Belgian police will soon be able, in conjunction with the Immigration Office (DVZ), to enter the homes of undocumented migrants who pose a threat to public order or national security. This is set out in a bill drafted by the Belgian Asylum and Migration Minister, Anneleen Van Bossuyt (Flemish nationalist N-VA), and Justice Minister Annelies Verlinden (Flemish Christian democrat CD&V), which has now been approved by the House Home Affairs Committee. The proposal still needs to be OKed during a plenary session of the lower house of the Belgian parliament.
Home searches like these are controversial. The aim is to make it easier to deport people residing here illegally and who persistently refuse to cooperate with efforts to facilitate their return.
The new law will make this possible. Following entry into the home, the police may place the person in question – that is, the individual who poses a threat to public order or national security – under administrative detention. However, prior authorisation from an investigating judge is required to enter the home.
Speaking to press agency Belga, Minister Van Bossuyt referred to this as “an historic breakthrough” and had previously said that this “is the final piece in a firm but humane return policy”.
“This is not a witch-hunt against people who have international protection or are simply in the country illegally (..) The law sets out clear conditions, and a search of a home can only take place with the authorisation of an investigating judge.”
(Overly) broad definitions
The bill did, however, attract a great deal of comment and was extensively discussed in parliament.
The opposition, the federal police, investigating judges and lawyers alike were highly critical. They believe that the exact meaning of ‘a threat to public order or national security’ has not been defined clearly enough.
“It will be up to the investigating judge to determine whether someone poses a threat to public order or national security,” says Van Bossuyt. “The judge will independently assess whether that person poses such a threat. That is a crucial test.”
Minister Van Bossuyt finds the debate strange: “The concepts of public order and national security feature in many parts of our legislation. Nowhere is a specific list provided of what they entail.” What is more, according to Van Bossuyt, the Council of State, which vets Belgian draft legislation, has explicitly stated that it is not desirable to define these concepts, as they may evolve over time.
“When the Justice Minister drafts new legislation, she isn’t asked how judges should apply that law, is she?” Van Bossuyt notes.
Van Bossuyt has also tabled an amendment to her own bill: “We have given investigating judges more time to reach a decision, from 5 days to 7.”
She emphasises that their role is not merely reduced to that of a ‘rubber-stamp judge’: “The investigating judge will absolutely not be a rubber-stamp judge, precisely because they play such a crucial role in assessing whether someone poses a threat or not. They will have access to the full case file.”
What about minors?
Another point of criticism concerns the rights of minors. According to critics, these are not sufficiently safeguarded. Government party Les Engagés (Francophone centrist) was only prepared to vote for the bill if greater protection for minors was provided.
“When authorising a search of a home, the investigating judge must determine all the conditions under which that search may take place,” explains Van Bossuyt. “If, for example, children are present, the investigating judge can stipulate that the search must take place during school hours. In that case, the likelihood of children being present is very low.”
The investigating judge may also, for example, require a psychologist to be present during the search, says Van Bossuyt. “So, the possible presence of minors has certainly been taken into account.”
The minister also points to the responsibility of the person who poses a threat to public order or national security: “It is that person who is making life difficult for those children,” says the minister.
Desperately needed, according to Van Bossuyt
Government party, Les Engagés, did not secure all the amendments it had requested, so MP Xavier Dubois boycotted the second reading. However, his group leader, Aurore Tourneur, did defend the amendments in the House Home Affairs Committee.
This enabled the majority to approve the bill after all, with the support of the Flemish liberal opposition party Anders. Although they, too, called for further amendments.
The left-wing opposition parties voted against. The far-right Vlaams Belang abstained. According to MP Francesca Van Belleghem, the law has been “so watered down by coalition negotiations that it will have virtually no effect in practice”.
‘This was a sensitive bill for several government parties: that’s no secret. In practice, there was an absolute need for this,’ concludes Van Bossuyt.
The bill must now be put to a vote during a plenary session, where the law can be definitively approved.
Speaking to Belga, the minister warned local authorities that have already announced they will not permit home visits, such as Leuven. “Be fully aware of what that choice means. If you refuse to implement this law and things go wrong, do not point the finger at the federal government afterwards. Because then you will be jeopardising the safety of your own residents” she said.
Source: VRT.BE
FOLLOW US ON:
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
PINTEREST
TIKTOK
YOUTUBE
LINKEDIN
INSTAGRAM
