A highly controversial bill that would allow authorities to enter homes where people facing removal from the country are believed to be staying without explicit consent from the occupants was set to be approved on Wednesday, but a power outage prevented the vote from taking place.
For months, the bill has been the subject of fierce debate in Belgium. On Wednesday, several amendments to the text were supposed to be voted on, but this has now been postponed until next week.
The controversial bill would allow police to enter private homes with permission from an investigating judge. Police may only enter these homes for the purpose of detaining foreign nationals who are living in Belgium without legal residency and have been ordered to leave the country. Currently, the proposed hours for these visits would be between 05:00 and 21:00.
Critics argue that the bill will give authorities too much power without enough safeguards to protect people's rights.
“Our opposition comes not only on the substance of the text, but on its principle,” said Khalil Aouasti, a Federal MP for the Francophone socialist party (PS). “It fundamentally clashes with the principles and values that we uphold. Repressive measures against foreigners are used to make people forget that the root causes of our fellow citizens' problems are social, and not related to identity.”
Khalil Aouasti is pictured. Credit: Belga/Nicolas Maeterlinck
“A myriad of people have opposed this legislation, including the investigating judges themselves, lawyers and associations that specialise in this area,” he added. “Yet, none of this is problematic?”
Among the organisations who have raised concerns is Myria, the Federal Migration Centre. In June, Myria submitted an opinion to the committee questioning whether there has been significant enough need for the legislation. It also raised concerns about how broadly the law could be used, a lack of protections for vulnerable people, and people's ability to challenge the decision.
CIRÉ, an umbrella organisation for 32 organisations that work on migration issues, has been very openly critical of the bill. Earlier this year, CIRÉ claimed it was excluded from parliamentary hearings on the legislation because of interference from majority parties.
However, supporters of the bill, including Asylum and Migration Minister Anneleen Van Bossuyt (N-VA), one of the bill's sponsors, described it as a valuable tool to enforce removal orders against people who refuse to cooperate and who pose a risk to public order or national security.
“Individuals residing illegally in our country who pose a threat to public order or national security and who refuse to cooperate upon their return will no longer be able to hide behind their front door,” Van Bossuyt said at a prior parliamentary hearing.
“It’s often very difficult for the police and the Immigration Office to arrest them, as they can evade checks by barricading themselves inside a residence,” she added. “By removing this legal obstacle, our services can finally intervene in situations where security is compromised.”
According to the Strasbourg Observer, only 2,650 people were “forcibly” deported from Belgium in 2025. If the bill were passed, this figure would likely increase significantly, as it would be easier for authorities to enforce removal orders.
Other debate points
The bill also contains safeguards to ensure protective measures are in place for minors. If a minor is expected to be at home during a visit, the investigating judge can place specific parameters, such as avoiding school hours.
However, some organisations still expressed caution about the impact one of these visits could have on a household. For example, Myria has raised concerns about the measure's impact on private and family life, while CIRÉ highlighted the potential consequences for people who share a home with or host someone in irregular residence.
The circumstances, if any, under which the state can enter someone's home to enforce a removal order have also been heavily debated. Article 15 of the Belgian Constitution protects the inviolability of the home, so if passed, the bill would significantly interfere with a fundamental right.
Supporters of the bill, such as the Francophone liberal MR, point to the requirement that police need to obtain permission from an investigating judge to enter a home as an important protection against arbitrary home entries. However, sceptics like Myria question whether judges would have enough discretion to stop a home visit if they believe it is unnecessary.
Worries about comparison to ICE
Opponents of the bill have argued that allowing authorities to enter private homes to detain people over their immigration status will move Belgium towards a more aggressive form of immigration enforcement similar to the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Organisations such as Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen (Refugee Work Flanders) and 11.11.11. have even posted videos that are against the legislation with the tagline "No ICE in Europe."
View this post on Instagram
During a parliamentary debate earlier this year, MP Nabil Boukili (PTB-PVDA - Belgian Workers' Party) called out what he described as a contradiction between Belgian politicians' beliefs about ICE's actions and their own support for the bill.
“We have seen all parties here express outrage at the inhumane methods and atrocities committed by ICE in the United States in their hunt for migrants,” he stated. “But these same outraged parties are now discussing, within the Federal government, the implementation of home visits. You essentially want to authorise the police to violate a home in order to arrest and deport undocumented individuals.”
In response, Van Bossuyt adamantly rejected the comparison.
“Any comparison with the situation in the United States and their immigration service, ICE, is entirely inappropriate,” she said. “Even worse, the same comparison that some draw with our police services and the Immigration Office is inappropriate and disrespectful of the work they do.”
