Proposition 52K1225

Projet de loi modifiant les lois du 9 mai 2008 accordant des naturalisations.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Stefaan Vercamer
VB Jan Mortelmans

Submission date

June 5, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

naturalisation

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD MR FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• André Frédéric (PS | SP) abstained from voting.
• Yvan Mayeur (PS | SP) abstained from voting.
• André Perpète (PS | SP) 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.

Discussion ¶

June 5, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, as I said last time, it is thanks to the puche operation of the service Naturalisations – honour who deserves honour – that the thick naturalization book of 3,336 dossiers – today it may fall again and if we continue at this pace, soon there will not be much more left – still lies in the King’s shift. Thus, we can indeed prevent further disasters through a repair law. If this is not the case, then we know that we are nowhere. The famous article 23, the declaration of expiration, does not work. It has never worked and it will not work in the future.

Without talking about the substance of this file, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to summarize some facts.

It is thanks to information from the Flemish Belang that the ball has rolled. It is your servant who has notified the Naturalizations service of a possible problem. The Naturalisations service contacted the parquet of Brussels, which, to put it gently, fell from the air. They heard it thunder in Cologne. It is the service Naturalisaties which, with additional information, then contacted the parquet of Dendermonde, which only had summary, non-recent information.

Only after a thorough investigation is the true significance of the facts revealed. In this context, I would like to refer, however, to my speech on 24 April last year, when that thick naturalization turf, which also includes the person concerned, was put to the vote. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you repeat this text. In fact, I pointed out the big problem in the case of a resettlement of a applicant of the nationality. Then it goes completely wrong. No one knows anything yet. Parquets are like chickens without a head. Therefore, it is completely wrong with the parks. There is no coordination. There is no communication. There is no central register. Purple-green and purple have made a mess out of it. It is only a question of how and in what time this can be corrected by this government. I am afraid of it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. The committee members made a judgment based on a lack of information, due to the parquets. The parties of the purple-green of the past and this government have a ⁇ great responsibility. I therefore hope that the committee members who have the heart in the right place can convince their respective party leaders that there is ⁇ much work on the shop.

There must be urgent work on a central register, efficient coordination and communication between the parquets and within the parquets. First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the Belgian Law needs to be modified quickly, and drastically. That is the essence of the case. Therefore, it should not remain with electoral promises. If we want to prevent criminals from getting citizenship from now on and that people who do not want or can speak our language or who do not want to integrate or who do not meet the basic conditions for obtaining citizenship still get citizenship, then we must address the rapid-Belggesetz immediately.

Don’t be mistaken, as colleague De Man said earlier, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The vast majority of nationality acquisitions do not happen through the Chamber, but simply through the municipal houses. Should the present file have been passed there, the person concerned, though in prison, was in the meantime running around with a Belgian identity card. In the face of the few that we are calling out here, hundreds or even thousands remained uninterrupted by the mazes of the net. This must come to an end. I have been warning about this for nine years. It is high time to work on it. You know, my colleagues, that our proposal is to be discussed in the Justice Committee.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the fact that the Flemish Belang has been allowed to sign the bill, proves our extremely important contribution to the Commission for Naturalizations and in this file in particular.

Colleagues, in connection with the bill whose general discussion we had just closed, a number of members have pointed to me problems in order to be able to deal with it today under good conditions. Therefore, I propose that the Commission for Naturalizations meet for a while, so that we can finish that bill today.

Mr. Speaker, with our poor character, we suspect that the name of Mr. Mortelmans, who signed the proposal with him, is such that the French speakers are so shaken that they now want to remove that name. We ask ourselves whether that is indeed the reason why that proposal, which was taken into consideration, has gained the high urgency and that once was unanimously approved in the committee, now yet again must go to the same committee.

Mr. De Man, there have been problems in this regard. I would like the text to be adopted today because of the importance you attach to it, just like I do. Therefore, I propose that the Committee on Naturalizations be reunited again.

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming a tradition under your presidency that a random club of French speakers that comes up a moment on the speaker’s floor decides when it is allowed to vote or not. It is, again, a bill that was approved unanimously in the Commission for Naturalizations.

On what rule in the Rules do you base yourself to suddenly send it back now?

This question is asked on the basis of Article 17, §3. I have to count if 50 members are in favour of the return.

Mr. Speaker, you are based on Article 17, §3. What is the content of the reason for the revocation? I would like to know that.

Otherwise, I am afraid that we cannot vote today. I would like to be able to vote on that proposal today.

My question is why this proposal is rejected. That’s my question, just some explanation.

The question is not about the content, the question is effectively about the form.

Mr. Speaker, for all clarity, Chairman Lavaux asked who wanted to sign the bill. I offered myself and Mr. Lavaux did not have any problem with that. He literally said that he had no problem with Jan Mortelmans signing the proposal. All the other colleagues who were present promised that. So there is no problem, we can calmly put this bill here now for vote.

...which regulation?

Article 17 paragraph 3. If you insist, then I have to make a count. I will present it later.

Mr. Speaker, on the document relating to the proposal submitted to the Naturalizations Committee just recently there were two names: my name and that of President David Lavaux. I was the main signer and nobody asked me to be able to co-sign this proposal. As the main signer, I did not give permission to anyone to co-sign.

I now ask to remove my name from this bill.

Hic et nunc is applied.

Are there any other speakers?

Let me call you for voting.

Mr. Speaker, as I do not wish to be associated with Vlaams Belang in this proposal, I wish that my name be removed.

I am removing my name from the bill.

Mr. Speaker, as well as the Chairman of the Commission for Naturalizations, having been deceived in the commission and obviously refusing to appear next to an elected Vlaams Belang on a bill, I withdraw my signature.

Mr. Speaker, I note that some colleagues have withdrawn their signature on this bill. We take records of this. I would suggest, given the new circumstances, not to postpone the vote on this proposal. Later we can then vote on this bill, which will only be submitted by the colleagues who have retained their signature.

I am sending my proposal to the committee. We will vote on the whole later.

Mr. Luykx and I have just signed the proposal.

That is sympathetic, but in fact it can no longer be.

Mr. Speaker, I was not allowed to listen to your last consideration on the two additional signatures.

That is a sympathetic proposal, but it is too late for it.

Is there anyone from Open Vld, LDD and N-VA on that list?

When I see which signatures have been withdrawn, Mr. Mortelmans and Mr. Vercamer remain on the list of applicants.