairs (Decree-Law No. 494-A/76 of 23 June 1976), leading to the creation of the
Foreigners Service, the direct predecessor of SEF, tasked with overseeing the entry, stay,
and activities of foreigners in Portugal, granting residence permits, and issuing opinions
on consular visas.
2.2. The Foreigners and Borders Service (SEF)
Established in 1986 under the supervision of the Minister of Home Affairs (Decree-Law
No. 440/86 of 31 December), the Foreigners and Borders Service (SEF) was a specialised
police force responsible for implementing immigration policy. Its duties included
documenting immigrants (granting residence permits and work visas), processing asylum
applications, deporting foreigners, and controlling air, sea, and land borders.
SEF was both a security service and a criminal investigation body, amassing a significant
range of competencies that, in many countries, are typically distributed among multiple
agencies. According to Article 2 of its Organic Law (Decree-Law No. 252/2000 of 16
October, as last amended by Decree-Law No. 240/2012 of 6 November), SEF's main
competencies were:
- Border Control: Conducting document checks at border posts and refusing entry
to foreigners who did not meet legal entry requirements.
- Immigration Administration: Issuing opinions on consular visa applications,
granting and renewing residence permits, and providing opinions on naturalisation
applications.
- Immigration Policing: Imposing fines for breaches of immigration law, overseeing
expulsion or readmission procedures for irregular immigrants, and investigating
crimes under immigration law (e.g., smuggling of irregular migrants, recruitment
of irregular workers, marriages of convenience, and human trafficking).
- Asylum Administration: Assessing the admissibility of asylum applications and
examining asylum cases.
- Management of Schengen and Visa Information Systems: Managing the national
sections of the Schengen Information System – SIS (although only alerts on
foreigners for the purposes of non-admission or return fall within its remit)) and
the Visa Information System -VIS (although this primarily serves not SEF but the
consulates).
In addition to these administrative and policing responsibilities, SEF was also tasked with
issuing passports to Portuguese citizens—a function typically associated with civil registry
services under the Ministry of Justice.
The concentration of administrative functions for documenting immigrants and
processing asylum applications (which are inherently different from immigration in
political and legal terms), border control, and criminal investigation of immigration-
related offences, resulted in the practical application of immigration and asylum
legislation being influenced by a security-centric approach.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 17-34
De-Securitization of the Immigration Policy in Portugal: Separation between Migration
Management and Internal Security
Constança Urbano de Sousa
29
The bureaucratic and security-oriented way in which SEF managed an immigration policy
that was supposed to be open and humanist and the high level of dissatisfaction among
immigrants, who experienced a series of difficulties and delays in their documentation,
led to a process of de-securitisation, culminating in the decision to dismantle SEF and
remove immigration and asylum management from the realm of internal security.
3. The Dissolution of SEF and the Creation of the Agency for Integration,
Migration and Asylum (AIMA): Corollary of a humanist immigration policy that
does not see immigration as a police matter
In 2019, the Socialist Party included in its electoral programme a commitment to
establish more flexible immigration regimes, including the creation of a mobility
framework for citizens of the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries (CPLP). The
party also advocated for a change in the way public administration interacted with
immigrants, emphasising that “those who immigrate or wish to immigrate cannot be seen
a priori as suspects... they must be seen as individuals seeking better life opportunities
and who can make a valuable contribution to demographic sustainability and economic
development” (Partido Socialista, 2019, p. 144).
This vision was driven by widespread dissatisfaction with the uncoordinated,
bureaucratic, and excessively slow way SEF processed residence permit applications.
Thousands of immigrants faced prolonged delays, which often resulted in significant
hardships, such as the denial of the right to family reunification, restrictions on social
and economic rights, and limited mobility. Immigrants risked being denied re-entry or
subjected to repatriation decisions if they left the country without proper documentation.
In this context, the Socialist Party called for a humanist and less bureaucratic approach
to immigration by public services, advocating for a clear organisational separation
“between police functions and the administrative functions of authorising and
documenting immigrants” (Partido Socialista, 2019, p. 145). While this did not
necessarily imply the dissolution of SEF, it suggested a thorough reform of the service,
particularly given that the party’s electoral programme included plans to expand its
network of mediators to support foreign citizens.
However, it was the case of Ihor Homeniuk that catalysed the decision to abolish SEF.
On 10 March 2020, Ihor Homeniuk, a Ukrainian citizen, was denied entry at Lisbon Airport
because he lacked a residence permit or visa allowing him to work. Detained at the
Temporary Detention Centre at the airport, he died on 12 March after being assaulted by
SEF inspectors who were later convicted. This incident, which became public on 29 March
2020, shocked the nation and provoked strong reactions from the state and civil society.
In response, the government reformed the Temporary Detention Centres at airports,
compensated Homeniuk’s widow, and signed a protocol with the Portuguese Bar
Association to guarantee free legal assistance to all foreigners denied entry. The most
significant consequence, however, was the adoption of Law No. 73/2021 of 12 November,
which restructured Portugal’s border control system. This law mandated the dissolution
of SEF and the transfer of its police and border control responsibilities to other law
enforcement agencies, with its administrative functions being assigned to a new agency
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 17-34
De-Securitization of the Immigration Policy in Portugal: Separation between Migration
Management and Internal Security
Constança Urbano de Sousa
30
dedicated to the administrative management of immigration and asylum. Despite the
complexity of the reform, an initial implementation deadline of 60 days was set, later
postponed twice, finally coming into effect on 29 October 2023 with the creation of the
Agency for Integration, Migration, and Asylum (AIMA) by the Decree-Law No. 41/2023.
AIMA assumed SEF’s administrative responsibilities in the areas of immigration and
asylum, which include issuing opinions on visa applications, granting and renewing
residence permits, managing international protection requests, and making decisions on
returns, among others. Additionally, AIMA inherited the responsibilities of the High
Commission for Migration (ACM) related to the reception and integration of migrants,
combating racism and discrimination, integrating ethnic groups (particularly the Roma
community, despite their predominantly Portuguese nationality), and promoting
intercultural and inter-religious dialogue—issues relevant to both Portuguese and foreign
citizens.
SEF’s authority over air border control was transferred to the Public Security Police (PSP),
which also manages airport security, while control over land and sea borders was handed
to the National Republican Guard (GNR), a military security force already responsible for
maritime border surveillance. These security forces are now also responsible for enforcing
return decisions for irregular immigration (as mandated by AIMA), executing judicial
expulsion orders, and managing detention centres for irregular immigrants awaiting
repatriation. Competence in investigating migration-related crimes, including human
trafficking, was concentrated within the Judicial Police.
The responsibility for issuing passports to Portuguese citizens, previously handled by SEF,
was transferred to the Institute of Registries and Notaries, which logically should have
been responsible for this function, as the issuance of passports is more appropriately
managed by civil registry services rather than an immigration service. It also began to
receive applications for renewal of residence permits.
Within the Internal Security System, a new Borders and Foreigners Coordination Unit was
established (Article 34 of Decree-Law No. 41/2023). This unit assumed SEF’s
responsibilities for security checks on foreign nationals (issuing opinions prior to the
granting of visas and residence permits) and managing information systems used in
border control, such as the Schengen Information System (SIS), the European Travel
Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS), the Visa Information System (VIS), the
Entry/Exit System (SES), and the Advanced Passenger Information System (APIS).
Overall, the reform, which came into effect on 29 October 2023, has been met with strong
opposition from all right-wing parties (PSD, CDS-PP), the far-right (Chega), and even the
Portuguese Communist Party. While the Communist Party supported the creation of a
new administrative service for immigration and asylum functions, it opposed the abolition
of SEF as a specialised police force for border control.
Some academic and civil society voices have also criticised the reform. The Observatory
on Immigration, Borders, and Asylum (Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Políticas,
University of Lisbon) expressed a very negative view, arguing that the reform
“contradicts the approach adopted by the European Union, characterised by a
comprehensive vision of migration associated with integrated management.” This
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 17-34
De-Securitization of the Immigration Policy in Portugal: Separation between Migration
Management and Internal Security
Constança Urbano de Sousa
31
position draws an analogy with the European Commission’s Directorate General for
Migration and Home Affairs, although the comparison is misplaced, as DG-HOME has no
role in implementing immigration, asylum, or border control laws. Gil (2024) also
criticised SEF’s abolition, arguing that “the existence of a specialised police force for
immigration control” is beneficial. The Portuguese Bar Association similarly opposed the
abolition of SEF, highlighting its value as a specialised immigration and border control
police force.
In my view, this reform was inevitable in the context of a humanist immigration policy.
Concentrating immigration and asylum policy implementation, as well as border control,
within a specialised police force, resulted in the entire area being unduly influenced by
security concerns—contrary to the fundamental principle that immigration policy should
not view immigrants as a threat, but as human beings seeking to pursue a life project in
our country. As Pires (2020) argues, this concentration of functions was toxic because it
reinforced the perception that immigration is a security issue when it is not and should
not be. Additionally, it institutionalised the view that immigration is a threat, which
fosters xenophobia. Therefore, administrative tasks related to immigration and asylum
should be entrusted to a public administrative service, not a police force. Immigration is
a complex but inevitable and profoundly human phenomenon.
In the early days of AIMA’s operation, the agency has faced challenges, particularly due
to the 400,000 pending regularisation cases inherited from SEF, without the capacity to
provide a prompt response. This has led to an increase in complaints from immigrants
who continue to experience delays in regularisation or residence permit renewal
processes, leaving them in a precarious legal situation. We can only hope that the
government will provide AIMA with the necessary human and technological resources to
improve its service, as the documentation of immigrants is a fundamental prerequisite
for their integration into host society.
So far, the new centre-right government has not been influenced by the far-right Chega
party, which seeks to reverse this reform and restore SEF. However, by abolishing the
permanent regularisation regime for immigrant workers and signalling its intention to
only admit immigrants who secure a consular residence visa with a pre-existing work
contract, the government has adopted a restrictive immigration policy. Considering
Portugal’s ageing population and the fact that critical sectors of its economy, such as
tourism and agriculture, heavily rely on immigrant labour, this measure will likely fail to
stop migratory flows as intended. Instead, it will likely lead to more irregular migration,
inconsistent with the humanist values that have guided Portugal’s immigration policy in
recent years.
Conclusions
The abolition of the Immigration and Borders Service (Serviço de Estrangeiros e
Fronteiras) and the creation of a new, purely administrative entity (the Agency for
Integration, Migration, and Asylum – AIMA) to manage immigration, asylum, integration,
and intercultural dialogue represent a milestone in Portugal’s migration policy, which has
been characterised by a humanist openness to international migration.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 17-34
De-Securitization of the Immigration Policy in Portugal: Separation between Migration
Management and Internal Security
Constança Urbano de Sousa
32
This reform, promoted by the Socialist Party, which governed Portugal between
November 2015 and April 2024, reflects its humanist perspective on migration,
emphasising the regularisation and integration of immigrants. The permanent
regularisation scheme for immigrant workers, in place until 4 June 2024, exemplifies this
policy, encouraging regular immigration and the integration of those seeking new
opportunities in Portugal.
The establishment of AIMA, a non-police administrative agency outside the internal
security system, is the culmination of this humanist policy and a process of de-
securitisation of migration. It signifies a fundamental shift in the state’s approach to
immigrants, viewing them not as security threats but as individuals seeking better living
conditions in Portugal. In short, it marks a policy that sees immigration not as a security
issue but as a positive factor for the country’s development.
We can only hope that the current government, formed by the centre-right PSD and CDS
parties, which opposed this reform, will not reverse it. The repeal of the permanent
regularisation scheme for immigrant workers is a worrying sign of a shift towards a more
restrictive, security-focused immigration policy. Such a policy is unlikely to control
migratory flows effectively and will likely increase irregular migration, placing immigrants
in vulnerable situations and hindering their integration. However, the government’s
announcement of additional investment in AIMA to enhance its human and technological
resources, enabling it to respond more effectively to the thousands of pending
regularisation cases, is a positive step. We must wait and see.
References
Adler, E. (2020). Constructivism in International Relations: Sources, Contributions, and
Debates. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. A. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of International
Relations. Sage Publications.
Amante, M. de F. (2014). Identidade. In N. C. Mendes & F. P. Coutinho (Eds.),
Enciclopédia das Relações Internacionais. Dom Quixote.
Barnett, M. (2020). Social Constructivism. In J. Baylis, S. Smith, & P. Owens (Eds.), The
Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford
University Press.
Browning, C. S., & Joenniemi, P. (2016). Ontological security, self-articulation and the
securitization of identity. Cooperation and Conflict, 1–17.
Camut, N. (2023). Macron will not ask Algeria for ‘forgiveness’ over colonization. Politico.
https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-france-will-not-ask-algeria-for-
forgiveness-over-colonisation/.
Croft, S. (2012). Constructing Ontological Insecurity: The Insecuritization of Britain’s
Muslims. Contemporary Security Policy, 33(2), 219–235.
Ferreira, M. F. (2007). Cristãos e Pimenta – A Via Média na Teoria das Relações
Internacionais de Adriano Moreira. Almedina.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 17-34
De-Securitization of the Immigration Policy in Portugal: Separation between Migration
Management and Internal Security
Constança Urbano de Sousa
33
Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.
International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.
Flockhart, T. (2016a). Constructivism and foreign policy. In S. Smith, A. Hadfield, & T.
Dunne (Eds.), Foreign Policy: Theories, Actions, Cases (3a, pp. 79–94). Oxford University
Press.
Flockhart, T. (2016b). The problem of change in constructivist theory: Ontological
security seeking and agent motivation. Review of International Studies, 1–22.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in Late Modern Age.
Polity Press.
Hopf, T. (1998). The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory.
International Security, 23(1), 171–200.
Jung, C. G. (2019). Carl Gustav Jung: Memórias, Sonhos, Reflexões. Relógio D’Água.
J. Katzenstein, P. (Ed.). (1996). The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in
World Politics. Columbia University Press.
Koslowski, R., & Kratochwil, F. (1994). Understanding Change in International Politics:
The Soviet Empire’s Demise and the International System. International Organization,
48(2), 215–247.
Laing, R. (1990). The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness. Penquin.
Lapid, Y., & Friedrich, K. (Eds.). (1996). The return of culture and identity in IR theory.
Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Maltez, J. A. (2002). Curso de Relações Internacionais. Princípia.
Maltez, J. A. (2011). Abecedário Simbiótico. Campo da Comunicação.
Mitzen, J. (2006). Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security
Dilemma. European Journal of International Relations, 12(3), 341–370.
Onuf, N. (2013). World of Our Making: Rules and rule in social theory and international
relations. Routledge.
Patrício, R. (2019). Teoria das Relações Internacionais: Uma perspetiva. Instituto
Superior de Ciências Sociais e Políticas.
Quadros, A. (1976). Portugal, entre ontem e amanhã: Da cisão à revolução, dos
absolutismos à democracia. Sociedade de Expansão Cultural.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (2017). Interpretative Political Science: Selected Essays Volume II.
Oxford University Press.
Ruggie, J. (1998). What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the
Social Constructivist Challenge. International Organization, 54(4), 855–885.
Rumelili, B. (2013). Identity and desecuritisation: The pitfalls of conflating ontological
and physical security. Journal of International Relations and Development, 1–23.
Santos, V. M. dos. (2012). Elementos de Análise de Política Externa. Instituto Superior
de Ciências Sociais e Políticas.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 17-34
De-Securitization of the Immigration Policy in Portugal: Separation between Migration
Management and Internal Security
Constança Urbano de Sousa
34
Santos Silva assinala 50 anos do massacre de Wiriamu e afirma que importa pedir perdão
(2022). Observador. https://observador.pt/2022/12/16/santos-silva-assinala-50-anos-
do-massacre-de-wiriamu-e-afirma-que-importa-pedir-perdao/.
Smith, S., Hadfield, A., & Dunne, T. (Eds.). (2016). Foreign Policy: Theories, Actions,
Cases (3.a). Oxford University Press.
Steele, B. J. (2008). Ontological Security in International Relations: Self-Identity and the
IR State. Routledge.
Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power
politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.
Wendt, A. (1994). Collective Identity Formation and the International State. American
Political Science Review, 88(2), 384–396.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics.
