Brussels, 1 October, (Brussels Morning Newspaper) – Belgium’s controversial plan to give authorities new powers to enter homes in certain immigration-removal cases is facing renewed scrutiny after a parliamentary vote was delayed. The Belgium home-entry bill has become a major political and legal dispute over how far the state should be allowed to go when enforcing removal orders.
The legislation would amend Belgium’s 15 December 1980 immigration law. Under the government proposal, authorities could carry out a home visit with authorisation from an investigating judge when a foreign national is subject to an enforceable removal measure, refuses to cooperate with that removal and represents a risk to public order or national security.
Key parliamentary vote delayed in Brussels
Belgium’s Chamber of Representatives had scheduled a second reading and votes on the legislation for Wednesday, 30 September. Official parliamentary records identify the proposal as dossier 1591 and show that further amendments were filed on 29 September.
However, the expected vote did not take place after a power outage disrupted proceedings. The outstanding amendments are now expected to be considered next week.
The delay extends a debate that has already lasted for months and involves the federal government, opposition politicians, judges, police representatives and migration organisations.
Government says new powers strengthen enforcement
The proposal comes from Asylum and Migration Minister Anneleen Van Bossuyt and Justice Minister Annelies Verlinden. Belgium’s Council of Ministers approved a revised version in a third reading on 29 May after the proposal had been adapted following advice from the Council of State.
The government argues that the measure provides an enforcement mechanism for specific cases in which a person facing removal refuses to cooperate.
Van Bossuyt has defended the legislation by arguing that people residing illegally who pose a threat to public order or national security should not be able to avoid an enforceable removal simply by remaining inside a home.
Judicial authorisation is a central safeguard in the government’s proposal. The investigating judge would have to authorise the home visit rather than immigration authorities receiving an unrestricted power of entry.
Critics warn about privacy and constitutional safeguards
The Belgium home-entry bill has nevertheless generated strong criticism because entering a private residence without an occupant’s consent raises significant questions about privacy and the protection of the home.
Critics have questioned whether the proposal is necessary and proportionate, as well as how it would affect other people living at or present inside an address.
The debate therefore extends beyond immigration enforcement. It concerns the balance between executing lawful removal decisions and maintaining legal safeguards around private homes.
Opposition has also come from investigating judges, police representatives and non-governmental organisations, according to reporting on the legislation.
Why the dispute matters for Belgium
The legislation could establish an important new enforcement mechanism within Belgium’s migration system.
For the government, the issue is whether an enforceable removal decision can effectively be implemented when an individual refuses to cooperate. For opponents, the central question is whether granting authorities additional access to homes creates unacceptable risks for constitutional and privacy protections.
Those competing concerns explain why the proposal has become one of Belgium’s most closely contested migration measures.
What happens next with the immigration bill?
The Belgium home-entry bill has not completed its parliamentary passage. The postponed consideration of amendments is expected to return next week following Wednesday’s disruption.
Until the required parliamentary process is completed, the proposed home-entry powers are not in force. The next proceedings will determine whether the legislation advances in its current form or undergoes further changes before completing its passage through the federal parliament.
