Proposition 50K0292

Projet de loi modifiant certaines dispositions relatives à la nationalité belge.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Nov. 29, 1999

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

foreign national nationality naturalisation

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V N-VA FN VB

Abstained from voting

LE

Party dissidents ¶

• Alfons Borginon (Open Vld) voted to reject.
• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) voted to reject.
• Richard Fournaux (MR) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

Jan. 18, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, Mr. Giet and I will explain the discussions in the competent committee concerning the draft laws amending a number of provisions relating to Belgian nationality. I will go deeper into the general discussion, Mr. Giet on the article-by-article discussion and the amendments. The federal government agreement stipulates that the drafts concerning the acquisition of Belgian citizenship must be submitted to the Parliament immediately after the summer recession of 1999 and receive an urgent treatment. The Government Agreement reminds that Belgian society must be based on openness and tolerance. Anyone residing in the territory must abide by the same laws and regulations. All forms of racism, intolerance and discrimination must be combated. For the government it stands like a pillar above water that the acquisition of Belgian nationality is an important component for the integration of the immigrant communities on the territory and for their participation in the social life. In order to promote inclusion in society, the government chooses to ease the acquisition of Belgian citizenship. The proposed bill contains two parts. The first part includes a number of amendments to simplify and improve the procedures for citizenship. I summarize the most important of them. First, the period within which the Prosecutor’s Office, the Foreign Affairs Service and the Security of the State must provide advice is set at 1 month for all nationality proceedings. Second, the Public Prosecutor’s Office can no longer issue a negative opinion because the applicant does not sufficiently demonstrate his will to integrate. This desire for integration is suspected by the application. Third, the applicant must declare on the form of the naturalization application that he will comply not only with the Constitution and the laws of the Belgian people but also with the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Fourth, the naturalization procedure and the declaration of nationality are made free of charge. Finally, if a birth certificate is required, one can replace it with an equivalent document issued by the diplomatic or consular authorities of the country of birth. In case of impossibility or serious difficulties in obtaining such an act, it may be replaced by an act of publicity issued by the peacekeeper and homologated by the court of first instance. Major changes have been made to the conditions for obtaining Belgian citizenship through the declaration of nationality and naturalization. I will now discuss the general draft laws. I will discuss with you the different views of the different groups. The Flemish Bloc could not find itself in the present bills and rejects them thoroughly. Before that, she takes a dive into history and takes back to the Code Napoleon. The Flemish Bloc considers that the current draft laws put too much emphasis on the ius soli and now calls for a revaluation of the ius sanguinis principle. This group has amended a new code on citizenship. The same group sends alarm on behalf of the Brussels Flamings. Due to the accelerated naturalizations, the Brussels voter corps is significantly frenched, according to one of the speakers. This would have consequences for the Flemish representation in all parliaments, in particular for the Chamber where in the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde district the number of French-speaking seats will grow to the detriment of the Flemish elected. In the short term, more specifically in anticipation of the municipal council elections, the combination of European Union - voting rights and a thorough naturalization policy will make the already low Flemish representation decline even stronger. The same speaker tries to spell this out using extensive numerical material from which you can find the details in the report. Given the urgency due to the municipal council elections, this speaker calls for the case to be discussed in the Costa. The CVP recalls that this is another amendment to the Belgian nationality code and that the current nationality legislation already contains a certain easing. Therefore, the CVP group opposed the present bills and was voted against in the Chamber Committee for Justice. However, the group is of the opinion that foreigners who have been in Belgium for a long time should be given the opportunity to integrate. The government has an essential task to fulfill. On the other hand, the same persons must be willing to integrate into the Belgian society without having to give up their religion and culture. Therefore, the CVP group regrets that the concept of integration will has been removed from the present bill. Although one of the speakers from the group did not deny that there were many interpretation problems in practice around the concept of the integration will, the speaker could not reconcile with the fact that potential applicants should not formally express their will to integrate in any way upon the entry into force of the new legislation. The countries around us, and especially the Netherlands, still work with the concept of integration will in their respective legislation. Another point of criticism of the CVP group was the one-month period available to the prosecutor’s office, the Foreign Affairs Service and the State Security for the investigation of the applicant’s person. The one-month period was deemed unrealisable for the parquet due to their other daily tasks. The Foreign Affairs Service considers the deadline to be unrealistic given the overload of the service in relation to the processing of asylum applications. Finally, the CVP group fears that the new legislation will work in the hands of the politization of naturalization applications. It calls for greater objectivity in the handling of requests. The PS welcomes the submission of the draft laws and places this in the global context of a human and just foreign policy. Unlike the CVP group, the PS sees in a wider access to nationality a fair gesture towards the persons who stay here for a long time and make efforts to integrate. These bills concern only 4% of the immigrant population. The remaining 6% concerns EU citizens who are already able to enjoy the EU citizenship. Since potential applicants eligible for the declaration of nationality – i.e. with more than 7 years of residence on the territory – will no longer return to their country of origin, it is no more than fair to give them the opportunity to become full-fledged citizens, otherwise they are at risk of becoming second-class citizens and being treated as such. The speaker, who is also the chairman of the Commission on Naturalizations, considers the advisory powers of the Prosecutor’s Office, the Foreign Affairs Service and especially of the State Security necessary for the examination of the application. He finds the term of 1 month most overwhelming, given the modern techniques for collecting data today. This speaker also decided with concern that in the name of human rights and from humanistic considerations these bills deserve to be approved. The PSC, in a spirit of constructive opposition, shares the purpose pursued by these bills. However, the spokeswoman regretted that the full participation of immigrants in the social life has so far been promoted only in terms of the easing of nationality procedures and has not yet been achieved through the grant of political rights, disconnected from the possession of the Belgian nationality. In this sense, she advocated the acceleration of the file concerning the granting of municipal voting rights to immigrants. After all, there are individuals who, for very personal and valid reasons, do not wish to give up their original nationality, but therefore they must not be excluded from participation in the social life. The speaker had doubts about the admission conditions for naturalization and wondered why the term of 5 years was increased to 3 years. In its view, the three-year deadline is too short to be able to submit an application. Furthermore, she had her doubts as to the feasibility of the one-month period for the advisory bodies and in particular for the Brussels Prosecutor’s Office, given the overload of that judicial district. The PSC also regrets the fact that the notion of integration will was not included in the design. The VU group recalled that in the past it has always advocated the inclusion of foreigners who have long resided in the territory into our society. It is therefore, in principle, not opposed to the easing of the procedures for obtaining citizenship. However, it makes a strong reservation to the way in which the acquisition of nationality was formulated in the present draft laws. The extended easing was, after all, the result of the non-inclusion of the municipal voting right for foreigners. The speaker from the latter group adds that his party had not so long ago voted in favour of the granting of foreign voting rights. This speaker also considers the study of the integration will of the person concerned a conditio sine qua non for the granting of the Belgian nationality and at the same time drew attention to the fact that the Flemish government agreement also refers to the citizenship and integration of the immigrant communities in our country. Furthermore, this speaker notes the precarious position in which the Brussels Flamings are located and warns of the harmful consequences of the bills. Finally, this speaker also loses the advisory term of 1 month for the parket. The Agalev-Ecolo group is satisfied with the compromise achieved in the draft laws. However, the easing and acceleration of the acquisition of nationality does not prejudice the continued struggle of this group for the acquisition of foreign voting rights. The simplifications in the text are welcomed favorably. The Agalev-Ecolo faction finds the replacement of the birth certificate by an act of fame already a whole improvement. In particular, the abolition of the integration questionnaires, which are usually an attack on the privacy and moral integrity of applicants, deserves the approval of this group. The concept of integration will is a difficult to describe notion and even scientists do not agree with each other on its correct fulfillment. Consequently, the danger of arbitrariness is not unthinkable. The questions now being asked about, for example, parents, brothers, sisters, spouses, children, and so on, sometimes have more to do with an investigative survey than with the investigation of the will to integrate. Although it has been repeatedly pointed out that integration should not be confused with assimilation, and it is not intended that aliens should completely lose their orientation and in everything must imitate the indigenous population, this same criterion of the will to integrate often immediately indicates the extent to which he or she can experience his or her culture, language and religion in order to qualify as a full-fledged citizen in the Belgian society. However, integration is a gradual process and requires a willingness of immigrants and indigenous peoples. If one expects migrants to adapt quickly, one comes out deceived, especially if one finds a posteriori that the policy has been launched much too late with the citizenship of these people in the Belgian society. Politics has left them too long to their fate because they were not interesting enough in electoral terms. After just ten years of policy expecting that a large number of people adapt as quickly as possible and integrate socially as quickly as possible is to do wishful thinking if the government, including the Flemish policymakers, does not draw out the necessary investments for this and make the necessary efforts to counter the socio-cultural backwardness of these population groups and the discriminations to which they are often exposed. It is a great misunderstanding to think that these groups do not want to integrate, because they also want to live in harmony and mutual respect with the indigenous population. They also want a promising future for their children. The VLD group states that the easing of the acquisition of nationality is among the priorities of this government and acknowledges its cooperation in achieving it. However, the VLD emphasizes the importance of citizenship and guidance in the integration process of the immigrant communities and encourages the decretal legislator to work urgently on this. After all, following a citizenship path will greatly accelerate the integration of these migrant communities. The PRL FDF MCC group supports the goal of this government, namely to ⁇ an open and tolerant society. A member of the group regrets that certain trends in society are not always convinced of this. He supports the proposed bills. Last but not least, I would like to highlight the position of the SP group. This group emphasizes the need to accelerate the political integration of long-term foreigners residing in the territory. The acquisition of nationality therefore deserves maximum encouragement. In this sense, the free of charge of the procedure is an important incentive. The spokesman of the group reiterates that it is a political agreement with the main components reducing the term from four months to one month and omitting the integration conditions for obtaining nationality. The social integration of these permanently resident foreigners should in any case be promoted. Finally, the speaker says that he and his group will support the above-mentioned texts. I would like to pause for a moment on some clarification questions raised by the various political groups with regard to certain concepts and with regard to the interpretation of certain legal provisions. The Minister clarifies that the main residence refers to a stay under different residence permits. It means an establishment permit and a permit or access to stay for a certain duration or indefinite duration. However, the main place of residence must be based on a legal residence permit. Regarding the deadline for the Prosecutor’s Office, the Foreign Affairs Service and the Security of the State, the Minister replied that after consultation with the College of Prosecutors-General, the one-month deadline is a feasible card, also for the Prosecutor’s Office of Brussels since it should only advise on serious facts specific to the person of the applicant. For the Foreign Affairs Service, the Minister received on 20 December the following response from the Minister of Internal Affairs: I can confirm that in the restructuring of the Foreign Affairs Service which falls within my competence, I will do my utmost to take into account the one-month period imposed on the service concerned to give its opinion in the aforementioned procedures. Without additional and substantial staff efforts, however, this will be ⁇ difficult. Finally, when it comes to national security, there are no significant problems. As regards the act of publicity replacing the birth certificate, the procedure consists in that it is up to the peacemaker to dismiss the act of publicity and that it is up to him alone to express his opinion on the act of publicity. Finally, many questions have been raised regarding the scope of Article 23 of the Belgian Nationality Code. This article deals with the declaration of the expiration of nationality due to serious defects in the person of the person concerned. In this, the Minister referred to the restrictive interpretation given by the authors Lepage, Deckers, Closet and Verwilghen. Serious deficiencies in the duties of a Belgian citizen means that the person concerned is already sufficiently attached to the country and its institutions. However, there cannot be a question of the abolition of fundamental freedoms such as freedom of expression and conscience. The declaration of expiration cannot be pronounced on grounds of race, religion or the language of the person concerned. The acquisition of nationality will not be linked to the integration will in this. The jurisprudential history of this legal provision also teaches us that its rigorous application provides evidence that one must deal with the article very carefully, also in the interest of the legal certainty of the individual and the collective. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I will continue this report by addressing the amendments that have been submitted and which I have tried to group by themes. You won’t be surprised that these mostly cover the important points our colleague just finished with. The first category consists of an amendment filed by the Vlaams Blok to introduce a completely new code of citizenship. This is a new system of nationality rather than a senso stricto amendment to the proposed text. I therefore invite members to consult it in the report. Unfortunately, the Vlaams Blok will also have the opportunity to expose it during the debates. A number of amendments have been submitted regarding the possibility of using other elements than the birth certificate when it is missing. On the same principle, some members justify their amendment aimed at removing this possibility by the fear of producing false documents or false testimony when it is an act of notoriety. The Government recalls that false documents cannot produce effect and that the competent authorities will have to assess the validity of the documents submitted to them. Several amendments address the concept of primary residence, which is found in various places in the projects submitted to you. Some prefer the notion of legal residence in an uninterrupted manner, others refer to the need for an effective presence at this main residence, while the very notion of main residence appears blurred to some. The Government refers to the usual case-law on this concept known in civil law, as well as to the Circular of 8 November 1991 relating to the Code of Nationality. Whether in matters of nationality or naturalization, the problem of shortening the deadlines given to the various instances - prosecutors, Office of Foreigners, State Security - to issue an opinion has caused many amendments. These are all intended either to maintain the current deadlines, or to extend those proposed, or even to adapt them gradually, citing as a reason that the deadlines proposed in the texts will not allow the instances to give a sufficiently informed opinion. Regarding, in particular, the prosecutor’s services, the minister clarified that the college of prosecutors did not prevent the proposed amendment. Amendments also concern the substantive conditions, either for the acquisition of nationality or for naturalization. This is the case for the necessary duration of residence in the territory or a condition for integration. The current article 23 has been the subject of multiple amendments following the logical debate on this subject, during the general discussion. Several wishes are issued regarding this article 23, in particular and especially with regard to the expansion of the causes of default. I will cite examples of these new causes that we would like to see incorporated into the text, fraud during the procedure, being convicted for various crimes, or simply to commit a crime as such, infanticide due to the sex of the child and finally the entire problem of excision. The government referred to the traditional definition of the notion of serious reason in this text as it was applied, to the teaching of doctrine as well as to the preparatory work of the Act of 1934 which introduced this article 23. A government amendment removed the articles providing for the free of charge of the procedure: they used double with those of the law on tax and other provisions, a law that the House has already adopted. The discussion on these articles was therefore held in plenary session and an excerpt of the analytical report is attached to the written report. I would not like to finish my speech without thanking the services of the House whose contribution proved very valuable in a ⁇ nourished debate. I also remind the assembly that Bill No. 292, amended as a result of the adoption of the Government amendments, was adopted by 10 votes against 6, and that Bill No. 293, not amended, was adopted by 10 against 6 and one abstention.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, first of all, I thank the rapporteurs for the correct report of our extensive discussions. The discussions, as far as our group is concerned, have begun with a forecast on the course of the debates. I remember the explanation of the Minister of Justice in the Committee on Justice, which also called for the urgent treatment of these drafts. On behalf of our group, I sought to measure how the majority would conduct the debate. I am slightly crushed in the skin of the people who support this design from the majority. I have expressed my suspicion that one had been instructed to finish these designs in the shortest possible time, with as little debate as possible, well aware that they are bad designs. A government agreement must be implemented. However, the implementation of the designs is very fundamental. It is about how to build a tolerant, safe society. Nevertheless, the debate has become a deceitful conversation. We had to watch television or listen to radio to know the mood of the majority parties and then bring them to the committee, where the majority has not spoken. In fact, the commitment was no longer the question of how people can integrate into society, including by promoting the acquisition of nationality. We are convinced that instead of approving a good law, one would only loyally implement the government agreement that was concluded with little knowledge of the dossier. We have the impression that some think in this way to do good parliamentary work and that they should not go into the core of the matter. This has very disappointed us. For us, these designs are a wrong signal. People should no longer make an effort to integrate into this society. The designs are a threat to our security, they will give rise to an uncontrollable migratory flow and they work the politization of nationality acquisition in the hand. We are convinced that we must indeed advocate for a tolerant society. The government must invite people who reside here permanently to integrate. Government must create opportunities for this. It must bring that message of tolerance, but it must also invite to integrate, to learn one of the national languages, to participate in the local society. That is our Christian democratic belief. From this belief we have also left in previous discussions on this legislation. We then sought to create a broader access to nationality, but always from the view that integration readiness should be the foundation. In this we are not alone. All our neighbors believe that one must give a signal that one wants to integrate. In our nationality legislation there was a great logic: as there were more reasonable indications indicating that someone was willing to integrate, the person concerned could more and more apply the right to acquire the Belgian nationality. Our nationality legislation thus forms a broad basis for migrants of the second and third generations, which indeed gives them the right to Belgian nationality through the declaration or the choice of nationality. As these indications are less and less obvious, less and less obvious, the person who wishes to acquire the Belgian nationality must address the Belgian Parliament in extremis. This can indeed, in a way of favour, grant citizenship to those who have had their main place of residence here for five years and who are willing to integrate here. These people must actively provide proof of this. I repeat that this is not heresy or an undemocratic position. This is the position that all the countries around us have always taken. This is the position of the French, of the Germans and also of purple in the Netherlands. If one organizes a citizenship obligation as in the Netherlands, one must of course be consistent in the nationality legislation and in it send the same signals, with the same elements. If one finds it very difficult to define the concept of integration, I point out that all those countries are based on the same viewpoint. The Dutch have made very good notes on this subject, which, by the way, were thoroughly explained by Mr. Van Peel in the committee. This is to say that this is not an argument. Practice shows the opposite. There is a criticism of the concept of integration readiness that was correctly formulated from different angles. It is not a new criticism, it is about the fact that the investigation on the ground by police officers shows flaws within the framework of the current naturalization legislation. The investigation does not proceed in the same way in all places, some questions are potsier and the quality of the investigation is not the same everywhere. That criticism has led us to amend the law during the previous legislature. This was done at the request of the Christian Democrats. Now the law contains an article allowing the Minister of Justice to give the police officers compelling directives on how the integration readiness investigation should be carried out. That article entered into force on 1 September 1999. We were in the naïve assumption that through the Committee on Naturalizations, through the Parliament, through the College of Attorneys-General, through the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Anti-Racism and through university scientific research we would attain that one time to properly weigh, correctly formulate the questionnaire, educate the people and ensure that the appropriate, relevant investigations were also conducted. Instead of walking that path, instead of taking in hand the opportunities provided in the legislation, one shoots with a cannon on a mosquito and the entire legislation is passed. I heard in the report by Agalev-Ecolo still advocating for the continuation of the struggle for municipal voting rights. Everyone in this hemisphere is convinced that this struggle no longer needs to be fought. We are already four steps further when these designs are approved. During the previous legislature, there was a unanimous stance of all democratic parties. I say this again with emphasis, because some are hiding fearfully and pretending that this was not the case. Furiously, it is also avoided to bring any element into the media. During the previous legislature, there was a unanimity of the democratic parties on the concept of integration readiness. And the socialists, and the Greens, and the liberals, all those who sat for the democratic parties in the naturalization committee, have reaffirmed the guidelines and jurisprudence of this committee in this legislature. They have signed them. When you were invited at the end of last year to vote on the proposals of the naturalization committee, i.e. on the rejection or acceptance of naturalization dossiers, you have all consistently applied this jurisprudence. We have always agreed on this judicial practice in the committee, beyond the party boundaries. Naturalization applications have been rejected from those who participate in extremist movements. We rejected the application for naturalization because it was contrary to the will for integration. This can no longer be done. Some foreign students have been admitted to study in Belgium. They obtained a residence permit, explicitly conditioning that Belgium would support the development of the country of origin, with the meaning that the person who came to study here would then return to their own country to place the knowledge acquired there at the service of the local community. These students could not obtain the Belgian nationality, as this would prevent their country of origin from enjoying the investment made in them. Dear colleagues, this is no longer possible. We refused to grant Belgian citizenship to those whose residence was limited to the duration of the assignment, as is the case for diplomats or the staff of embassies. This would have been contrary to the concept of integration ready. Colleagues, this cannot be done anymore. Those who stay here for three years, even if they are employed at a foreign embassy, will be able to obtain the Belgian citizenship. We refused to grant Belgian citizenship to those whose application was repeatedly challenged, without noticing an improvement in the will to integrate. Colleagues, I did not interpret a Christian-Democratic standpoint here, it was the standpoint of the committee. The committee, with the insufficient resources which it often had at its disposal, delayed or suspected files. It has given people a second chance, in which they were encouraged to make an effort to learn one of the two national languages, to undertake the commitment to see some improvement in that area. In short, the committee has never rejected an application in a radical way, either abruptly, short-sightedly or on the basis of one element. We fearfully watched to challenge a request only if there was a valid reason for it. The person concerned was carefully explained that there were many roads open for him, but that he himself also had to send a positive signal. The committee unanimously agreed that applications would be suspected if the file contained several concrete data which could give rise to doubts about the applicant’s actual readiness to integrate. It included, and I quote literally from the position commonly adopted by the committee: ... an insufficient knowledge of one of the two national languages, little or no contact with Belgian nationals, lack of interest in the application, obtaining social benefits as the first motive . Again, this was not a Christian-Democratic position, but a position unanimously taken by the committee. Colleagues, I could still read a long list of agreements that we have made and which, on the one hand, have led to favorably assessing many applications and presenting them here to the plenary meeting. On the other hand, we also proposed a questioning of several dossiers. The Minister of Justice and the Services for Naturalizations have been so kind to provide us with numerical material on this subject during the discussion of the bill. The Prime Minister-President in the Flemish Parliament and the Chairman of the VLD have once said that the Chamber, when dealing with the naturalization files, only acted as a mailbox. The naturalization procedure in parliament would have been only theory and fiction. Colleagues, approximately 25% of the applications were contested at least once and of those 25% 40% to 45% were contested due to a lack of integration readiness of the person concerned. Again, not the Christian Democratic members, but the majority of the committee has denounced 40% to 45% of applications for naturalization, because of a lack of integration readiness, supported by elements from the file. Based on this same flawed integration will, we have rejected 5% to 15% of applications. It should therefore not be argued that the current practice reduces the role of parliament to that of a mailbox. The figures contradict this. When the previous legislative amendment was approved, it happened with the cooperation of the PRL and the SP and with great opposition from the VLD. As a young, beginner parliamentary member, I have often had to see the encouraging finger of group leader Dewael when a major community agreement was concluded. He tried to work on the spirit of the Christian Democrats by saying that he found it cowardly that, despite the fact that we were opposed to it, we still passed a law. Colleagues, I now come to the electoral program of the VLD and its position when discussing these bills in the previous parliamentary period. Collega Coveliers then proclaimed in the Senate that integration readiness should be demonstrated by means of working readiness, knowledge of the national languages and understanding of democratic rights and freedoms. He said, I quote: These additions to the law are so obvious that the Senate will realize that they are necessary for a harmonious and non-discriminatory society. However, we are going completely the other way. I have the impression that the mission of the VLD group is no longer to make a good law, but rather, without thinking, to get a bad agreement approved by the parliament. The genesis of the new law is an example of how decision-making in our Belgian political system proceeds with this majority. There was first a government’s preliminary draft, which included that the Chamber should no longer judge about naturalization if the parliament had given a positive advice. She had to allow naturalization by office. Although we had warned from this tribune of this thought track, which goes against the Constitution, one has had to wait for the opinion of the Council of State to have its confirmation. I must smile when people now argue that the discussion of the naturalization procedure is the prerogative of the parliament and not of the government. In its first draft, the government had indicated that Parliament had no choice anymore. It had to allow the naturalizations if the parquet gave a positive advice. After the first draft was rejected by the State Council, a second draft was created. This made declaration and naturalization an equivalent procedure. Also at that time, the Council of State stated that a distinction should be made between obtaining Belgian nationality through a subjective right and through the naturalisation procedure. Eventually, the third project came into being. The current text has no longer the scope of what was included in the text of the government agreement. Apart from the position of the Flamings in Brussels, I have four points of substantial criticism of this draft. First, it gives a wrong signal. Second, it represents an attack on the security of our country. Third, it opens the door to a migration stream that we have no sight of. Fourth, it is a new politicization of the acquisition of nationality. It is a false signal because the Parliament now tells the candidate-Belgium that they do not need to make an effort to integrate, that they should not learn the national languages and should not try to participate in the local society. They get Belgian citizenship if they can prove a number of years of residence in our country. We are angry at the draft because it contradicts our view of integration policy. An integration policy should start from the notion that the government must create opportunities and invite to participate. However, the government must also give a signal that encourages people to take advantage of those opportunities. The signal we are giving now is that connectivity and cohesion in the local society are no longer important. Citizenship is granted after a few years of residence in our country. This would eliminate all discrimination. I gave the example of the declaration of nationality. If this Chamber, under this law, permits naturalization, adult children from abroad, who have never been in our country, may move to the headquarters in our country. They have the right to enter our country on the basis of the law governing the entry of foreigners into the territory. This law expressly stipulates that anyone who, through the declaration, has the right to the nationality, acquires access to our territory. In Brussels they submit the application and their nationality cannot be denied unless the prosecutor can find out within one month that they have a criminal history abroad. They acquire Belgian nationality together with their underage children who are under their custody. They leave the territory, travel through Europe, return to their homeland and have two nationalities. That is the signal of cohesion and connection that we give to the migrants with this law. It is my conviction that this law will work hand in hand with the incomprehension, intolerance and hardening of the views and will have a very perverse effect on the entire integration policy that one wishes to implement through the Communities. It is a signal that the opposite direction is going out. It is a blow to the policemen and integration workers who perform their work on the ground correctly, who want to advocate tolerance and encourage participation. They want to encourage people to participate in society. They want to get the women who, from their own culture, have to stay home out of their isolation. Well, as legislators, we give them exactly the opposite signal. The liberals’ manoeuvres to break away from integration readiness and organize the irrefutable suspicion that whoever makes the application and is willing to integrate has been astonishing. First, Mr. Coveliers said that Article 23 would allow to return to it afterwards, if one had granted citizenship. This is not possible with this article. This caused a lot of commotion. If I have understood it correctly, Mr. Somers of the Liberals has at some point forgotten that it would be ⁇ difficult for him to approve these drafts if that was not the interpretation of Article 23. The chairman of the liberals said that this can absolutely not be the interpretation of this article. Citizenship cannot be deprived of a person who would later demonstrate unwillingness to integrate. Mr. De Gucht stated in the Seventh Day program that we must find other methods to encourage people to integrate. Then it was about social security. I became speechless, because no hair on our head thought to go looking for it in that direction. We talked about negative incentives. It was said that those who did not learn the language would be encouraged to do so through social security in some way. A few years ago, Mr. De Gucht wrote an article in which he concluded, after a learned explanation, that it is contrary to a resem treaty to punish a person who has acquired the Belgian nationality but does not want to learn the regional language by reducing or lifting his social security benefits. The Gucht writes, I quote: Foreigners forcing themselves to become citizens by threatening to reduce or reduce their social benefits if they do not know the regional language is unacceptable as a method. Important human rights are threatened. There was more in the article of Mr. De Gucht. For De Gucht it stands like a pillar above water that an incentive to encourage people to become citizens, including by learning the regional language, is only possible before the granting of nationality. Although the imposition of the regional language for the acquisition of the Belgian nationality according to international standards is not prohibited, it is set entirely differently with the same requirement for the naturalized foreigners. Various human rights conventions and general principles show that such practices are unacceptable. For Mr De Gucht it was clear at that time that the federal government could only develop incentives to citizenship people before granting the Belgian nationality. If foreigners have acquired Belgian citizenship, the government can no longer give incentives because this is discriminatory and in violation of a number of conventions. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, the story is becoming even more complicated. They want communities to organize citizenship. We refer again to the Netherlands. In order to draw through that comparison, the Flemish Community would have to release 1 billion francs to set up citizenship projects. If these projects are effectively launched, this is a big step forward. However, we are not so far away. The flames must sound the alarm clock. At a time when the Flemish Community wants to make enormous efforts on citizenship projects, the federal government with its draft laws on the acquisition of nationality does the opposite and gives a sign that it does not need to do it all. Such a policy is inconsistent. In addition, I emphasize that citizenship in the Netherlands is indeed mandatory for the acquisition of nationality. It is, in my opinion, entirely illogical to separate the desire for citizenship and the acquisition of nationality. Those who sign the declaration will be considered by the new law to be prepared to integrate. The majority adds that the applicant must respect human rights. In Belgium, the Convention on Human Rights has long been a law. The new text does not supplement the existing statement. Those who will soon sign the declaration will have given the irrefutable presumption that they are ready for integration, even though they are staying only a few weeks in our country and will leave again immediately after acquiring the Belgian nationality. Those who have signed the same statement for the applications we dealt with last month are unlucky birds. In fact, the majority decided last month that despite the declaration, there were reasons to doubt the integration readiness, so that the acquisition of nationality was refused. Practice shows that the signature of the declaration does not necessarily mean that one is willing to integrate into our country. My second criticism is about the migration flows. Anyone who becomes Belgian in this country will be able to inform their adult children abroad that they also have the right to citizenship. They are entitled to settle in Belgium. They are entitled to the Belgian nationality and therefore also their minor children. This, combined with a very poorly closing control of the criminal history of the persons concerned, creates a huge risk of an unknown migratory flow. From this it will later be determined that this does not occur through the law governing the entry of foreigners into the territory, but through the law of nationality. My third object of criticism, and for our group the most fundamental, concerns the security risk that this new law creates. I want to emphasize this again because otherwise it will be lost in the imaging. Of course, most people who apply for citizenship are correct and integrated, and they integrate properly. There is no discussion about this. However, if you want to introduce legislation, it must be closing. The law must avoid or at least minimize any risk that threatens the safety of citizens. We are faced with a complete mystery. After all, the government draft proposes to shorten the advisory mines for the services of the State Security Board, Foreign Affairs and the Public Prosecutor’s Office to one month, while everyone knows that in many cases this is a risk and will simply not be feasible. In parliament, you may have different opinions about integration and the position of Justice, but you can nevertheless continue to persevere against the sunlight in certain points of view. We are ⁇ disappointed that now also the Minister of Internal Affairs tells his colleague of Justice that the Foreign Affairs Service cannot give this advice in a month without a major reorganization that has yet to begin. This reorganization will also never begin before the law comes into force. The reorganization is necessary to make it entirely conceivable that we might be able to do so. The Minister adds in a letter that this provides for a substantial increase in resources. These funds are currently not available. If a colleague from the government writes this and then says that there is no problem and that we will meet the deadline, then there is an end to dialogue and persuasion. These are two colleagues from the same government who completely contradict each other.

Mr Vandeurzen, I can follow your reasoning in part and I can understand that you are concerned about the security risks that may be associated with this operation in part.

That is a confession.

This is indeed a confession. What I find difficult, Mr. Vandeurzen, is that you pretend that this problem arises today. However, it cannot be denied that the CVP has played an important role in this country over the past ten years. The whole problem of the illegals is not expressed now, following this bill. We have known for years that the success of the Flemish Bloc is bound by the attachment of the security factor to the cause of foreigners. I can only say that you have done nothing in the last ten years. I have always experienced you as a skilled colleague. There is, at least, a problem of credibility. I wish to give it to you in all tranquility.

My political generation is used to wearing the penalty dress for everything that has gone wrong in the past. If we do not be careful, we will soon also have the murder of someone from the then Congo on our conscience. I would like to take that in. But is this the responsibility for formulating a bad law? The majority would like the opinions to be issued within one month. I never understood why it could not be 2 or 3 months. Let us assume that for substantive reasons it should be 1 month. Let us then approve an amendment that stipulates that the month of advisory term will enter within 2 years, if the service Foreign Affairs will be reorganized. Let us approve an amendment that stipulates that the Prosecutor’s Office must respect the advisory term of 1 month within 2 years, when the Prosecutor’s Office through a reorganization will have enough people to do so. Then you could respond to the period of 1 month, although there are no real reasons to deduct the advisory term to 1 month. In this case, there is no risk of security problems. This risk is now very obviously present. The fact that one can complain about the past can never justify that a law is being drafted that increases the risks for our people.

Mr. Speaker, I have the impression that Mr. Cortois does not fully understand what this is about. He acknowledges that there is a security risk and that is already very positive, because in the committee it was not even recognized by the majority parties. The problem is becoming much bigger. Currently, the service Foreign Affairs has 4 months. Your majority makes sure that the Foreign Affairs Service has only one month left, while the minister himself says this is unsustainable. How can you then push the black piet to the CVP, while making the problem itself ten times worse. It was very under the CVP, but under the VLD it is getting ten times worse.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cortois and the VLD group are ⁇ poorly positioned to read the CVP’s lesson on this subject. We passed a new nationality law exactly a year ago in parliament, on the initiative of several parliamentarians. In that law the integration will was expressly inscribed. We also set deadlines for the recommendations. If Mr Cortois considers that the CVP group must send certain charges, he does not know this file. He forgets that last year we passed a nationality law, of which the will to integrate is a substantial part and in which the services that were to provide advice had the necessary time to do so. What are they doing now? The investigation of the integration will is closed and the advisory terminals mines are reduced to 1 month. This is precisely why Mr Vandeurzen rightly states that that one-month term is not feasible. At the time that the CVP participated in the policy, the naturalization legislation has been established, fully in accordance with the will to integrate, with deadlines that must and could be respected. It was at that moment that the VLD criticized this law, precisely in the light of the strengthening of the testing of the integration will, which is now let disappear. One should know the dossier better if one makes such comments.

I do not doubt that the former Minister of Justice knows this case better. However, we must not let the debate slip away. My comment is of a general nature. I blame Mr. Vandeurzen – and therefore the CVP – for giving in his speech the impression that he paid special attention to the security aspect, while I now hear from the former minister that he would much rather have the discussion about whether people who want to acquire the Belgian nationality can be obliged to integrate. I have said that I partially agree with that. I add that it is not correct to look at the matter from the security risk. We cannot conduct politics like in the Netherlands. We are probably all to blame for this. We are a federal state and I hope that the Flemish government will take measures at its level to make the maximum effort towards citizenship. I am loyal enough to the Constitution to say that this is not our competence. The security issue is that, and I agree when you say that more attention should be paid to the citizenship. However, do not play into the aspect of safety for convenience, because that is not essentially the matter.

I will try to keep it short.

You have suggested this time of speech.

The safety issue is, of course, one of the fundamental critics of the design. The advice of the Foreign Affairs Service and the problem of the deadlines is actually small beer compared to the problem of the opinion of the Prosecutor’s Office. This majority wants the Prosecutor’s Office to take a decision within one month on the criminal history of each applicant or on whether the person concerned has been mentioned in an investigation. In the Commission on Naturalizations we have expressed our concerns about this. If you, Mr Cortois, say that there could be a security risk, then that possibility alone is sufficient to say that the deadline should not be shortened, because you create a risk. That’s exactly the opposite of what you should do when you want a closing control grid. You must make sure that this eventuality cannot occur. The committee has repeatedly stated that the prosecutor’s office is not able to issue an opinion in all cases within the month. In the absence of advice, the advice is considered to be favourable. I have given examples of people who move from one district to another, or who come here from abroad and where one has to start investigating abroad because one has no basis for obtaining that intelligence. The Minister then replied – and I searched it again in the report – that according to the College of Attorneys-General the issuance of the opinions would be feasible within a month, despite the fact that one-third of the naturalization files are submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office in Brussels. In the committee, the Minister was then again asked whether the College of Attorneys-General had indeed said that it was feasible to issue this opinion under all circumstances within one month. The Minister said that this was feasible. We then asked the minister if we could get the confirmation from the College of Attorneys-General. The Minister has properly committed to providing us with this advice. Last night we received the first signal from Mr. De Lentdecker, Attorney General. We received a copy of his letter to the Minister on this issue. I find it ⁇ serious that this letter does not show at all that the Prosecutor’s Office considers that the opinion can be issued within one month. Nor does the report of the September discussion show that it would already be said orally and informally that this would not pose a problem. The Minister then informed the College that he was asked for advice on this and also on the question of how people, who have a criminal purpose, can be deterred if they apply for naturalization. The Minister requested this advice in September. We then received a letter of 17 January. I come to a point that is ⁇ annoying and therefore requires our special attention. In the letter Mr. De Lentdecker writes that he can confirm that information on the necessary means still needs to be obtained from the various prosecutors of the Procurator of the King. This means that the information to indicate which additional resources should be used in order to meet the one-month deadline is not yet available. However, this law will come into effect immediately. The prosecutor continues that it is obvious that in this hypothesis as regards the Brussels Public Prosecutor’s Office, which is constantly struggling with overload and will also, if necessary, have to provide advice within the very short timeframe of one month, of course the necessary administrative support will have to be provided. According to a rough estimate, one-third of the number of naturalization applications would be located within the judicial district of Brussels.

Mr Vandeurzen, 46% of all naturalization applications are located in the Brussels Region. So in the Brussels judicial district it is likely to be 50% of all naturalization applications, which is much more than a third. This is for the completeness of the file.

The prosecutor continues: In the presence of serious personal criminal offences on the basis of a applicant, the criminal record, criminal information or criminal investigation, must be carefully examined, especially in terms of the elements of evidence and the judicial process: the existence of an arrest warrant, reflection, judgment, referral or judgment. I am sure that the Attorney General is not aware of the fact that the scope of this law is that the Brussels Prosecutor's Office will not have to go look in the fichebak or in the best case in the computer, but abroad will have to do inquiry in connection with the presence of these criminal acts. Colleagues, the prosecutor says that it is obvious that the prosecutor’s magistrates will have to be able to count on the necessary cooperation of qualified administrative personnel, preferably contractual lawyers. He added that these are only a few preliminary concerns. Colleagues, we know from the Commission on Naturalizations which applications are sometimes submitted. I repeat that this is a small minority. If we take into account the seriousness and threat arising from some requests, the response of the Prosecutor’s Office that in extremis must confirm the evening before the plenary session that one is still being asked by the prosecutors whether one is able to process those requests within one month, and the confirmation of the Prosecutor’s Office that one must ⁇ have additional personnel – ⁇ in Brussels where the congestion is the greatest – will this Chamber then say in all tranquility that there are no risks created and that it is not necessary to delay at least the reduction of the term to one month by one year so that the prosecutors can organize themselves and the Ministry of Justice will have the opportunity to provide all the resources in the event of a budget change to recruit the contractual lawyers? Will we let all this pass through? Will we with the collar up, the head between the shoulders and the visor closed say that we do not ask ourselves questions about this and that there is no problem? The day that this problem will arise, and it has ever occurred in this Chamber, I hope that those who vote for the design with this science will be fully aware of their responsibility. At the moment we are going to reform the Prosecutor’s Office completely, at the moment we set all possible priorities such as drug crime, white board crime, sexual crimes, we say by law to the Prosecutor’s Office that they should forget everything and within one month give advice regarding the nationality applications and don’t ask us why that term is one month or why it should not be two months. You must do it within a month and if something goes wrong, Mr. Prosecutor of Brussels, it will have been your fault and it will be due to the faulty organization of your prosecutor’s office. This Parliament has decided that you should be able to do so within the month, respecting all other priorities that society imposes on you.

Mr Vandeurzen, your group colleague would like to interrupt you briefly.

This is a crucial element in the debate. Collega Vandeurzen very correctly notes that in the Justice Committee, and I refer to the reporters, the Minister of Justice expressly said that the College had advised that the one-month period was feasible. I ask the journalists if that really matches what was said. The minister claimed that he had questioned the college and that the one-month period was considered feasible. Today, on the basis of the letter exchange we received yesterday, we conclude that the college has not commented at all on this. The college has not taken any position. General lawyer De Lentdecker says he must first question the other prosecutors of the King’s prosecutors. He also wants to point out that there are already a number of problems, such as in Brussels, where it is actually not feasible. First, this means that the communication of the Minister of Justice in the committee on the position of the College of Attorneys-General is not consistent with the letter exchange we received today. Second, it means that today we cannot say with certainty that advice can be given within the month. Therefore, it is not certain that we can handle these files for security purposes. This is a fundamental problem. We assumed that the college had said they could do it within a month. Today it shows that this deadline is not feasible. Furthermore, it appears that no position was taken at the time the Minister made statements. In fact, fundamental objections are raised and information needs to be sought from the various parks. I would like to point out this problem, also with regard to the Chairman of the Committee, as there is conflicting information here.

Mr Van Parys and Mr Laeremans, you are registered as speakers. You will soon have an opportunity to give your opinion. Give Mr. Vandeurzen, who had asked for the word for half an hour, the opportunity to decide.

We receive information from the Minister of Justice in the Committee on Justice. He says the college has informed him that there is no problem and that the deadline is perfectly feasible. Today it turns out that this information is incorrect and that we mistakenly assumed that that month was a feasible deadline. This is an essential data to be able to take a position on a number of amendments.

Mr Van Parys, the Chamber was sufficiently informed and has the report. This document has been distributed and will be translated. The Chamber will then be able to decide in honour and conscience and informed.

What is happening here is very important. I would like you to explicitly address this problem. The minister had said that he had asked the college of prosecutors-general for advice. However, the minutes indicate that he would request a written opinion. This has actually never happened. Furthermore, it is true that in practice the parquets will never be able to give the requested advice in an orderly manner within the month. We had warned about this and, in addition, in the Justice Committee, we had requested hearings with the people of the prosecutor’s office. All parties, including the CVP, have denied that. Now we see clearly that this file is not finished, that it is anything but mature. It must return to the committee for hearings with the prosecutor’s office to verify whether what is stated here is feasible. I ask this meeting to sit and stand up to decide on sending back to the committee.

No, Mr Laeremans, we are continuing the debate. You explained your position. Mr Jo Vandeurzen now has the word. I ask him to decide because he has been working for a long time, though interrupted.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that you are trying to keep an eye on the agenda, as well as the timetable. However, you will understand that if today for the first time a piece comes to light that does not correspond at all with what was communicated to us about it in the committee, it does give us some commotion. That should all those who would later approve this draft with peace of mind, vote to reflect. I will no longer deal in detail with my criticism of the further politicization of the acquisition of nationality. I am surprised by the attitude of the Greens to this maneuver, which is attracting naturalizations. The deadline will be shortened and the procedures at the base will be broader, giving more opportunities for appeal in the form of naturalization applications, which will also be made free of charge. It is very clear that this way of acquiring nationality without rights for the persons concerned, without contradictions and without transparent decision-making will plunge the Parliament with a huge problem. This draft enables a ⁇ poor development: handling of files by the administration, politicians addressed, handling of files in the Commission for Naturalizations. Mr. Speaker, we believe that these drafts end an integration policy pursued by the federal government in our country. This is a ⁇ bad signal. It is a perverse signal because it gives more incentive to intolerance and hardening of views than it invites people to participate, to be cohesive, to integrate into our society. During the discussions in parliament, the minister talked about such a beautiful aquarel that no amendment to it was allowed to torch. I would rather make another comparison. This design is like the clothes of the emperor: the majority says that they are beautiful clothes, in the walkways they all whisper that the public interest is entirely in its expression. Nevertheless, everyone will approve the design without bothering. I slowly begin to understand why there was a difference with the CVP.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any questions about the content of the debate, but the colleagues confirm this, and I think we should investigate further over the course of the day, that the Minister of Justice has provided the committee with completely incorrect and deliberately incorrect information. If this, after investigation, becomes a reality, this is a ⁇ serious incident, Mr. Speaker. I will return to it. After all, if the Minister of Justice has lied to the Committee of Justice on an important point of this draft, which in addition is of the nature of putting the whole opinion on the draft on the slope, then this is a ⁇ serious fact. We will thoroughly examine this, based on the report of the committee, and I ⁇ do not consider this to be a minor fact.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, today we have gathered in a plenary session to discuss a bill amending the code of citizenship, a little more than a year only after the law of 22 December 1998 that already amended the said code, published last March and which came into force on the 1st day of the sixth month following that of publication, that is, on 1 September 1999, that is, less than six months ago. I remind you that this text had been the subject of broad consensus beyond the parties of the majority of the time. Since this legislation has not been allowed, or has not wanted to give time to demonstrate, if necessary, its effectiveness, I imagine that, in the absence of any assessment in this matter, the bill submitted by the new majority must be explained by other reasons. These seem clear to me. One of them comes to my mind more ⁇ : the bill results from a regrettable compromise in which Ecolo and the PS renounced to grant the right to vote to non-European foreigners for the 2006 municipal elections, which was, however, one of the programmatic threads of these parties - the prerogative of citizenship in favor of the very simplified acquisition of citizenship, whose objective is however totally different. In exchange, the liberals obtain, not only the burial of the issue of the voting right of non-Europeans, but also and above all - because the two subjects have been linked, even if they do not have an intrinsic connection - the adoption of a bill establishing in our country an accelerated procedure, with arrest for appearance, a procedure of which all leaves to think that it will not be applicable on the ground and will probably constitute another measure without effect. First of all, at the level of the method, the exchange between these different issues – foreign voting rights, naturalization and accelerated procedure – has clearly appeared in the masculine remarks held recently by the VLD before the press, here several weeks ago, and also, in two of the points put on the agenda of the Justice Commission. We realize that a number of hidden political negotiations have imposed an agenda, and therefore, the hasty organization of an unbearable debate, which comes, despite all the criticisms and fears that we have issued regarding the deadlines, to a bill we must discuss in the rush, without having conducted the necessary consultations, without having gathered sufficiently informed opinions on the feasibility of the provisions. In my opinion, it is not in this way that the problem of nationality is dealt with, sufficiently important for parliament to give it a minimum of time. I would like to quickly target the two main perverse effects of the project: first, the abandonment of the voting right for non-European foreigners and then, in some way, the fact of galvanizing a notion as essential as that of nationality. As regards the abandonment of the right to vote, I recall that Article 8 of the Constitution, which already, adoption was not easy, provides that the right to vote of the citizens of the European Union not having the Belgian nationality, can be extended by law to residents in Belgium who are not nationals of a Member State of the Union, understood that this law could not be applicable until after 1 January 2001. Given the enthusiastic debates that took place during the previous legislature and the progressive positions taken by one and another in the matter, I legitimately expected, as well as my party, that the new majority would agree on the principle of this law, which, besides, two of the three political families wanted. But it was nothing. In the government agreement of July 7, nothing appears on the right to vote of non-European foreigners: the government clearly favoured the acquisition of Belgian citizenship as a factor of integration into our society and considered that considerable changes would be made to our code of citizenship in order to promote such integration. As evidenced by the proposed project, the new government has thus made a choice between citizenship and nationality. He has clearly and exclusively opted for a system of nationality or nationalization of persons for their integration. First of all, I would like to say that the PSC will remain consistent with its program and will not give up. He will continue to advocate – he will actively do so – the idea that it is necessary to be able to grant the right to vote, in municipal elections, to non-European foreigners provided that they have resided in Belgium for at least five years and that they have carried out a voluntary approach to the municipality. It is a matter of citizenship, not of nationality. One does not exclude the other and both must be addressed at the same time. As said by some partners in their program, citizenship must be separated from citizenship. The central question that arises – we have not been able to ask it with the desired serenity during the chaotic discussions in committees – is the place that is granted to individuals in our country without necessarily being Belgians. As said by a professor of UCL, Mr. Michel Molitor, Citizenship is the right to belonging. With this belonging are connected a number of duties, but also rights and benefits. If democracy is based on the responsibility of the citizens of a country, it is citizenship that gives them the belonging that allows them to feel responsible for that country. Again, this debate has been carried out. Therefore, we cannot endorse an approach according to which the granting of voting rights to non-European foreigners, which was not possible for these local elections, is also not possible for 2006. As I observed almost six months ago in response to the government declaration, the path that the majority opens towards the 21st century risks therefore to be open only to the Belgians. I also find that Ecolo is reduced to having to timidly ask that this problem be put on the agenda of the parliamentary committee for political renewal, that is, ⁇ never. This is one of the first perverse effects of the compromise. The second perverse effect is that, as soon as the majority tries to make everything pass through nationality, one comes to a galvaudage of such an essential notion. If we share the overall objective of the bill aiming to strengthen the gratuity – although we highlighted the risk of discrimination against other equally legitimate procedures that are, on the other hand, costly – if we share the idea that the procedure should be accelerated, facilitated the acquisition of citizenship for foreigners who have resided with us for a certain time and if it should be – it has been interpreted too arbitrarily to remove the notion of will to integrate, we regret that the procedure for acquiring Belgian citizenship is so simplified that it tends to become a mere completely distorted formality. In this text, it is misrepresented for three reasons. First of all because the deadlines for the opinion of the Prosecutor’s Office, the Office of Foreigners and Security – although at this point they are no longer even explicitly provided while we think they should be and we have submitted an amendment in this direction – are impractical. We have noted this, as well as our partners of the CVP, in the committee. We were told that everything was okay, that there was no problem. In the letter he sent to Mr. In the meantime, Mr. Duquesne explained that, as part of the restructuring of the services of foreigners – which is far from the case – he would do his best to take into account the deadlines. This does not give us any assurance on this point. However, a new fact has just occurred. The prosecutor’s answers are clear: without additional staff, they are unable, ⁇ in Brussels where a third of naturalization applications are likely to occur, to give their opinion within a month. To ensure at least practicable time management, we will resubmit our amendments so that the current time limits are ⁇ ined. There is no urgency to the point of not being able to wait 4 months or 2 months depending on the case. It is quite absurd, although such opinions could not be delivered within a reasonable time, to imagine that one could give opinions on serious facts within a month. On this point, if we continue in this perspective, not only do we make things impractical and we do not merely galvaud the notion of nationality, but we also galvaud the notion of opinion which, inevitably, will not be able to be delivered in time and in a relevant manner. We ask you, Mr. Minister, to listen to the opposition on this point. They try to work constructively. In this regard, it has submitted very reasonable amendments regarding deadlines. I remind you that cadres are lacking in the judicial district of Brussels, especially within the prosecutor’s office, for linguistic reasons. However, these frameworks should be filled up urgently. If this is not the case, and if, in addition, they are imposed unreasonable charges, I do not see how the Brussels Prosecutor’s Office will be able to function properly; everyone knows the difficult situation in which they find themselves. I come to my second criticism and therefore to the second denaturation. After a residence period of only three years, which is not necessarily continuous and may be formal, one can access the Belgian citizenship. We had already submitted a subsidiary amendment to introduce the notion of continuity but it was not met. Nevertheless, it really seems to us that this three-year period is too short to give access to citizenship without any other criteria. The idea of the current five-year deadline is widely endorsed by all parties. This problem has been discussed in the context of the regularization and in that of the duration of residence for the granting of voting rights to non-Europeans. Therefore I repeat that a minimum period of five years would have been preferable. Indeed, this is not only a longer period that is more commonly accepted but also characterizes a more lasting bond with the country, especially as the integration criterion is removed. Since this was the only criterion that remained decisive, three years seems to us to be too short. I come to the third criticism of denaturation. The majority persists in wanting to shorten the deadlines without generally ensuring that the required durations of stay are sufficiently effective. We have made a proposal. Following this latter, we return to an earlier definition that, legally, holds the road. It could be met. If this is not the case, we risk being faced with only formal durations. To this abandonment of the right to vote of non-European foreigners, to this denaturation of nationality is added an announcement effect. It creates the illusion that we will solve the problem of the difficulty of producing a birth certificate. Indeed, if a possibility is provided to supplement a birth certificate in the framework of procedures for obtaining citizenship by an equivalent diplomatic or consular document or by an act of notoriety issued by the peace judge and approved by the court, it is still necessary that this provision is not deprived of effect by a too strict formulation as is the case in the draft. So we had proposed an improvement of the text but we were not followed in this direction. That is why I fear that we will face too restrictive interpretations that will not necessarily contribute to improving the situation while that was the purpose of this project. I would like to insist on one point. Naturalization is within the competence of the House of Representatives, but since the constitutional article is not subject to revision, a debate on this subject could not take place. However, we would like to emphasize the risks of the truly arbitrary and therefore political character of the granting of citizenship by a parliamentary committee which, from now on, will no longer be imposed on any other criteria of assessment than its own. The latter will not be regulated by any legislation and a mere period of stay may be sufficient to grant citizenship. If we were to move towards a nationality reform, it would ⁇ have been appropriate to find other decision-making mechanisms than that. Indeed, without another rule or criterion, we risk being again confronted with politization or arbitrary, organized by a parliamentary committee. This is probably not the healthiest way for a democracy. I would like to mention two more risks of perverse effects that I think are important. First, if we increase the possibility, after three years of non-continuous stay in our country, of obtaining citizenship, we risk having an upward perverse effect in so far as the different services responsible for issuing the residence permits are likely to pursue a much more frileous policy given that one can access citizenship after a rather short period of stay. This is a risk and a perverse effect that we cannot neglect, especially since everyone may not adhere, at the level of services, to the spirit of this law. There is a second perverse effect that has not been sufficiently discussed in the committee, I mean talking about complementarity with Article 23 of the Code of Citizenship that allows discharge. If, on the one hand, you allow access to citizenship without a condition of integration - and on this point we agree - there is no less than Article 23 - some have already mentioned the spectrum of its excessive use - interpreted as the case-law specifies, says well that the serious breach of duty of the Belgian citizen must reveal that the interested party does not manifest the required attachment to the country. What is this attachment required to the country? Without having drawn up Article 23, is it not possible to take back from one hand what has been given from the other? This would be terribly delicate because one would act after granting citizenship, which would be contrary to the principle of equality of Belgians before the law. There is a risk of returning with required attachment notions as the case-law currently writes, while the condition of upward integration has been removed. I think there are incompatibilities on this point, that we will have a perverse effect downstream due to excessive use of the article. Some partners of the majority have already mentioned this and I believe they will be sensitive to it. In conclusion, if the government project contains the positive aspects that we have cited, we do not share a compromise that preempts one logic over another while both must coexist, a compromise that gives false assurances to some, a nationality empty of its meaning and makes others false to believe that a nationality easier to obtain will serve citizenship. I repeat the risk of perverse effect from the use of Article 23. Furthermore, I think that we must be reasonable and accountable and that in any case, as regards the deadlines, it is indispensable that in the light of new elements, we can amend this text in plenary session and return on this point to the amendments we had proposed. They are not excessive, they are the current deadlines and I do not think they are contrary to the proper administration of the problem of nationality.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, in 1998 you, Mr. Minister, in an unattended moment of generosity, the former Prime Minister Dehaene was depicted in the gallery of the great. You will still remember. It rarely happens that a politician of one party swings with the smoke vessel to a politician of another party, but I think this moment has come again today. If I were with the Greens today, or if I were a French speaker today, then I would extend the praise trumpet on this Marc Verwilghen, because very rare are the politicians who deny themselves in such a way and who, of course, in the eyes of everyone, eat their own principles and shamelessly carry out the most extremist program points of other parties. In the eyes of the Greens and the French speakers, you deserve a house-high statue, because what you do is truly unique. What you do is unique, because you are fulfilling the wildest dreams. There is no need for any integration will anymore and the Greens may never have thought that they could realize this. In favor of the French-speaking parties, tens of thousands of new French-speaking voters will be created in the very short term. One would jump a hole in the air for less! What you do is unique, because you are diametrically opposed to your own party program. You maintain the lax policy that is pursued when granting the Belgian nationality. In the run-up to the previous elections, this policy was still cracked by you and the program of your party. Rightly, because the Belgian nationality was thrown at everyone. Now you make it much worse, because the acquisition of the Belgian citizenship becomes completely free, in all aspects of the word. From now on, you will throw the identity cards even harder than this was before. This country has had many compromise builders and welders over the years, many vessels and yielders, but today the foldability factor, foldability, manipulability and spinelessness of Marc Verwilghen and his party have grown astonishingly large. What you are doing, Mr. Minister, is unique because you are introducing a nationality legislation here that will be the most lax in the world. We have made the comparison and nowhere in Europe or in the world, one simply gives away nationality, merely upon request and on the basis of a short stay. As a result of what is now at stake with us, the nationality will be so loose and questionable that it will not have its equivalent, neither in Europe nor beyond. It is obvious that those who lend themselves to such a unique and grotesque form of political prostitution and to a dramatic sale of Flemish interests deserve a life-size statue in the eyes of the Greens and the French speakers. I see it already before me, Mr. Minister: Marc Verwilghen eternated as a gentle benefactor, questioningly spreading the tens of thousands of identity cards over the grateful diveers. Let us begin with one aspect of this file that has been shamefully silenced for months, in particular the catastrophic consequences of this bill for the Flamings in Brussels. I have known in this country a lot of silence and wiping under the mat. However, I am surprised today to have to establish an absolute silence. Last week Monday, the chairs of the Flemish Committee for Brussels, Davidsfonds and the Consultation Centre of Flemish associations, which together represent a small million Flemish people, gave a press conference. A dramatic call was made to prevent the Brussels Flamings from being forced by the tens of thousands of new Belgians who almost without exception choose the role of the French language. However, their call was hardly heard. Their message was almost silenced in Flanders. Nearly 15 months ago in this hemisphere was also debated on the easing of the nationality legislation. It was the pass currency to buy off the support of PRL and FDF for the Eurostem right. But then it sounded different. They were apparently aware of the danger. Even the CVP was then of the opinion that the Flamings in Brussels threatened to come into the oppression. The Flemish press was ⁇ critical and rejecting. Unisono was then told that there should be a guaranteed representation of the Flaming in Brussels. Allow me to read a quote from Patrick Dewael, which clearly expressed the strategy of the Francophones: PRL, FDF and PS want to ease the Belgian nationality legislation so that immigrants can almost automatically become Belgians. In this way they think to resolve the debate about whether or not to grant voting rights to foreigners in their favour. The French speakers see in the voices of immigrants a means to further refresh Brussels and Flemish-Brabant. The VLD, unlike the Flemish majority parties, does not want to participate in this Franco-speaking strategy. Today, however, it is the same VLD that has gone through the knees for the Francophones and takes the lead in the final offensive against the Brussels Flamings. Strangely enough, this topic is suddenly silenced as loudly as possible. This is even more painful because in practice it has been shown that we had a surplus of right at the end of 1998. Then we could still be consumed for doom-thinkers, but today it can no longer be. In recent elections, foreigners massively voted for the French-speaking lists, and not for the Flemish. Or how can one explain that during a parliamentary period the Flemish in Brussels lose almost 14 000 votes and the French-speaking win almost 36 000? The French-speaking progress is not at all due to the increase in indigenous voters. In recent years, tens of thousands of people have left the city. The enormous French-speaking progress is due solely to the many tens of thousands of new Belgians who, with a few exceptions, all voted for the French-speaking. The charme offensive of the Flemish parties with regard to the foreign sector, with which the CVP swung, has therefore not worked. It turned out to be a total failure. Nevertheless, despite these undisputed, catastrophic figures, everyone is looking in the opposite direction today. Apparently no one is yet interested in the fate of the Brussels Flamings, just now the number of French-speaking voters for the municipal council elections - because for that this bill was written - will be expanded by many tens of thousands again. The Flemish representation in the municipal councils is threatening to be decimated soon. Of course, the first and greatest responsibility for what is happening today lies with the VLD. But at the same time, both the VU&ID and the CVP have a crushing responsibility for the penible situation in which the Brussels Flamings are today. Both sides have rightly accused that the eased acquisition of nationality poses a threat to the Brussels Flamings, but precisely in the areas where they themselves have the possibility to do something about it, both the CVP and the VU put their hands in the air and give openly forfait. Let me start with the CVP. The evidence has now been provided that we had a surplus of equity at the end of 1998 when we demanded the immediate introduction of a guaranteed representation of the Brussels Flamings. According to the CVP of the time, this was not a problem and everything would be fine after the parliamentary elections. As predicted by us, nothing of this has come into the house today. There were no agreements made after the elections; everything was moved to the Costa and, in Brussels, to the Brussels Costa. And who removed the guaranteed representation for the municipal councils from the agenda? Calculate the CVP. In the only place where the CVP is in power, in particular Brussels where Mr. Chabert acts as a minister, she refuses to put pressure on the boiler and abdicates. One must finally admit that the debate on the euro-vote right was accompanied by a discussion on the Brussels Flamings, more specifically on the guaranteed representation at the municipal level. Because of the mayor-effect, also because of the undemocratic treatment of small lists and because of the euro-vote right that only plays at the municipal level, it is the most difficult place to get elected. The game now played by both the CVP, the VU, the VLD and SPAGA or the union of SP and Agalev in Brussels, is that one is still concerned about the guaranteed representation, but then only on the regional level and not on the municipal level. Exactly at that level where the fatty mandates fall, the traditional parties want to add a few more. However, it is not urgent at all. The elections are only in 2004 and, in addition, it is also much less necessary because the Flamings already have guarantees on the executive level. This is a French-language requirement. The French speakers want to counter the Flemish Block through special cooperation opportunities. There, however, where it is much more necessary, where the real senacles of power are in Brussels, where in a few months by the expected floodwave of new Belgians and by the exodus of the indigenous people, the Flemish municipal councillors are threatened to be washed away, nothing is done. The small Flemish municipal council member, the small Flemish representative in Brussels who must deliver the real struggle, is abandoned by the VLD, by the VU&ID and by the CVP in a cowardly way. The highest figure that the Flemish lists collected in the last elections was that of the Chamber, notably 60 900 votes. The number of foreigners who are eligible to obtain citizenship in Brussels alone, so those who live here for three years, is four times higher, notably 240 000. Per ⁇ these figures finally make some colleagues burn a light. The VU is also complicit in this game. I see that there is one representative of the VU. Apparently, the debate is a bit important for this party. She has played even harder than the CVP. Already in 1998 we noticed that this party delivered an incredible amount of curve work. Initially, the nationality could not be eased enough until it turned out that PRL and FDF linked the case to the euro-vote right. At that moment the VU changed camp; then it was understood that all this fit into a French-speaking offensive. Now again, the VU is hopelessly ambiguous. Just in the week when the VU and the CVP at a joint press conference broke out the government draft and warned that security is in danger because the parliament has only one month to work, each of us had a bill from Vanquickenborne in the bus. It was an old proposal by Bert Anciaux, in which the parquet was given only fifteen days for its safety investigation. On 16 December 1999, VU&ID was given the unique opportunity to block this whole debate on nationality by invoking a conflict of interests brought about by the CVP and the Flemish Bloc Group of the Flemish Parliament. What does VU&ID do that in this Chamber had proclaimed that this bill should be stopped? VU&ID votes without any scrupule against the conflict of interest. Brussels VU&ID member Gatz defends the easing of the legislation, I quote: If one continues to repeat that all the foreigners are potential French speakers, then one fulfills his own prophecy. With his judgment, Gatz diametrically contradicts the position taken by the CVP and VU&ID at a joint press conference. At the moment that VU&ID can make its own words tough and can show that she means it with her opposition work in this Chamber, she once again saves the federal government. What a condition! This bill of nationality upon request, this scandalously nefaste bill, could indeed be stopped. If the Flemish parties had shown a minimum of self-respect and solidarity with the Brussels Flamings, they would have given this file a community treatment. After all, this dossier has a huge impact on community relations in this country and especially in the capital. This case belongs home in the Costa. This is too much requested from the insight of the Costagangers. The French speakers succeed in keeping all important files such as the acquisition of nationality, the financing of education and the issue of the Brussels court as far as possible away from the Costa negotiation. The Flemish Parties remain behind with the files in which they are the requesting party. Speaking of a good strategy! From this horrible story only one lesson can be drawn. The attitude of the CVP, VLD and VU&ID is identical. When they are in the opposition, they scream murder and fire and screen them with the Flemish interests. When they themselves are in power, at any level of policy, they sacrifice the Flemish interests for the higher Belgian interest and they plant the Brussels Flamings the knife in the back. Ladies and gentlemen of the CVP, VU&ID and VLD, your Flemish reflex is nothing more than an appearance, something window dressing. Only the fat pots and ministerial portfolios are of interest to you. You are all incredible! There is little need to argue that this bill has primarily electoral intentions. The draft law came to compensate for the universal voting right of foreigners. In practice, however, this bill goes much further. After all, it implies voice light all levels. The hurry with which this file is being chased by parliament has wiped out everything with the upcoming municipal council elections. Some parties urgently need a rapid and massive expansion of their electorate. This law does not serve – as may be expected from each law – the general interest, but the private interests of a number of parties. Therefore, this law alone is one of the most immoral that has ever been discussed in this hemisphere. This law serves, among other things, the interests of the downward SP which in certain cities has lost up to 30% and more of its supporters. The SP begs and prays for new voters. Thanks to this law, the Flemish socialists see the opportunity to accelerate the replacement of their outdated and decaying electorate by foreigners. This law also serves the interests of AGALEV, the outstanding foreign party which openly assumes that it wants to use this law in its struggle against the Flemish Bloc and which already calls on foreigners in Antwerp to apply massively and quickly for Belgian nationality. I have already talked extensively about the French-speaking parties and their clear strategy against the Brussels Flamings. Then there remains the VLD. The VLD, the only party that knows for sure no electoral advantage from the new law, has all interest in that this perverse law is approved as soon as possible. The longer you wait, the more likely the voter will remember everything on October 8th. That is why this immoral law had to come so quickly. Therefore, this bill is imposed on this House without any change in the committee and without allowing the members of parliament to play their democratic role. In the Chamber of Justice Committee unlikely events took place. The Minister of Internal Affairs had in a letter to his colleague of Justice informed that, according to the Foreign Affairs Service, it will be almost impossible in practice to give advice within the required one-month period. We even learn that this currently takes nine months. One month is practically impossible. Nevertheless, Minister Verwilghen comes without scruples to tell the committee that there is no dirt in the air and that Home Affairs will be able to fulfill its role. All problems are from the job. There should not even be a hearing with the people of the Foreign Affairs Service about the feasibility of this law. I will consult the report for a moment because it may be interesting to know what has been said about the case of the Prosecutor’s Office and about the one-month counseling term that the Prosecutor’s Office would still have in the Justice Committee. Mr. Van Peel had informed that he would study it. The Minister clarifies that a preliminary conversation was held with the Attorney General. There is a question of the feasibility of the one-month period. The meeting showed that the deadline was feasible. I will now compare this to the minutes of the College of Attorneys-General that discussed this matter. In this, the Minister announces that he will request the advice of the College in writing. You did not do this, Mr. Minister. There was only an initial conversation. Mr. Minister, in the Justice Committee you lied to us. You told us that everything was okay and that there might only be a problem in Brussels. However, this is not shown in the minutes. In practice, there was no application. This is evidenced by the letter of Attorney General Jacques De Lentdecker. He says that he himself needs to seek advice from the various parks. There may therefore be a major problem not only in Brussels, but also in the other parks. You did not tell us that. Rather, you told us that everything was okay. This is an incident of the highest order, Mr. Minister. They lied to the Justice Committee. You have also refused to allow a hearing to take place. Everything was no longer needed, because the parquet had played its role and could handle everything. Now it turns out that the parket can’t handle its role at all. We will therefore request this meeting to reach a decision as soon as possible to send this draft back to the Justice Committee. Thus, the members of the committee can find out whether the prosecutors are indeed able to deliver the advice within one month. Mr. Minister, I apologize for the fact that you are telling the Justice Committee very different things than what is happening in reality. You are shaking of no. You will have to come and explain it. I find it ⁇ strange what is shown in the texts of the College of Attorneys-General. The opposition notes that the numerous ways in which one will be able to prove one’s identity and birth, open the door wide for abuse, counterfeiting and the manufacture of evidence. Therefore, sanctions are needed to curb this behavior. If this is said, the opposition will be removed. The VLD knows very well what the dangers and risks of this law are. But this party has once decided to swallow everything uncritically to confuse the voters. In order to keep the appearance of any resistance high, Chamber Fraction Leader Coveliers was sent into the field to spray mist and to make one stupid sentence after another. In practice, it turns out that all butter on the gall. The easing of the acquisition of nationality would be linked to the highway law, colleague Coveliers and this has not happened. By the way, it had no sense. Nationality will be removed again.

I’m sure you’re already reading Tomorrow.

of course . I read all the newspapers. You didn’t just explain it in The Morning. You have stated in many places that the connection to the highway right was a requirement. It was an empty demand, because one has nothing to do with the other. In this majority one apparently connects everything to everything. Nevertheless, you have also gone on your mouth on this point. You have also said that the nationality will be taken away from those who do not integrate, afterwards they would not be able to prove their language knowledge or would sin themselves to marry out. This also turned out to be nonsense. You have been flown back by your own party chairman. You said, among other things, that the presumption of integration would be refutable. Also for this judgment you were flown back by party colleagues. We now know what is going on. On all levels you were humiliatingly flown back, it was not by VLD chairman De Gucht, then it was by the minister or by colleague Talhaoui. You have been placed in your place several times in a humiliating way. Mr. De Gucht’s proposal, which would link the benefit to integration, has already proved equally untrustworthy. This has already been explained here. The fact is and remains that naturalization is the only momentum in which foreigners can truly be encouraged to integrate, the only moment in which one can effectively sanction the unwillingness to integrate by not granting the nationality. This instrument now throws the VLD definitively into the rubbish, making the so hoped integration of foreigners less likely than ever to succeed. I quote again: Those who choose the Belgian nationality must first provide proof that they actually intend to integrate into our society. If you do not incorporate this will of integration into the law, you will only increase the tensions between migrants and non-immigrants, moreover, you will institutionalize them. These wise words were spoken by your predecessor, Patrick Dewael, here in the House before the elections and he had a surplus of right. Mr. Coveliers, I give another final quote and you can guess who it is: Knowledge of the language law is also an essential element. There are few countries where citizenship can be obtained without proving that one speaks the language of the country. Also in the United States, the applicant must have summary knowledge before he can take the oath to obtain the citizenship. How can one integrate into a community? How can one have the will to belong to a community if one is unable to understand the official messages or to read a newspaper? If one wants to belong to a community and to give a voice in it, then it is evident that one participates in democracy, that one at least understands what is being said. Mr. Coveliers, these are your words in the Senate last year on the easing of nationality. You rightly mislead the CVP to ease the law.

In time not suspicious.

Today you make a 180-degree curve. You do diametrically the opposite. The last little check on the integration will and the language knowledge you have given and thrown overboard. Until now, you have not given any substantial argument against me. I only take your words from the past and compare them with the text that is being voted today. Mr. Coveliers, your party has only one goal in mind, in particular to forget this shameful legislative change as soon as possible. We solemnly promise you that in the coming months until the day of the municipal council elections we will continue to point your voters to this electoral fraud and to the extradition of our country in general and of Brussels in particular to foreigners. Meanwhile, we do not forget, Mr. Van Peel, who is at the base of our country’s lax nationality legislation, which we still know. The criticism raised by the CVP today is, of course, too transparent. The CVP now stands out as the champion of the integration idea, but it is just your party that in the previous legislature made sure that the integration requirement would hardly suggest anything. In consultation with none less than your Holy Father Leman, a simplistic questionnaire was prepared in which it would be enough to occasionally listen to a European radio station to be considered integrated. According to a survey conducted by a journalist of the Financial and Economic Time, answering one of the ten questions positively was sufficient to be regarded as instigated. Your integration test, therefore, did not suggest much, it was nothing more than a shame-lap to avoid the CVP from falling on its mouth after the agreement with the FDF on the Eurostem law. Your party is responsible for the continuous easing of nationality legislation since 1984 until dual citizenship was introduced and therefore also the discrimination of our own population. To your party we owe that the number of naturalizations through the Chamber fifty-folded from 2000 per year in 1993 to 10 000 and more per year at this time and that many tens of thousands of foreigners - in 1998 there were 35 000 of whom half in Brussels - without any difficulty get the nationality granted.

Mr. Laeremans, I am very pleased that you list all these facts, because it is indeed true that we have provided for a great easing of the nationality legislation, but within boundaries that were clearly defined. These boundaries are now abandoned. But with all the previous steps that were taken, we fully agree. We initiated them ourselves. I am glad that you clearly put that in the paint. This makes it clear how far our views are separated. That was your intention and that was also my intention. We have determined this together.

This aggravates the debate. I would like to emphasize that the easing that has taken place is so severe that in the end there is only a sham of integration control left. Where you do so much mischief, you yourself have paved the way. You have given the VLD the arguments to eliminate that shame. There was hardly any control.

Is this not a world of difference? Giving the communities the opportunity to organize integration-related citizenship courses on the basis of that questionnaire is no world of difference with the present draft. That is a world of difference almost as big as the world of difference between you and myself.

As for the aspect of the parket, you are right. From four months to one month is a big difference. But for the control of integration, the difference is hardly there. I just say that the questionnaire suggested by Father Leman and so hard defended by the former Minister of Justice had little meaning and that it was enough to listen to a Belgian radio station to be considered integrated. As a result of that questionnaire, there would hardly have been any control of that integration. The questionnaire did not come because Minister Verwilghen pushed the list on the long track. There was hardly any control of integration. The difference was that there was a control. This is contrary to the VLD’s proposal. The parket would come home via the police. That is now gone. In this sense, the current bill represents a significant deterioration of the situation. You are largely responsible for what is happening today. You have paved the path that the VLD is leading today. The Belgian nationality is free in every sense of the word. Except for a short stay of only three years, no requirement is imposed. Foreigners who turn to the Chamber no longer need to even have a permanent residence permit. Since such a thing does not exist anywhere else in Europe, this is a genuine supplication to all those who wish to emigrate to Europe to do so through our country. More than ever, we will become the gateway to Europe because we have the lowest threshold. Together with the regularization policy, the generous OCMW policy for foreigners, the lax asylum policy and the family reunification legislation, this will ensure a new unstoppable immigration flow to this country. Already in Eastern Europe, through the Internet, human traffickers are making publicity for our lax nationality laws. I’m looking forward to what we’ll all read on the internet soon. This flexible legislation will also have an incentive effect on intra-European immigration movements. When thirteen new Member States will soon join the European Union, the tens of millions of inhabitants of those countries will, thanks to the naivety of the current European policy, have unlimited free movement across Europe and therefore free right of establishment, including those Eastern Europeans who are still being sent back to their countries of origin, including the Kosovars, the Romanians, the Gypsies who are standing at hundreds of thousands to drum to move to Western Europe. It is fearful that this will also apply to the Turks because they will apparently also be able to join the European Union. Tomorrow all those happy-seekers will be impossible to be returned because they have a right of residence here. It is precisely because we deal so questionably with our nationality that our country, now so flooded by the international functions of Brussels, will become more than ever the pool of attraction, the place to be. Any government that wishes to take into account the interests of its own people would, in such a situation, provide for strict accession criteria, precisely in order to avoid that its own people are under the foot and no longer rule in their own country. Not so in Belgium. Here all the brakes are released, here the signal is sent that everyone can come and stay here and determine our fate with them, without any effort needed and with the full preservation of their own identity. That is indeed the core, the central message of this bill. It is not important to adapt. Integration is no longer necessary. Everyone can maintain their own cultural identity without any problem. All cultures should be treated on the same footing and are from now on equal to ours in our country. This bill is indeed a high feast of multicultural madness. That is why this is also such a great victory for the left, and in particular for Agalev, that the cultural homogeneity of Flanders has been in the eye for so long. We can no longer demand that foreigners adapt to us. No, we must respect them in all their own cultural peculiarity, for their presence in the eyes of the green dogmatics can be nothing but an enrichment for our society. Agalev has played with open cards in this file, which we must riderly acknowledge. It is now clear to everyone that in recent years that party has shifted from a green party that put the environmental issues at the top of the agenda to a multicultural party, a foreign party to which the environmental theme has become clearly subordinated. The dossiers in which this party has recently profiled itself with Ecolo and for which it has fought are not the environmental dossiers, but the foreigners’ dossiers, in particular the easing of nationality, the large-scale regularisations, the successful resistance to forced expulsions and so on. Agalev did not even hesitate to put forward in this very delicate file a member of the Chamber who himself possesses the dual nationality and of whom it is not at all clear whether she speaks on behalf of her voters, on behalf of the people or on behalf of the Moroccan community in this country.

Mr. Laeremans, I find it embarrassing what you say there. If there is one thing that I blame certain people, that I blame a particular political party, then it is that crampiness, that attitude of fearful, white man. You are returning to an outdated eighteenth-century national property that is not open to other matters. Furthermore, you dare to refer to members of the House who, through their presence in the Parliament, make it clear that, even from a first or second generation, it is perfectly possible to participate in this society in an integrated way. If you have problems with this, it means that you are never talking about integration or an open society, but that you are actually striving for a closed society where one does not require integration from others but assimilation. That is in this world, where there is indeed a set of problems and where we indeed have to take steps forward, a dangerous attitude. Moreover, through such reasoning, you put groups of people against each other. We will continue to fight this, from conviction and from a green attitude.

Mr. Tavernier, I am pleased that you cut the topic. For us, it is no problem in itself that people who have obtained citizenship here are elected here. We find it problematic that some people have a double nationality. They also take a very ambiguous attitude. I will illustrate this better soon. In Germany, where the Greens and Socialists are in power, the legislation is also relaxed, but between 18 and 23 years of age one must make an unambiguous choice between the original nationality and the new nationality. This does not happen here. As a result, it is possible that in this hemisphere there are people with a double nationality, who speak one day for one group and the other day for the other. I am ⁇ disturbed by the fact that your chamber member continually pretends to speak on behalf of the entire Moroccan community. I wonder for whom she speaks. Does she speak on behalf of her voters or does she repeatedly take it up before the foreign lobby? Even in files related to crimes against foreigners, it per definition takes it for them. It is bound by that nationality. This summer I was ⁇ upset by your colleague’s praise statements on the death of King Hassan of Morocco. He called him a wise man. That man was a symbol of corruption! He was an advocate of human rights and democracy. Suddenly, Agalev’s basic-democratic mindset was yet another flinterdunne layer of lacquer. So I wonder for what nationality she speaks and acts. Again, we have made a fairly extensive note on nationality and integration. We are not advocating a walled society, for a completely closed Flanders. We want people who stay here to choose our society without a doubt. They are not allowed to eat from several grains at the same time. That is our position.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give you only an information. I just received a response from Minister Duquesne to a written question on the number of bipatriots in this country. It shows that in 1989 there were approximately 400 000 bipatrids. By 1 October 1999, this number had risen to almost 700 000. This means that in 10 years, 300 000 bipatrids have been added.

Colleagues, when we oppose the multicultural ideology, the ideology of Agalev and the left, the multicultural disappearance, then that is not simply. This has a reason. In fact, there are no examples of a successful multicultural society, in particular a society where different cultures coexist on the same territory, fully respecting each other. Again and again we must find that such a situation is at most temporary and that one culture will ultimately dominate and penetrate the other. This is the most favorable evolution. Very often it turns out that there is a direct conflict between the population groups and that one ends up in a weed vessel. The most recent and eloquent examples are Beirut and Sarajevo, but there are, of course, countless other examples. A sustainable, successful multicultural society does not exist: this is a dangerous illusion and wheel-turn. This is precisely why it is so important that people who really want to stay here are required to fully adapt, that they become Flame under the Flames or Waal under the Whales. When we oppose the multicultural ideology and the foreign policy of these and previous governments, it is not because we reject any foreigner at all – this was already stated in my text, Mr. Tavernier – and want to prevent his integration, but on the contrary. This is because we find that very large groups of foreigners in many places in our cities have become the majority of our population, that they are still unable to integrate into our society and that they consciously choose ghetto formation and no longer wish to integrate. When we oppose the multicultural ideology, it is because we question the implantation and inadmissibility of an intolerant religion in this country, especially Islam. This intolerance is not only attributed to a large number of followers and political leaders. This, in itself, is not a proof of intolerance. In fact, other religions, such as the Christian, have also shown themselves to be intolerant in certain periods. However, we can read that intolerance in the Qur’an itself and in the statements attributed to the great warlord and prophet Muhammad. The call to hatred and struggle against the unbelievers, to the killing of Jews and Christians, in fact, is there scourge and impact.

What about your Old Testament?

The Quran is still their sacred book, Mr. Tavernier. The fatwa about Rushdie is something of this time. This is simply the application of paragraph 489: If they turn away from you, grab them and kill them wherever you find them. In the Qur’an it is stated that whoever disbelieves must be put to death. This is applied in practice to Rushdie. These are things that are not taken out of the air. That has nothing to do with the Crusaders, for that is 800 or 900 years ago. Rushdie, however, is of this time, which is actual: that man is still alive hidden. I think you cannot disagree with me. These statements, therefore, do not come from the writings of any ayatollah, but are derived directly from the Qur’an. Colleagues, our fear of the emerging Islam in Europe is indeed not just built on loose sand, but on concrete facts: on the conclusion that once countries by the principle of majority come into Islamic hands, the equal treatment of the subjects is suspended and that a preferential treatment of the Islamic subjects and the oppression of others begins. We are afraid of this, and therefore it is so extremely important that those who want to stay here and decide with them the politics and the future of this country must demonstrate that they have integrated, made the norms and values of our Western society theirs, have given up their original nationality and have unambiguously chosen our country and our society. In Germany, a nationality choice must be made between the ages of 18 and 23. Why is this possible in Germany, where the Greens participate in power, and not with us? Colleagues, the government thinks it can solve the alien problem in a completely different way than our Eastern neighbors, namely by applying a large disappearance trick. All foreigners are given a free identity card and without any effort from their side they are bombarded to nouveau belge. We fear that the alien problem through this pathway will be driven to the forefront more than ever, and that the polarization will be stronger than ever. In this way, integration is challenged more than ever. The indigenous population will not take it at all that the Belgian nationality is throwing at the loot and given as a gift, without any compensation. Mr. Tavernier, you ask ⁇ a lot from our people and the indigenous population. They have to swallow it all, the inhabitability in the cities, the dramatic insecurity of the inner cities, the systematic ghetto formation, the persistent and systematic increase in the number of foreigners, both through family reunification – in Brussels alone there were as many as 1,800 citizens in one year time – as well as through illegal roads, the persistent increase in asylum seekers and asylum centres. Fearing ministers do not have the courage to put in place an effective repatriation policy for illegal persons. You ask a lot of people who have to tolerate all this. Now, today, comes the organ point, scattering the identity cards on everyone who raises his hand. I fear, Mr. Minister, that the great disappearance trick you want to start today will ⁇ not lead to the solution of the alien question, but on the contrary. The only thing you will have achieved is that these new Belgians will never be considered as full-fledged compatriots by many people. Even if you don’t get your statue, which I talked about later, Mr. Minister, then still you will enter history as the man who made the nationality completely meaningless and worthless. More than ever before, the Belgian identity is equal to the absolute nothing, to the total emptiness. The artificial and artificial of the Belgian state is now becoming ⁇ clear and that is then the only positive point of the whole story. The credibility of the Belgian state will only sink deeper and more and more people will turn away from this wasteland with disgust and disrespect.

I am speaking on behalf of the Ecolo-Agalev Group. I will be followed by Ms. Leen, Coenen and Talhaoui, who will also speak on behalf of this group. The draft that we discussed in the Justice Committee comes directly from the government statement and its implementation. What does this government statement clearly and explicitly say to us? The Government considers that the acquisition of Belgian citizenship is an important factor of integration in our society. In order to facilitate this integration, significant changes will be made to the Code of Belgian Citizenship, in particular regarding the procedure for acquiring Belgian citizenship by means of naturalization, which will be aligned with the current procedure for declaring citizenship. More specifically, the application for naturalization will be free of charge and it will contain the applicant’s commitment to respect the Constitution and the laws of the Belgian people as well as the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and it will express the will to integrate. The provisions of Article 15 of the Belgian Nationality Code will be revised in order to remove the questionnaire. In addition, the Royal Decree of 13 December 1995 concerning the documents to be submitted by the applicant shall be amended as follows: primo, birth certificate of the applicant or equivalent document issued by the diplomatic or consular authorities of the country of origin. In case of impossibility or serious difficulty in obtaining this act, it may be replaced by an act of notoriety referred to in Articles 71 and 72 of the Civil Code. In addition, continues the text adopted by the House in mid-July, the role of the prosecutor’s office will be redefined. Thus, the Prosecutor’s Office will decide within one month on the possible existence of serious personal facts in the head of the applicant. Only if this opinion is negative will the file be forwarded to the House of Representatives for decision. In the same spirit, the Minister of Justice will send a circular to the Prosecutor’s Office in order to combat requests for naturalizations aimed at a criminal purpose. The declaration of nationality itself will be simplified by reducing the time limit for the public prosecutor's opinion to one month and easing the age conditions. The government will submit the relevant projects to parliament immediately after the summer agreements. It will evaluate the new regulation one year after its entry into force. This is what we are discussing today in the plenary session. As for environmentalists, this text is, like many other elements of the government statement, a compromise. Is this the environmentalists? and no. In any case, this is not their priority program since for about twenty years, the Greens have been relaying a series of demands formalized by groups and associations militant for the granting of the right to vote to persons of foreign origin. In fact, we demand in our political agenda – just as we demanded in elections – that for local elections, i.e. municipal and provincial scrutiny, the right to vote and eligibility be recognized to persons of foreign origin who have legally resided in the territory for at least five years. At the end of the governmental negotiation, during which each person made his point of view, we obtained a simplification of the procedure for obtaining citizenship by declaration of citizenship or by naturalization. Why Why ? Because we see, along with others, from the echoes gathered on the ground, that many cases examined on the basis of the old legislation remain pending for many months, even many years, despite the presence in the files of objectively favorable elements. Because we believe that the interpretation of the notion of integration leads in some cases to elements of arbitrariness. Would this compromise be an unfortunate exchange or a bad alliance negotiation between partners who would not agree on the substance and who would proceed in this way to exchanges on matters that would have nothing to do with? I do not think so in the light of at least two elements. First, the interested people are potentially the same. We are therefore not concerned with the exchange of one file for another in the context of what we call, with a lot of self-dérision, a verification to the Belgian. For my part, this is a real proof that plays an important part in the bottom not only because the interested persons are potentially the same, as I have already said, but also because there is a principled agreement on the goal. What objective is this? In the claim of the right to vote or a procedure for naturalization or for the acquisition of simplified citizenship, the aim is, in particular, to promote integration and, in particular, political participation through voting. This will be achieved by the beneficiaries of the new law on citizenship, and this in wider proportions since the rights they will acquire through this legislation go beyond the only right to vote in local elections that would have been granted to them if we had triumphed on the whole line, as Greens, in this negotiation. Yes, the new Belgian has the right to vote in all elections and, in this respect, the goal is achieved. Two other elements prove the importance of this legislative evolution. First of all, I think of the right to work. Someone who becomes Belgian through this legislation obtains, as a result, a much broader right to work than that which would have been granted to him by simply voting in local elections. In addition, this new law allows its beneficiary to avoid a possible double penalty in case of criminal conviction, to avoid, beyond the penalty provided by the judge, an order to leave the territory for at least ten years and to return there only after the end of a non-automatic rehabilitation procedure. All this to say that I think that this is a real compromise that does not disregard the fundamental objectives pursued by one and another within the government coalition or outside it, even though, for us, the separation of nationality/citizenship remains a necessity that, we hope, will be realized quickly, and even if this is not merely ideological or academic considerations. So, my colleagues, what is the basis for this bill? This is to relativize somewhat a certain number of screams of orphans that I hear at this tribune in the face of a simplification, some of which obviously tend to see only alleged perverse effects instead of measuring their real and proven assets. We refer to a law of 13 April 1995, promoted by our colleague, Mr. Erdman, who already understood a significant dimension of simplification. This law centralizes requests not to the Prosecutor’s Office but to the Chamber, the Prosecutor’s Office must issue an opinion within four months, the same deadlines being required from the Office of Foreigners and the Services of the State Security. The Minister of Justice then introduces the obligation of a birth certificate issued not by the embassy or consulate of the country of origin in Belgium, but on the spot, which is an important event for the subsequent. The second legislative element of recent evolution is based on the law of 22 December 1998, which still introduces certain modalities of simplification and easing for persons of the second generation as well as for persons wishing to obtain citizenship by marrying a person of Belgian citizenship. In both cases, the questionnaire and the survey on integration will remain a reality. A number of these questions are experienced, sometimes objectively and rightly, as sometimes humiliating, with a moralizing tone or an inquisitory method. This makes it possible to measure the progress of the new legislation proposed here: a principle of presumption of integration, as soon as the person makes a proper application to benefit from the new measures; a legislation that provides and dedicates the removal of this questionnaire that can be experienced as humiliating; a legislation that eases the age conditions; a legislation that imposes strict deadlines for the processing of the file by the Prosecutor’s Office and the Office of Foreigners, whose roles in the procedure are redefined and which contains several answers, made during parliamentary debates, to some criticisms relating to the requirements of strict deadlines. I would like to come back briefly. Beyond the fact that at the time, four-month deadlines had been left to the different departments concerned, it was necessary to find that some were shooting on the elastic about compliance with these deadlines and exceeded them at the end of the course. We first found that the work requested from these services, to whom a deadline will now be imposed, is no longer fully comparable to that which was previously requested from them within the four months. Today, we recorded that only negative opinions should be ⁇ , as envisaged in the government statement. Furthermore, we have observed in a very pragmatic and concrete way that in any case, the Commission of Naturalizations of our Parliament meets only every six weeks or so, which de facto extends the deadline and still allows to incorporate and take into account opinions that would slightly exceed the time limit imposed. Obviously, the question of the means of the prosecutors and of the Office of Foreigners must be restored, even though a number of services of the administration or of the judiciary have taken the unpleasant habit, dear colleagues, for a few months, to systematically resist any form of legislative evolution, branding a priori a problem of lack of means to carry out the mission that we entrust them. This interpellation must be heard and subject to dialogue and consultation. This will ⁇ be the subject of the public service audit scheduled by that same government. This will probably also be the subject of evaluation measures which will be taken by the Supreme Council of Justice, which will soon take office. This will finally ⁇ be the subject of an assessment promised for next year and on which many of those who today see more the disadvantages of a legislation than its actual and immediate positive effects will undoubtedly re-attract our attention. This applies to strict deadlines. I would like to insist on the free procedures, which is nothing. When one knows the concrete difficulties that some beneficiaries under the old legislation had to face — a true journey of the fighter — the assessment of the costs related to the formalities to be accomplished with the administrative authorities of their country of origin, to the journey which, he, is not free, to the leave that one must take in relation to his profession and which often represents a disadvantage, to the stay on the spot, in a hotel eventually, given that some of these persons have little attachment in the cities where they are to go, all this can represent fifteen, twenty, twenty-five thousand francs of impact on the budget of the applicants. Therefore, the free of charge of the procedure is a non-negligible point, as is the exemption of administrative forms in some cases. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to leave the conclusion of this contribution to the debate to someone you will soon recognize. Elected Brusselsese of the Year not long ago, she commented on this title in the following terms: I love this prize, do not dislike the former right-wing. It is a pity that this is not Ixelloise of the year, because in the end, I have never left Ixelles, I have never left Gray Street. It is also a prize that must translate what I am. Don’t tell me about integration: I, I was born here, I’ve always lived here, and I don’t finally see what I should integrate. When I walk through the streets of Brussels, I say to myself: all this, this is my life, it is a bit of me. This person is Nabela Benaisa. She also tells us in a closing chapter of her book: Who am I? and an immigrant. I do not like this image. Stop looking at me like that. I am a Belgian, I am a Belgian. However, on my identity card, you can read in the section Moroccan citizenship. However, spontaneously, I feel Belgian. I was born here, and I do not know other places than Belgium, even though I have roots in Morocco, where my parents were born, where my grandparents were born. In the future, I would like to have dual citizenship. I am a cultural metaphor. I used to say that I was sitting between two chairs and that I found a comfortable position there. And since I like to put colors into life – listen carefully to the end of this sentence, dear colleagues of the new majority – I would gladly describe myself as a rainbow.