Proposition 51K1861

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 15 décembre 1980, sur l'accès au territoire, le séjour, l'établissement et l'éloignement des étrangers.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

June 15, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

foreign national marriage marriage of convenience criminal law residence permit

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Voted to reject

Ecolo FN VB

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.

Discussion ¶

Dec. 8, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, our committee examined the bill amending the law of 15 December 1980 on the access to the territory, residence, establishment and removal of foreigners during its meetings of 9 and 22 November 2005.

In his introductory speech, Mr. Patrick Dewael, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior, recalls that the government agreement explicitly provides that in general, the fight against abuse of immigration procedures, and in particular the fight against white marriages and against fraud in family reunification, must be intensified.

It is important to note that more and more marriages are contracted with the sole purpose of obtaining a residence advantage arising from the status of spouse and more to create a community of sustainable life. It is therefore essential to stop this adverse trend.

For these reasons, a number of concrete initiatives have been taken.

First, the Circular of 13 September 2005 establishes a collaboration between civil status officials and the Office of Foreigners. This collaboration must enable the civil status officer to have correct and complete information concerning foreigners who wish to marry during their illegal stay. White marriages can be avoided.

Second, a preliminary draft law under completion should allow for longer periods of control of persons who obtained a right of residence following a marriage. If there is an abuse of the institution of marriage, it must be possible to terminate, after a longer period, the right of residence acquired in an abusive manner.

In addition to these coordination and control measures, sanctions with a preventive effect should also be provided. In this context, the draft under consideration aims to explicitly sanction the conclusion of a complacent marriage.

Three different situations are distinguished.

First, the draft provides for a penalty when a marriage is concluded with the sole purpose of granting a right of residence to one of the spouses. Under this provision, both partners, i.e. both the person seeking a stay benefit and the person assisting him in this context, can be sanctioned. The penalty is imprisonment from eight days to three months or a fine.

The second hypothesis concerns the situation in which the partner legally residing in the Kingdom receives a sum of money to enter into a marriage of complacency. A white marriage is often concluded with a Belgian or foreign national established in Belgium who, by concluding this marriage, tries to acquire additional income. At present, this person does not take much risk. In the event of annulment of the marriage, the alleged partner will be obliged to leave the territory. Often, the person who has acquired a financial advantage is not punished. By providing for a separate and more severe penalty for the person who wishes to enrich himself through a complacent marriage, the draft under consideration, however, fills the gap in legislation. The penalty is imprisonment from fifteen days to one year or a fine.

Finally, the project considers the situation in which a person compels one of the partners to contract a white marriage. It should be noted that, in this hypothesis, any person who compels another to enter into marriage in order to give rise to a stay advantage in favor of one of the partners, can be punished.

The person who exercises the coercion can therefore be a foreigner who acquires a stay advantage through the complacency marriage but also a third party, for example a parent who compels his child to enter into marriage solely for the purpose of being granted a right of residence to a foreigner.

In this case, the penalty is a prison sentence of one month to two years or a fine.

Then come the introductory exhibitions of the attached proposals of law or resolution, for which I refer to my written report. by

As part of the general discussion, Ms. Corinne De Permentier demonstrates the usefulness of the proposed measures using a concrete example, and expresses satisfaction with the project under consideration. However, it demands that the text be actually executed. It also requests confirmation that the residence permit is automatically cancelled in case of cancellation of the marriage.

Ms. Nahima Lanjri would like to see confirmed that the purpose of the provisions in the draft may not be to punish the victim of a complacent marriage as well. It then proposes to bring the repression of complacency marriage in line with that provided for in the law of 10 August 2005 amending various provisions in order to strengthen the fight against human trafficking and trafficking in human beings and against the practices of sleep merchants. The penalties provided for in the bill under consideration seem so light that they could be easily taken into account in the case of complacency marriages against remuneration. The speaker also wants to limit the number of attempts to marry for complacency by providing, after a conviction of this leader, a "one-year waiting period".

by Mr. Filip Anthuenis emphasizes that, although they will only address a fraction of the irregularities, the measures in the project have a deterrent effect. Unlike the previous speaker, he considers that the proposed sanctions are, nonetheless, sufficiently severe.

by Mr. Jan Peeters ⁇ adheres to the basic philosophy of the bill under consideration, but fears it will be used to consider as suspicious all marriages in which one of the spouses is a foreigner. by

Mrs Talbia Belhouari adheres to the principle of sanctioning white marriages, if this means a marriage not celebrated, which was contracted against payment in order to obtain a residence permit for one of the parties concerned. For the interviewer, however, an arranged marriage, possibly contracted abroad, which has been celebrated cannot be considered a white marriage.

by Mr. Mohammed Boukourna advocates for the proper training of the officers who must conduct the interviews to assess the seriousness of marriage intentions. In this context, they still ask too many questions that violate privacy. by

by Mr. Patrick Dewael answers that he has no intention of punishing victims of complacency marriage through the bill under consideration. The provisions in the project apply only to the person who had not manifestly intended to engage in a lasting relationship.

The Minister specifies that after the entry into force of the proposed measures, the marriage can be cancelled in two ways. On the one hand, the civil cancellation. The residence permit obtained due to marriage is also cancelled. Unless the foreigner is also allowed to stay in Belgium for other reasons, the Office of Foreigners will always proceed to the withdrawal of the relevant residence documents. The same applies when the marriage is cancelled after the partners have divorced. On the other hand, the proposed measures will allow that the conviction, pronounced by the criminal judge and passed into force of thing judged, of a marriage whose sole purpose is to obtain a residence permit also entails the loss of that title.

Ms. Nahima Lanjri notes that the minister also wants to prevent the victims from being punished. It therefore pleads that this provision be inserted, as such, in the law in order to remove any possible doubt.

Ms. Marie Nagy said she was frightened by the harshness displayed in the context of the Crusade against possible white marriages. It draws attention to the problems facing civil status officers and stresses that the desire to flee their country in the hope of a better life is not a recent phenomenon, as evidenced by the examples of the interwar period.

The speaker then recalls that the State Council has noted that the law of 10 August 2005 amending various provisions in order to strengthen the fight against human trafficking and trafficking in human beings and against the practices of sleep merchants already criminalizes certain practices. The interviewer also considers that despite the cultural context, sometimes delicate, any forced marriage must be condemned. It follows an exchange of views between Ms Nagy and the Minister of the Interior, for which I refer to my written report.

During the vote, the various amendments of Nahima Lanjri, Katrien Schryvers and Dirk Claes were rejected. The entire draft law is adopted by thirteen votes against two and one abstention. Consequently, the joint bill becomes unobjective.

Included in the general discussion are Lanjri and Belhouari, Anthuenis and De Permentier and Nagy.

Colleagues, please keep your speech concise, so that we can later, without evening meeting, decide our work.

Mr. Speaker, please allow me to begin by thanking Mrs. Jacqueline Galant for the excellent report she has delivered and which allows me to limit my speech. Much of what I or members of my group have said is included in the report.

I would like to note that it is important that we address the abuse of hypocritical marriages. We all face this in cities and municipalities. For example, in Antwerp, if we look at the percentage of marriages that are investigated and withheld, then 8% of planned marriages appear to be hypocritical marriages. Fortunately, they can be captured in advance. Therefore, it is important to keep an eye on this. Together with colleagues from CD&V and other political parties, I have drawn up a resolution for this purpose, which will soon be discussed in the committee. This is not on the agenda today, so I will not extend it.

It is important that we address abuse, without, however, considering any marriage involving a foreigner, for example, a marriage between a Belgian and a person originating in Turkey, as a potential hypocritical marriage, and fearfully plunging everything out. Of course, abuse must be thoroughly investigated, but not every marriage is a threat, and not every marriage is a false marriage. Let that be clear.

This draft law, which was discussed, in any case provides for a punishment of fake marriages, so that sanctions can be taken against persons who enter into a marriage that is not a real marriage and only intend to transfer a partner to Belgium in order to help him or her in such a way with a residence permit. From now on, the two partners, if they are both involved, or one partner, that I want to point out very clearly, because sometimes there is only one partner involved, a three-month prison sentence or a fine up to 100 euros. If the penalty is paid, the penalty is gradually increased. Physical or psychological coercion can be punished with imprisonment up to 2 years and a fine up to 500 euros.

CD&V also submitted a bill, both in the House and in the Senate. In the Chamber, I, together with Carl Devlies and Simonne Creyf, submitted a bill. In the Senate, a proposal was already submitted by Mia De Schamphelaere. The essence of the bill we have submitted corresponds to a large extent to the piece that is currently in the process, but not entirely.

The essence we advocate is that there are criminal sanctions imposed on one or both partners and also a financial penalty to avoid this becoming an inexpensive way of divorce. The Belgian citizenship must be deprived, because often people are closed in Belgium after they have entered into a false marriage in order to avoid losing their residence permit.

Finally — especially that point is important — we have also always advocated for the automatic loss of the residence permit as soon as it is proven that there is a judgment of the judge that it is a false marriage and that the marriage is therefore declared invalid.

The government bill is in the same spirit as our bill, but there are still some major differences. I will not address all the differences, as they have already been outlined by Mrs. Galant. I would like to limit myself to three points, to which we as CD&V really attach great importance.

First, the penalties that the government sets out in this bill. The penalties are too light in my eyes. For example, an ordinary fake marriage is subject to a fine of 50 euros and even for the heaviest penalty — forced marriage or marriage involving real fraud — this penalty amounts to 500 euros. That may seem like a lot, but that is nothing if one knows that people for arranged marriages or hypocritical marriages are willing to pay a lot. The usual prices can easily go up to 20,000 euros and more. What is 500 euros if one has been willing to put even much more on the table to get a residence permit here? The punishment is too light.

The prison sentences for ordinary hypocritical marriages are limited to a maximum of six months. Because the prisons in Belgium are overcrowded, we know that prison sentences below six months are not extended anyway. Therefore, it is actually a very easy choice. One does not risk much, at least a fine, which is not so high at all, and a prison sentence almost never comes. If that imprisonment is less than six months, then one should not even spend it at all.

Another problem I have cited in connection with these penalties is that we recently adopted in this Parliament the Law on Trafficking in Human Beings, which also provides for sanctions when it comes to hypocritical marriages, of course also hypocritical marriages involving human trafficking. So the practice teaches that on the one hand we have the sanctions provided by the law on human trafficking, the law of 10 August 2005, and on the other hand this here. I said then that here is a problem because it can be that a person even risks getting two penalties, once on the basis of the law of 10 August and once on the basis of this bill. So it can. It is perfectly possible to be sanctioned twice. It depends, of course, on the judge, but it can also happen that one judge imposes a certain penalty, while another judge imposes a completely different penalty for more or less similar acts. This, of course, belongs to the judge’s assessment power, something in which we cannot intervene.

With this legislation, however, there are two different penalties, once in the law on human trafficking and once separately. That doesn’t seem to be a good idea. I think it would have been much better, either to make a unified legislation in August on hypocritic marriages, also for ordinary hypocritic marriages that do not involve human trafficking, or to integrate the hypocritic marriages that involve human trafficking in this proposal. In this way, it could be clearly stated what sanctions are on it.

However, the real sanction — because we are now talking about fines and prison sentences — remains out. The real sanction is the automatic withdrawal of the residence permit of the partner who eventually used a false marriage or even a forced marriage to come to Belgium. We do not see that. As long as there is not automatically a loss of the residence permit after one has been able to annul the marriage, one has not much to lose and therefore one will still come to Belgium.

What is the procedure now? Now it is the case that one must first say through the court that one is the victim of a false marriage. You must then consult a lawyer and initiate a procedure. This takes a very long time, sometimes it can take up to five years. In the meantime, one often finds it no longer and decides, instead of applying for the annulment of a false marriage, to take the easiest way by applying for divorce after two years of actual residence. They also often choose the easiest way. In the cases of the victims, this is of course to be understood because they naturally want to get rid of that partner because they no longer see it to have to coexist with it years in, years out of, or to have misery with it. However, if it is assumed that after several years the marriage has been cancelled, then one must wait for the appeal deadlines and inform the DVZ of the problem. The DVZ then initiates a procedure and can withdraw the residence permit. I say “can” because that’s not automatic. Furthermore, a new appeal procedure may be initiated against that procedure for the withdrawal of the residence permit. In other words, a lot of time has been won and in the meantime that partner may eventually get married again.

In theory, it may be possible to withdraw the residence permit. CD&V advocates that this always happens, even shortly and immediately after the facts, after the annulment of the marriage, and that it is also an automation. That is the most important.

We asked how many people lost their residence permit after the marriage was annulled. You had no figures on that. This can be explained by the fact that few or no people have lost their licenses. I know a lot of marriages that later turned out to be hypocritical marriages and where the partner still freely runs around. Worse, usually that partner then takes a new partner from abroad, marries them, and sometimes the whole problem starts again.

I have a third and last comment. When there is a false marriage, it is no more than logical that people who have become Belgian through that marriage are also deprived of their nationality. If the marriage was not real, the basis for obtaining Belgian citizenship is also not there. We advocate the deprivation of nationality if it is acquired through a false marriage. Otherwise it will be very easy. You come here and become Belgian as soon as possible. This can be done very quickly without any problems. Then one is also no longer returned, because a Belgian can not withdraw his residence permit. So the first step is to deprive the nationality of those who have cheated, who have abused the marriage.

These are our three main remarks. First, the penalty is too low. There is a lot of confusion with the law on human trafficking. Second, citizenship should be automatically deprived. The theory must be translated into practice. Third, citizenship should also be deprived in the case of a false marriage.

The draft law is in line with our proposal. The problem must be addressed. In this proposal we go much further. Fortunately, soon we will also have the opportunity to talk about the prevention and control part following the resolution. I keep that for later.

My conclusion is that the government’s effort is meritorious, but insufficient. However, it is a first step, an important step, and that’s why we want to approve the government’s bill. We must bear in mind that this is ⁇ not enough. The appearance deceives. It may seem sufficient, but it is not. Work should be done on the approach to hypocritical marriages.

Trafficking in human beings and human trafficking are realities experienced in Europe and Belgium. Unacceptable realities as human dramas are important and require the intervention of public authorities.

Our legislation has already equipped itself with important repressive means to combat these plagues, on the one hand, in the Criminal Code with articles 433quinquies to 433quinquies and, on the other hand, with the recent adoption, in the 1980 law on the administrative status of foreigners articles 77, 77bis to 77quinquies. These last provisions have been in force since August 2005.

Article 77bis of the Act of 1980 stipulates that “constitute the offence of trafficking in human beings, the fact of contributing, in any way whatsoever, either directly or by intermediary, to allow the entry, transit or stay of a person not a national of a Member State of the European Union, in violation of the legislation of that State, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a patrimonial advantage”.

As the State Council pointed out in its opinion on the draft law that concerns us, this provision already allows to sanction marriages of complacency monetized in order to allow the obtaining of a right of residence.

This offence is punished with imprisonment from one year to three years. This penalty is heavily heightened when the offence "was committed by using, directly or indirectly, fraudulent manoeuvres, violence, threats or any form of coercion". In this case, the law establishes the offence as a crime punishable by imprisonment from ten to fifteen years. The law concerns forced marriage.

Attempts to commit such offences are also punished.

The draft law that you propose to us, Mr. Minister, comes in overprint of the current provisions. In fact, Article 79bis in the draft will punish "anyone who concludes a marriage in the circumstances referred to in Article 146bis of the Civil Code". This offence will be punished with imprisonment from eight days to three months. The penalty will be heavier in case of monetary marriage and in case of forced marriage. Attempts to commit such crimes will also be punished.

My concern, our concern is to ensure the correct application of the legal provisions aimed at combating human trafficking. You know that some enjoy using all arguments, including those of possible confusion of legal provisions, to avoid being condemned.

I would like you to provide certainty in this area. It is clear that the new provisions, which we will vote on today, will apply without prejudice to existing legal provisions, including:

- the assurance that the repressive judge will apply the heaviest punishment when the same fact is prosecuted for several offences, i.e. those provided for in Articles 77, 77bis and the new provision of the future Article 79bis of your project;

- the assurance that in the case of "simple white marriage", the spouse "who believed in good faith" or who acted "for purely humanitarian reasons" will not be disturbed.

There are complacency marriages, forced marriages to allow persons to have a right of residence in Europe. This is human trafficking and these marriages must be repressed. Behind them, there are usually mafia chains linked to prostitution, to black work. We have long talked about this during the adoption of the Law on Trafficking and Trafficking in Human Beings. To paraphrase the words of philosopher Guy Haarscher, “We must recognize the responsibility of our rulers in the basic protection of their citizens against crime, support them in this enterprise while remaining vigilant about possible deviations.” He called it “critical vigilance.” Our support and our critical vigilance with regard to your bill, Mr. Minister, is to remind some tags. Thus, we hope that these new provisions of the future article 79bis of the 1980 Act will constitute useful elements for improving the current provisions deterring complacency marriages. I refer here to the power of civil state officers who may refuse to celebrate or suspend celebrating this type of complacent marriage. I also think of the power of the Foreign Office and our diplomatic posts to correctly and humanely apply the legal provisions on access to territory and residence.

In this regard, a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the performance of these services is necessary in order to objectivize the situation.

Finally, a repression against human trafficking through complacency marriages must be carried out in respect of the right to family reunification and the diverse cultures of our fellow citizens. It is obvious that all marriages with a foreign national are not marriages of complacency and, a fortiori, forced marriages. This is the vast majority of cases, fortunately.

Otherwise, prevention and information actions are indispensable in order to work more effectively on the causes of white marriages in which the good-faith spouse is made to have, but also in order to help young women facing forced marriages. In this regard, there is no amalgamation or stigmatisation of a community, a particular culture or a particular religion. I would like to strongly recall this before this Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I will be brief, because I am asked to do so on all sides.

You can be short. You spread your shortness show, Mr. Anthuenis.

It will probably not surprise you. The VLD group fully supports the bill. Moreover, the VLD group supports the migration policy of the Minister of Interior.

Migration policy has several aspects. One of the most important aspects today is, of course, the stricter and stricter approach to the abuses that exist in the various immigration procedures.

Colleagues, if the system of marriage is abused – in fact, it is about hypocritical marriages – to be able to stay in Belgium, of course the partner is also abused, with all consequences vandien. A number of mayors and municipal councillors are present. We are regularly confronted with a number of striking conditions.

Ms. Nagy, most of the women were held for the monkey by their partner for months in a row. Women who are integrated and have built a family suddenly have to take home their partner’s cousins and have to go back down on integration. I was therefore somewhat surprised at a number of statements by a number of ladies in the committee, who, unlike in other files, stand on the barricades of women’s rights. I am speaking, among other things, of Mrs. Nagy but also of Mrs. Belhouari. I was surprised about this. In most cases, it is about women who are the victims of the aforementioned problem.

Mr. Minister, we therefore support you in your approach to the abuses, including the abuses on the asylum issue. We are pleased that you are tightening the asylum procedure and that you are also developing a sound return policy.

We are also very pleased — we have heard very little today — about your announced measures on family and family reunification. We will still have the opportunity to discuss these measures. However, the age requirement of 21 years for reunification and the extension of the waiting period are important points for obtaining a definitive residence permit and for better verifying whether the marriage was concluded with the right intentions. In the case of ascendants, there is an obligation to support them financially. These are good measures.

Mr. De Man, the main argument of the Flemish Interest to refuse to approve the present draft was that it was too little. However, the Minister is now announcing a number of measures that will address you. I look forward to your voting behavior.

We are of course also in favour of the proposal to punish persons who enter into a false marriage or play a certain role in the conclusion of a false marriage. Mrs Lanjri, it is clear that the punishment, in addition to fines and prison sentences, must also include the withdrawal of the right of residence. There was some discussion on this in the committee. However, the Minister has stated very clearly that the DVZ, the Service for Foreign Affairs, will always proceed to the withdrawal of the residence permit. So the problem is, in my opinion, solved.

Finally, it is too little to mention that we should also consider the preventive nature of this draft law. In the future, I think, there will be much fewer hypocritical marriages in this country. Their

Mr. Speaker, the VLD group is very satisfied with the present bill. We are satisfied that, together with our group, we have also asked numerous parliamentary questions, held interpellations and submitted legislative proposals — for all clarity: together with other parties — in the interest of the many victims who are currently still a little in the cold.

Look, when we are concise, what we reap as applause!

Since I have been arrested, I would like to intervene. I was indeed very uncompromising with regard to white weddings, which were arranged as part of trafficking. However, when it comes to forced marriages, I was much more nuanced and less severe. I insisted that there are prevention and information actions to avoid traps from girls and sometimes even men. I think he said it clearly. Some men are actually trapped and must also be defended. I would like to make this clarification.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, MR Group will support this bill on the incrimination of white marriages. I have mentioned in the committee a few concrete cases and I believe that we cannot remain insensitive in the face of this real misleading of our immigration procedures. The phenomenon is gaining scale. It was time to strengthen our legal arsenal.

The Government Agreement explicitly provides that, in general, the fight against abuse of immigration procedures, in particular the fight against white marriages and fraud in the field of family reunification, must be intensified. More and more marriages are entered into for the sole purpose of obtaining a stay advantage arising from the status of spouse and not to create a sustainable community of living. It is therefore essential to stop this adverse trend.

I have taken good note of a number of concrete initiatives that have already been taken. I think in particular of the famous circular of September 13, 2005, which establishes an effective collaboration between civil status officials and the Office of Foreigners. This circle was expected. This collaboration will allow civil status officials to have concrete and comprehensive information about foreigners who wish to enter into a marriage during their illegal stay.

It is clear that we had to go further. The step taken today is, in my opinion, going in the right direction. The idea is to target clearly and strongly those who make direct profits from fake marriage and to protect those who are victims of it.

First, the draft provides for a penalty when a marriage is concluded with the sole purpose of granting a right of residence to one of the spouses. Under this provision, both partners, i.e. both the person seeking a stay benefit and the person assisting him in this context, can and must be punished. The penalty is imprisonment from eight days to three months or a fine.

The second hypothesis concerns the situation in which the partner legally residing in the Kingdom receives a sum of money to enter into a marriage of complacency. In case of cancellation of this marriage, the alleged partner will be obliged to leave our territory. Often the person who has acquired a financial advantage is not punished. By providing for a separate and more severe penalty for the person who wishes to get rich through the complacency marriage, the draft under consideration, however, fills the gap in our legislation. The punishment is imprisonment from fifteen days to one year or a fine. Finally, the project considers the situation in which a person forces one of the partners to contract a white marriage. It should be noted that, in this hypothesis, any person who compels another to enter into marriage in order to give rise to a stay advantage in favor of one of the partners, can be punished.

The person who exercises the coercion can therefore be the foreigner who acquires a stay advantage through the complacency marriage, but also a third party, for example a parent who compels his child to enter into marriage solely for the purpose of being granted a right of residence to a foreigner. In this case, the penalty is a prison sentence of one month to two years or a fine. by

In commission, you confirmed it, your intention is in no way to get to punish victims of complacency marriages. The provisions in the project apply only to the person who did not manifestly aim to engage in a lasting relationship. I was also interested in understanding whether or not the project under consideration had an effect on the withdrawal of the right of residence. I think I can be reassured by your answer, but I would still like to come back to it today. You said, and Ms. Galant summed it up, that two hypotheses must be distinguished. by

On the one hand, there is of course the civil cancellation. Since it applies with retroactive effect, this means that the residence permit obtained as a result of marriage is also cancelled. However, it should not be neglected that the foreigner could also be allowed to stay in Belgium for other reasons. by

On the other hand, the proposed measures that the conviction, pronounced by the criminal judge and passed into force of thing judged, of a marriage whose sole purpose is to obtain a residence permit, also results in the loss of this title.

I understand well the logic and the interest of the new criminal path, but I cannot prevent myself, Mr. Minister, from thinking that in practice, given the fact that the civil cancellation can sometimes take several years, there will remain a number of more or less important cases where the foreigner will nevertheless obtain what he wants, i.e. a right of residence on the basis of marriage, which is quite delicate. Certainly, the marriage and the right may be cancelled but, in expectation, a long, and sometimes very long time has passed, offering the interested party a whole list of procedures of regularization that may allow him to bypass these initiatives. In other words, I believe that it is also and above all against the time that we must fight on this type of litigation.

In this regard, another bill is being finalised. I think the latter will be able to allow for longer periods of control of persons who have obtained a right of residence following a marriage. If there is abuse of the institution of marriage, it should finally be possible to end, after a longer period, the right of residence acquired abusively. by

I also believe that the new asylum procedure, for which you have recently obtained an agreement within the government, must allow to tighten the timing of the different stages through which applicants must go. We support this logic, it interests public order that cannot be deviated by administrative inertia. It also interests the foreigner who, of course, receives a definitive decision on his status faster. by

We will be very attentive to the consequences of this case in the coming weeks.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the present bill is a result of the Federal Policy Declaration of 12 October 2004 announcing the criminalization of hypocritical marriages.

One could say that it is to be applauded that hypocritical marriages are finally addressed. For the Flemish Interest, however, the government is not going far enough. In addition, the family reunification system is not at all tortured. Minister Dewael makes no more or no less than proposing an empty box as a great achievement.

However, the case is serious enough to take strong measures. In this country, many thousands of hypocritical marriages are concluded each year. The Brussels Public Prosecutor’s Office received 1776 files last year. The number of family reunification — one should rather speak of family formations — which must take place here for the sake of the gentle social provisions, amounts to about 30,000.

The VLD has a lot to do to at least pretend that it will address this aspect of the immigration problem. Therefore, they were given permission from the PS to enter a non-dangerous number. Why do I say a dangerous number? Mr Dewael does not even agree to include in the law that whoever makes himself guilty of a false marriage immediately and automatically loses his right of residence. As in many recent years, this has gone too far for the socialist coalition partners. That is the truth. Therefore, the loss of the right of residence is not included in the text.

What is the citizen proposed? He is given a law which, in the best case, will solve only a small fraction of the problems, a law in which the punishments provided are not really deterrent — especially if one knows the large amounts accompanied by the organization of hypocritical marriages, often many thousands of euros — a law that can do nothing against hypocritical marriages entered abroad and above all — I repeat it — a law that does not stipulate that exactly what is intended by a hypocritical marriage, in this case the right to reside in this land of milk and honey, would be deprived after conviction.

The amendment on the automatic reduction of the residence permit has been explicitly rejected by the minister. He says the parks will do their job. I have my doubts. In the committee, the minister stated that the right of residence can be removed, the government can act against an immigrant ton after a false marriage and the justice can act against a new Belgian after a false marriage. The court is not explicitly obliged to do anything.

Mr. Minister, you were also able to inform us that a foreigner who attempted through a false marriage can also otherwise build up that residence permit. Their

If a leap immigrant can remain in the country for a long enough time after a false marriage by triggering the procedure, he can of course still apply for asylum in the country of Belgians. He may then invoke Article 9.3 and invoke humanitarian reasons. He or she can then state that there are family ties or other friendships here.

Colleagues of the VLD, if one does not even succeed in expelling a foreigner from the country for much worse facts, how could one do so for one who is caught after a hypocritical marriage?

Mr. Minister, I have asked you, by the way, for how many marriage fraudsters the residence permit and/or naturalization have been removed in recent years. Ladies and gentlemen, there was no response.

Finally, I note that the real patrons of the majority, the PS’ers, in the committee let know that arranged marriages ⁇ do not fall under the application of the law. For example, if a Moroccan who lives here, under family pressure and for purely socio-economic reasons, marries her cousin, then it should be possible for the PS. The Flemish Importance is not, as you know, even with this. I will give another example. If a Turk necessarily wants to marry one of his many nieces from his hometown, then he must do so in Turkey and rather enjoy his instant marriage pleasure and not here.

Those arranged marriages are therefore left untouched in the bill. In most cases, it is actually forced marriages in which the family threatens, forces, pays one of the partners. It is, of course, very difficult to demonstrate in those cases that one or even both spouses are forced to marry by circumstances, but in fact only formally marry because of the many benefits they can enjoy here. Their

Finally, it is true for the Flemish Interest that even normal import marriages cause major social problems. I am not the first to say that repeatedly re-introducing partners from Anatolia or the Rif Mountains makes the so-called integration in fact impossible, that then in fact one must start again from scratch, again and again. If I say that, I will be a racist.

So it turns out that for the new voters of the socialists no effort is too much, no effort is too much, and that, when it comes to them, the VLD ⁇ does not have to chew too much. She will approve this law, like so many others by the way, but to the outside world she will pretend to address the foreign problem.

In short, colleagues, on the basis of the whole problem — the right to family reunification or family formation — nothing is done until further order. It is completely insufficient to criminalize hypocritical marriages in theory without automatically providing for the reduction of the right of residence. The Flemish Interest will therefore vote against with conviction.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I will begin my speech by thanking our excellent colleague, Mrs. Galant, for her fairly comprehensive report.

I would also like to remind the Minister of a commitment that he did not fulfill and which, however, is included in the report. In fact, Mr. Minister, you had to transmit to the commission the text of the circular of 13 September 2005. We would be pleased if you could send us this document.

Mr. Minister, as stated in the report, my group will not support this bill. Indeed, as the State Council has pointed out, the objectives pursued are not always extremely clear. Three legislations will overlap: the 1980 law that already punishes complacent marriages, the human trafficking law that came into force only in August of this year, and the new procedure that will soon be submitted to our vote. As has been said during the speeches, the way these three legislations will be applied is not quite clear, even after the explanations and discussions in committee in the presence of the minister.

Apart from its legal aspects, the main objective of this law seems to be, once again, to give a bad image of foreigners, to criminalize them, to stigmatize them and to let believe, Mr. Anthuenis, that they are the only ones responsible for the suffering of others. In my opinion, if that is not the main purpose of this legislation, it is in any case its main result. Foreigners are again made to appear as those — and the speech of my predecessor at this tribune is proof of this — who seek only to cheat, cheat, and profit. Indeed, there are probably, among the strangers, scammers, fraudsters and profiteers. But because you have these characteristics in your legislation, you end up doing a bad service to Belgium.

The Belgian reality is multicultural! Belgium is part of a European context and cannot ignore the world in which it exists! It is a fundamental mistake to act like this!

Then I see an amalgamation of all the provisions. I know people, of my age, who came into the world because their parents, between the two wars or after the war, had someone in Belgium who welcomed them, sometimes through a marriage you now call a marriage of complacency. You should know that this type of marriage is also contracted for humanitarian reasons. There is no question of deceiving one or the other.

I totally agree that the civil state officer who discovers the thing must play his role. Nevertheless, I would like to distinguish situations and not make the amalgamation between the one who contracts a marriage of complacency for financial reasons and the one who contracts one for all other reasons, which are his own. I strongly condemn marriage against remuneration. This issue is an immense battlefield for public authority. Nevertheless, how can we distinguish between the legislation on remuneration marriages and that on human trafficking?

Mr. Minister, the Council of State has drawn your attention to this question and has also indicated that the provisions of articles 77bis, 77ter and 77quater of the law of 15 December 1980 concern the fight against human trafficking. There are situations – I will not detail them because mr. The President will not give me time — where the legislation could already be applied. I therefore do not dispute the importance of fighting against those who want to get rich in exchange for a residence permit or who organize mafia or other chains for this purpose.

The question of forced marriage is also raised.

Mr. Minister, do you realize that you are making an amalgamation between forced marriages, complacency marriages without reward and marriages against reward, or even for the purpose of trafficking in human beings? Some refuse, in principle, forced marriage — this is my case, I think that one cannot force anyone to marry against his will — but some institutions and some representatives draw attention to the fact that these issues must be addressed taking into account other elements. We must act with intelligence and respect. If you put everything in the same package, as you do, you risk going wrong way.

I conclude . We will vote against this proposal. You have heard the Vlaams Belang colleague: the hungry beast is never recovered; she finds that the project is not going far enough. You will go further and further in the repression, in the stigmatisation of foreigners! They will never be happy! They will push you more and more to go further!

There is no end to this process. You are entering into a logic of repression, of exclusion. They will never be satisfied. You will always give them reasons to continue to exist. by

This is a real warning I am making. I think so deeply.

In addition, criminalization and culpability in amalgam is not a clear notion. Confusion in legislation is not a good thing. I refer to the opinion of the State Council; it is not just my humble opinion.

These are the reasons for the categorical rejection of this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I want to help a misunderstanding from the world. I hear the preliminary speaker say that the socialist coalition partners would be troubled in the struggle against hypocrisy. Nothing is less true about our party, Mr. Minister. I think I should not convince anyone in terms of the arguments: previous speakers have sufficiently illustrated this. It is effective that a minority of which no one knows how large or small it is abuses existing marriage rights and effectively concludes hypocritical marriages. In my neighborhood I see that this is usually accompanied by gross money gain and thus a form of human trafficking for a lot of money. A second finding on the ground is that this very often leads to great social misery. It is then about dumped people who were abused in good faith and end in misery. Therefore, our group and our party fully support you, Mr. Minister, with the present draft. Their

I would like to add something that also explains why I requested to separate my proposal from the draft. I think there is still a lot that can and must be done to effectively address this difficult problem. My proposal, submitted to the Chamber, which I have addressed to you in one question, is correct to bring the control period for a false marriage from one year to three years. I have understood and appreciated that the government decided yesterday or yesterday to effectively observe a period of three years instead of one year before granting the final residence documents. Together with the two other measures decided by the government, we have a toolkit in our hands to tackle this problem efficiently. Their

You know, I’m always quite critical. I would like to conclude with a concern. This is a ⁇ delicate issue because it is a minority. I repeatedly note that whenever one speaks of hypocrisy, this is especially easily generalized or abused, also in regard to what the government and politicians want to do in it. I therefore suggest that the government would implement its rightly taken measures in addition to this draft that we support very quickly. Deciding about this seems to me much more important than communicating about it a lot. Their

Until then, Mr. Speaker, my intervention.

I thank you. Mr. De Groote, do you want to do it briefly? I ask the Deputy Prime Minister for a moment with me for the arrangement of the work. You have the word, Mr. De Groote.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we find it a good thing that this problem is addressed. We agree 100% that the criminalization of abuse of marriage is imposing. We are convinced, however, that there is still a lot of work to be done, even if the present draft law does, because in practice we find that the right to family reunification is often seriously abused.

The proposal, as an amendment to the draft law, by colleagues Lanjri, Claes and Schryvers has an eye for the victims of hypocritical marriages and brings the penalties for those who enter into a hypocritical marriage to the level of the penalties for those who engage in human trafficking and human trafficking or who engage in household milkmaking. A false marriage is also often a hidden form of human trafficking, and at home dairy farmers are sometimes established practices of helping false marriages. Thus, they are naturally assured of a permanent tenant stock.

The bill itself is not extensive enough for NV-A. Rather than addressing the phenomenon of family foundation, one looks blindly at the problem of the hypocritical marriages alone. Therefore, it is necessary to provide for an additional specific legal basis in order to take action on that other problem as well. For example, a person who legally stays here returns to his or her homeland, chooses a partner there and marries him, and then brings him here. Often after several years a divorce follows, after which everything begins again, this time with the two parties already residing in Belgium looking for a new partner, and so on.

We believe that a better monitoring of the period after the dissolution of the marriage is appropriate. It should be possible to withdraw the right of residence as soon as possible after the dissolution of the marriage so that it proves to be a false marriage. Otherwise, the risk is too high that those people will suddenly disappear in often illegal circuits.

The proposal that colleagues Lanjri, Claes and Schryvers make as an amendment to the draft law to deprive the right of residence advantage to those convicted for entering into a false marriage is therefore good, but it must be watched that that sentence comes quickly and that the deprivation of the right of residence advantage that was linked to the false marriage can also come very quickly.

NV-A also considers that the penalties provided in the present bill are too light. For us, heavier penalties are desirable. We are also in favor of increasing the resources for prevention and eviction.

Regardless of the separation of powers, one may, however, argue that there is necessity for a unambiguous interpretation of the law by the various parchets. Without this, there will otherwise be an influx of hypocritical marriages in some districts, while in other districts with stricter acting prosecutors, the whole will be stopped.

This proposal contains a number of good elements. It gives an incentive and I will therefore support it, even though I think it is not going far enough in some points.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear, first of all, that criminalizing hypocrisy is one of the instruments. This is part of a package of measures that colleague Bonte, among others, has insisted on. Of course, I remain within my competence. The first measure I have taken is to improve the communication between the creatures of the civil state and the Foreign Affairs Service. I think it is important, given the efforts that are being made in the cities to establish cells to combat hypocrisy, that one can easily communicate the expertise and science acquired in one municipality to other cities and municipalities and the Foreign Affairs Service.

Secondly, what is within my competence is the package of measures, resulting from the European Directive, in the field of family formation and family reunification. Collega De Groote insists on this, but the core made decisions about it last night. It is then about the longer control period within which the authenticity of the marriage can be verified and stricter preventive conditions, but I propose, as the committee has judged, that we conduct that debate at the moment I submit the package of measures that will all interfere with the Act of 1980. However, the criminalization of hypocrisy, the improvement of communication and the implementation of the European Directive do indeed constitute one whole.

There are aspects related to the competence of my colleague of Justice. There is an amendment by CD&V that directs to this, in particular the adaptation of the law on nationality, in the sense that when it comes to a false marriage, the nationality should automatically expire. With all respect, but this belongs to the competence of my colleague, the Minister of Justice and that must be taken into account in the Committee for Justice of the Chamber.

The government decided to amend the Civil Code. When moving, the file of the civil status official is delivered to his colleague in the other municipality. This is an automation. It is the authority of colleague Onkelinx. This has already been decided by the Council of Ministers.

As for the penalty, is it too soft or too hard? I heard several bells sound. It is a trapped system: the ordinary fictional marriage, the marriage for payment, for which money is paid — that are practices that unfortunately exist — and the forced marriage.

The penalty is in grades. I would like to tell colleague Lanjri that we have exchanged thoughts on this in a constructive way. I have referred to a number of bills submitted in the Senate by CD&V and also by the sp.a. In this case, the penalty is quite similar to what we provide in the present draft.

I know that for colleague Belhouari a problem arose in connection with the recent aggravations in connection with human trafficking and human trafficking, which are also reflected in the 1980 Act. The question is whether we are not doing the same thing twice. Can we still punish people for human trafficking and human trafficking? What if there is a collusion? I have clarified in the committee — and I want to do it again now — that Article 65 of the Criminal Code very clearly states that when there is a collusion, only the heaviest punishment is imposed. Unfortunately, however, there will be cases of hypocritical marriages where one does not effectively respond to the qualification of human trafficking and human trafficking. However, they must also be punished. It can be cases where the two coincide. If there is a collusion, then the prosecutor will also bring these two in his claim together. Then the criminal judge knows what to do in such a case. There is no conflict or competition between the two qualifications.

Who will be punished? This is also one of the things I have made clear in the committee. Of course, only the one who is at the base of the hypocritical marriage, with unfair intentions, with the intention of only obtaining a residence right advantage and not the victim can be punished.

One last point, my colleagues, seems to me to be fundamental. The man of course continues on that line. We know his intention. He does not want to hear what I said. If, in the future, a correctional judge finds that there is a false marriage and therefore pronounces a conviction, this will automatically result in the termination of the right of residence. There is indeed a connection. The penalty will be imposed and my services will automatically terminate the right of residence at that time, based on that correctional judgment.

This, of course, does not affect the civil aspects of the case. If a civil judge destroys the marriage, then, of course, that destruction also works ex tunc, and then the marriage and the rights resulting from it will be deemed never to have existed. There are therefore two aspects. First, there are the civil rights aspects. One can always demand the destruction of a marriage by civil law. This applies to the future. Now there is an instrument. If a correctional conviction intervenes, it automatically leads to the loss of the right of residence.

I think this measure is a balanced measure, Mr. Speaker, in which the government continues to implement the foreign policy that is human but wants to be correct and that is therefore aimed at effectively punishing all kinds of abuses.