Proposition 53K0443

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 15 décembre 1980 sur l'accès au territoire, le séjour, l'établissement et l'éloignement des étrangers en ce qui concerne les conditions dont est assorti le regroupement familial.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Leen Dierick, Nahima Lanjri, Jef Van den Bergh

Submission date

Oct. 22, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

foreign national family migration residence permit

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo VB

Abstained from voting

LE PS | SP

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.
• Karin Temmerman (Vooruit) 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 ¶

May 26, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, we have drafted the report of this two-part committee with my colleague Leen Dierick and if this does not bother you, I will present the first part of this report.

The debate on family reunification lasted from 23 November 2010 to 6 May 2011. In this first part, I will limit myself to presenting the general lines of the legislative proposals debated in committees and presented by the various groups. I will go until the time of the return of the State Council, with my consort Leen Dierick taking the relay.

In chronological order, the first proposal was submitted by Ms. Lanjri and her partners: it concerns family reunification for non-EU countries.

It provides as a primary theme that the foreigner must have stayed in the Kingdom for at least two years before submitting a request for family reunification, that he has evidence of stable, regular and sufficient means of subsistence, equivalent to at least 120 % of the RIS, evidence of decent housing and the path of integration as defined by the competent authority.

The second proposal was submitted by Mr. Somers and consorts: it concerns family reunification of third countries.

In summary, it provides for the abolition of the exception reducing the nuptial age to 18 years to restore it to 21 years in order to fight forced and/or arranged marriages, to impose a minimum waiting period of two years, to require proof of sufficient income, that is, financial resources corresponding to the minimum guaranteed monthly income as defined by the National Labour Council, proof of decent housing and proof by the foreigner that he has the will to integrate into the Belgian society.

The third bill filed is that of Mrs Lanjri et consorts: it concerns family reunification for Belgian nationals.

It tends to subject Belgians seeking family reunification to the same conditions as non-European foreigners, i.e. income at 120 % of the RIS, decent housing and the integration path as provided by the competent authority.

The fourth proposal was submitted by Ms. Temmerman and colleagues: it aims to remove the effects of legal cohabitation on the right of residence.

The proposal provides that family reunification will be based on marriage, excluding legal cohabitation.

The fifth law proposal is that of Mr. Francken et consorts: it is intended to align the conditions of family reunification of Belgians with those of third-country nationals.

It also provides that the minimum age for spouses will be set at 21 years, with the abolition of exceptions reducing the marriage age to 18 years for the Belgian and third-country nationals. It provides a legal definition of cohabitation as a stable and lasting relationship. It requires proof of stable, regular and sufficient income, which must at least correspond to the level of resources below which social assistance can be granted; proof of decent housing; the path of integration in the language of the Region. It envisages combating complacency cohabitations, harsher sanctions for complacency marriages and the exception for family members of a recognised refugee.

The sixth bill, which is the one I submitted with Mrs. Delacroix-Rolin and Mr. George, takes the text of a preliminary bill as prepared by the Minister in charge of Migration and Asylum Policy and by the Secretary of State for Migration and Asylum Policy, in consultation with the Office of Foreigners. It aims to prevent abuses and to uniformise provisions on domestic violence.

This proposal introduces changes in the proof of sufficient, stable and regular resources that must correspond to the level of resources below which social assistance can be granted, cohabitation and the legal definition of the concept of stable and lasting relationship for European citizens with a third-country national. From now on, a three-year guardianship commitment must be made by the grouping party with respect to the Belgian State and the CPAS. The proposal also provides for the need to have decent housing, the end of the automatic issuance of the registration certificate when the application for family reunification is made on the basis of legal cohabitation with an admissibility examination by the Foreign Office within three months, and an exception for refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection.

The seventh draft law submitted by Mr. Madrane et consorts partially retrieves the pre-project text that has just been mentioned and which had been prepared within the government, insofar as it does not provide for an income condition.

The eighth draft law submitted by Mr. Ducarme et consorts relates to the conditions for nationals of non-member countries of the European Union. It provides for a two-year waiting period before the application for family reunification is submitted, a three-year declaration of support, proof of stable, regular and sufficient resources that must at least correspond to the minimum amount of the allowance granted to job seekers with a dependent family. The pooler must have worked in Belgium for at least eighteen months in an uninterrupted manner during a three-year period preceding the application. The proposal also provides for the follow-up of training to prepare for integration with knowledge of one of the national languages.

The ninth and final proposal was submitted by Mr. Annemans and consorts. Since this proposal has not been the subject of an introductory exhibition by its authors in committee, I allow myself, Mr. Speaker, Dear colleagues, to refer to the text of the proposal of law, which is, of course, at your disposal.

At the meeting of 30 November 2010, the commission decided to take the proposal of law 443/001 of Mrs Lanjri et consorts amending the law of 15 December 1980 on the access to the territory, residence, establishment, removal of foreigners as regards the conditions of family reunification of nationals of non-member countries of the European Union as a basic text.

At least 204 amendments were submitted to the committee. There have been many debates. You will allow me here not to resume all the discussions. My colleague, Ms. Dierick, will soon specify the positions expressed by the various members during the committee debates, the report being of course available to everyone.

At the meeting of 23 February 2011, a comprehensive amendment No. 147 was deposited by N-VA, CD&V, Open Vld and MR. This is the document 443/14.

This text provides for the alignment of Belgians with third-country nationals as well as a waiting period of twelve months with an exception in cases of marital bond, pre-existing partnership or minor child in common. The processing period is extended from nine months to six months with the possibility of extending it twice three months due to the complexity of the file or if there is a suspicion of marriage or cohabitation of complacency. The processing period may not exceed six months for the grouping party who is a citizen of the European Union.

This text also provides for the legal definition of the concept of a stable and lasting relationship with a commitment to take care for three years. The proposal removes the integration pathway and reinserts the criterion of stable, regular and sufficient income, i.e. a minimum of 120 % of the integration income (RIS). For the calculation of income, RIS, family allowances, wait allowances, transition allowances and financial assistance are not taken into account. Unemployment benefits will only be taken into account if the grouping party provides evidence that it is actively seeking employment.

Proof of sufficient housing must be provided, as defined and attested by the competent authority. An exception is provided for family members of a recognised refugee or a subsidiary protection beneficiary, provided that the application for family reunification is submitted in the year of obtaining the status.

It also provides for a follow-up control of compliance with the conditions leading to family reunification for three years. A residence can not be withdrawn when there is evidence of domestic violence. When deciding to withdraw the stay, consideration shall be given to the nature and strength of the family ties of the person concerned, the duration of his stay in the Kingdom and the family, cultural or social ties in the country of origin.

The application for family reunification must, in principle, be submitted to the Belgian diplomatic post or consular post abroad. Exception is made if the person is in Belgium on the basis of a visa of up to three months for marriage or partnership.

Finally, this text proposal, in overall amendment 147, also includes the end of the automatic issuance of the registration certificate when the application for family reunification is made on the basis of legal cohabitation. The examination of admissibility by the Office of Foreigners shall be carried out within five months.

At the committee of 7 March 2011, it was unanimously decided to seek the opinion of the Legislative Section of the State Council on this amendment 147 (document 443/14) as well as on sub-amendments 149 to 156, amendments of the CDH so that Belgians can enjoy equal treatment with European citizens, and sub-amendments 153 to 156 of the PS which remove the provisions relating to the extension of the criteria for non-Europeans to Belgians.

The opinion was issued by the Council of State on 4 April 2011. I will repeat the five points.

The first criticism of the State Council concerns family reunification with a Belgian as the conditions do not ensure the Belgians the same rights as other citizens of the European Union. These conditions are not in accordance with Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, or with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in particular the judgment in Zambrano of 8 March 2011.

The second criticism of the Council of State concerns the criterion of the lasting and stable relationship which is not in accordance with Article 7 of European Directive 2003/86 and the Chakroun judgment of the Court of Justice.

The third criticism of the State Council concerns the criterion of stable, regular and sufficient means of subsistence which is not in accordance with the Chakroun judgment of the Court of Justice and Articles 7 and 17 of the European Directive.

The fourth criticism of the State Council concerns the criterion of decent housing. It is contrary to the division of powers that the federal authority may impose such obligations on federated entities.

Finally, the fifth criticism of the State Council concerns the situation of recognised refugees and subsidiary protection beneficiaries. Some provisions are contrary to Article 12 of European Directive 2003/86 and are, besides, identical to measures that had been repealed by the Constitutional Court in 2008.

Apart from the opinion of the State Council, that of the Office of Foreigners was requested twice during these committee meetings. Allow me to collectively thank the Office for the remarks it made and which were ⁇ informative.

I would also like to thank, Mr. Speaker, the services of the Commission. Not only did they prepare an excellent report, but they also made comparative tables that helped us well in our task.

I have finished reading the first part of the report. I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fonck explained the various bills, as well as the content of the State Council opinion. I will report on the different views of the political groups on the amendment and on the opinion of the State Council.

Following the discussion of the various points proposed in the various amendments, amending the present bill, a comprehensive amendment no. 147 submitted by N-VA, CD&V, Open Vld and MR. The amendment proposes a set of amendments that have been the subject of the discussions held so far. The various subjects of the amendment no. 147 lighted up its power line.

According to Mr Francken, the amendment assumes the equalization of Belgian nationals with non-EU nationals and it will now be impossible to submit an application from the municipality for foreigners staying here with a tourist visa.

Mrs Lanjri points out for her group the mandatory waiting period of up to twelve months prior to family reunification by foreigners. However, this obligation expires if the family bond already existed before the arrival of the foreigner in our country. In addition, the speaker also points out the requirement of sufficient regular and stable income, which must be demonstrated by the family reunifier. This should prevent family members from being burdened by the government. As an income requirement, 120 % of the living wage is predetermined and the nature of the income is also limited. Income from an OCMW benefit cannot be taken into account, nor as unemployment benefits, if it proves that the foreigner is not actively seeking employment.

In addition, the amendment also introduces a legal regulation for cohabitants, which should counter abuse in the context of the false cohabitation. The period during which the services can audit the required criteria for family reunification shall also be extended to three years for all criteria.

Finally, Ms. Lanjri also points out the housing requirement. For this, reference is made to the conditions set by the regions. The competences of the regions are taken into account.

Mr Somers explains in the following why his group supported this amendment. First, the income requirement ensures that people can live a decent life in our country without falling under the burden of the government. Secondly, the housing condition provides protection against domestic dairy. Furthermore, the minimum age requirement also provides protection against marriage. The speaker also points out the equality between Belgians and non-EU nationals, which means a significant extension of the law.

Mr Somers emphasizes the emancipatory aspect of the proposed measures.

For the MR group, Mr Ducarme points out the realistic starting point of the amendment, as well as the social concern and humanism resulting from it. He thus sees the income requirement as a prerequisite for integration and emancipation, and the equality between Belgians and foreigners follows a European trend. The speaker also points at this point to the opinion of the State Council which had yet to be obtained on the subject, and to the judgment of the European Court of Justice in a similar case.

Ms Fonck cannot find herself in the procedure under which amendment n. 147 has been completed. She says that her group also agrees with the basic idea of the proposed text, such as the income and housing conditions and the measures against false cohabitation. More important for her, however, is that the law must be applicable and in accordance with federal powers and EU law. Thus, according to the speaker, the inequal treatment of Belgians with EU nationals can be ⁇ problematic. Furthermore, the inequality of treatment could easily be bypassed by establishing different routes within the European context. Furthermore, it is clear to Ms. Fonck that the amendment creates legal problems and therefore must ⁇ be forwarded to the State Council for advice. The speaker also submits amendments to remove the equality between Belgians and non-EU nationals from the text.

Mr Madrane regrets the attitude of the MR Group towards this amendment. According to the speaker of the PS, the present text does not provide for a realistic humanist policy at all. The unequal treatment of Belgians is impossible for him and the speaker does not understand at all why the requirement for citizenship has come to disappear. This element is exactly a point of emancipation for the family reunificators.

Mr De Man also has doubts about the amendment. According to the speaker of the Flemish Interest, it should be impossible for every unemployed person to exercise the right to family reunification. In addition, he also proposes to seek the opinion of the Council of State on this text and to wait for the judgment of the European Court of Justice.

Mrs. Genot cannot find herself in the inequality of treatment between Belgians and EU citizens. According to the speaker, the removal of the integration requirement is also a missed opportunity.

According to Mr Francken, the inequal treatment of Belgians is not an argument against the amendment. The practice in the Netherlands shows that this is indeed possible within Europe.

Mrs Lanjri regrets the attitude of some parties to the amendment. According to the speaker, a choice must be made at a certain moment and that cannot be miles away from the original proposals. The present text constitutes this compromise, but must be submitted to the State Council for advice.

This question is unanimously adopted by the committee. The Amendment No. 147 will be considered as the basis of the discussion.

The committee then adopts the opinion of the State Council on the amendment.

According to Mr Francken, it is clear that Belgian nationals may be subject to conditions that differ from those of EU citizens. This is clearly demonstrated by the case-law of the European Court of Justice and the practice that has been common for years, for example in the Netherlands. In addition, the speaker also points out the deviating provisions already included in the Foreigners Act. The response provided for in the new amendment must therefore respond to the comments of the State Council and aims to ⁇ maximum equality between EU citizens. In addition, the group of Belgian nationals is an important part of the whole family reunification process and Mr Francken’s group is working on a resolution on the bilateral agreements.

Mrs Lanjri points out the observations made by the State Council and states that the proposed amendment should address those observations. Furthermore, it is also pleased to note that the Council of State has not made any comments on certain elements of the proposal and that those elements are also an important step forward. These include the composition of income requirements, the abbreviation of the procedure and the protection against domestic violence. The speaker points out that this has always been the intention of the proposers of the amendment n. 147 to take into account all elements in the family reunification file. Following the observations of the Council of State, the applicants therefore decided to include this explicitly in the law in Article 10ter, § 2.

Ms Fonck disagrees with the reading of the State Council opinion and the interpretation of the judgment-Zambrano that the applicants give it. It is clear to the speaker that Belgian nationals should indeed be able to enjoy the same rights as those guaranteed to EU nationals. Also the income requirement should be adjusted to the judgment-Chakroun. According to her, this is not the case now. Also, the premeditated assumption of cohabitation and the possibility to bear repatriation costs are contrary to international provisions. The proposed housing amendment is also negatively assessed by the State Council. Ms Fonck should therefore submit several amendments in order to respond to those observations.

Mr Somers reiterates his position on the protective reflex set out in the proposal. It also focuses on the housing conditions. From now on, according to the opinion of the State Council, it will be regulated within the federal law itself by reference to the rental legislation. Finally, Mr Somers argues that he has no understanding for those who choose to not offer Belgian nationals the protection that the legislature is allowed to give them. The proposal also aims to protect Belgian nationals from exploitation by house milkers, from marriage and from an unworthy existence due to insufficient livelihoods.

Mr Madrane also appeals against the observations adopted by the State Council in amendment n. and 147. Furthermore, he continues to be surprised by the fact that the integration requirement is not included in family reunification.

Mr Louis can fully find himself in the objective of the proposed amendment. For this speaker, however, the changes to be made following the opinion of the Council of State cannot affect the initial objective of the proposal.

Ms. Temmerman repeats that her group has always been in favor of stricter conditions for family reunification. However, she also considers the absence of the integration condition a missed opportunity. However, the speaker does not find that it justifies the different treatment between Belgians and EU nationals. It therefore submits several amendments for amendment.

Mr. Ducarme states that it is up to the participatory governments to provide for the citizenship path, just as it is already happening in Flanders. For the speaker, it is clear that the income requirement remains.

The clarification provided by the applicants now meets the comments of the State Council. In addition, during the entire legislative amendment, the persons receiving subsidiary protection will be equalised with the recognised refugees.

As regards repatriation costs, the amendment provides that one can still be held liable if the partnership ceases to exist or if there is fraud.

According to Ms. Brems, the State Council does not endorse the initiative adopted by amendment n. 147 is presented. The speaker argues that all the proposals included in it are entirely contrary to the international regulation on the subject, which is precisely aimed at promoting and not hindering family reunification, which is ultimately the starting point of the present text.

The Secretary of State states in his speech that the proposed amendments to amendment no. 147 not responding to the comments of the State Council. In addition, they are ⁇ difficult to apply in practice for the administration.

Several presenters of the main mandate refute the criticism of the Secretary of State. The proposed sub-amendment should exactly respond to the comments of the State Council, just as the government adjusts the text of a preliminary draft after the State Council’s opinion, or argues why its view is different from that of the State Council.

In addition, other amendments are proposed, which also respond to the comments of the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State acknowledges that the proposed amendments still meet his comments, but that he personally cannot accept that Belgians are treated differently than other EU nationals.

He is assisted by Ms. Fonck.

At the voting in the committee, the proposed articles are then adopted with the amendment proposed by a sub-amendment by Ms Lanjri. All other amendments are rejected.

At Article 15, Ms. Temmerman submits an amendment providing for an interpretative article to the various bilateral agreements concluded in the past with various countries within the framework of employment agreements. Ms Temmerman clarifies that her amendment provides for the interpretation already established by the jurisprudence of the State Council and the Council for Foreign Disputes. It is therefore in no way a limitation of an international agreement, but merely a strict interpretation of it. Mr Somers argues that it is up to the court to determine whether this law respects the principles of the international treaty. Ms Temmerman clarifies that her proposal aims only to avoid the unequal application of the bilateral agreements. The added article only provides guidelines on how the courts should interpret the application of the bilateral agreements. The amendment is adopted by voting.

The entire amended bill is finally adopted with 12 votes for, 2 votes against and 2 abstentions.

The floor is yielded to Mr Francken.

The second speaker will be Mr. The Madrane.

Dear colleagues, today is a historic day. The proposal presented today is the fruit of four years of intense labor, of drawing and trailing, arguing and persuading. I remember it as the day of yesterday that in 2007 as a young N-VA’er, together with colleague Nahima Lanjri on behalf of the Flemish cartel in Hertoginnedal, I was at the government negotiations, in a hall with the French speakers, for the negotiations around family reunification. At that time, the water was too deep. This file was blocked for years.

In the thirty years that the Foreigners Act existed, it was systematically disguised and exhausted, resulting in a nefaste “laissez faire, laissez passer” mentality. It took four years but we finally landed. A compromise has been reached around the main channel of migration to this country, family reunification. What is now ahead can be called a true trend break without blossoms or blossoms. For the first time, a large-scale effort is being done. For the first time, our country takes steps to reconnect with the legislation of our neighbors and especially the Netherlands.

What many field workers have known for a long time is now also recognized by national politics. Establishing certain conditions for family reunification is a social necessity. Too often newcomers end up in extreme poverty. Unarmed, they end up in an increasingly demanding labour market. These newcomers, often girls of just eighteen, end up in an environment that does not give them the opportunities needed to emancipate themselves. They often end up in structural poverty. The emergency calls that reach us from the social sector, both from field workers and from OCMW chairs, such as the Antwerp OCMW chairwoman Monica De Coninck, are confirmed by migration statistics and scientific research. Recent figures from Eurostat show that 48% of migration to Belgium is family-related. Half of our migrants come to Belgium through family reunification.

Only 21% come with an active migration motivation, which is to work or study. This percentage is nowhere lower.

Of this large group of family migrants, more than 40 000 migrants per year, many are unfortunately in poverty and unemployment. As you know, Belgium scores very poorly compared to abroad in terms of the employment rate of newcomers. Of family reunificators from outside the European Union, only 40 % are at work. In Germany this percentage is 65%.

Nobody benefits from importing poverty. Our society has no benefit from it, but ⁇ not the newcomer himself.

I repeat that our proposal is motivated by a social necessity. I am therefore very pleased that progressive and realistic members of the SP and the PS realize and realize that the proposal is crucial to put an end to the rising poverty in the major cities.

The guarantee of opportunities for the newcomer is the guideline of the present proposal. We have addressed such a guarantee in various ways. I will put them up for you.

First, we introduce an age requirement of 21 years. With such a requirement, we try to avoid people making unconscious choices. People aged 21 have just that little more maturity to decide. They are also often better educated than 18-year-olds.

Research from the Flemish government shows that 70% of Turkish and Moroccan girls from the Limburg mining communities marry someone from the country of origin of their parents or grandparents. However, 50% admit in discrete interviews that they would rather marry someone from here. The family pressure is enormous. Marriage is still a scourge in certain migration groups.

Do not mistake. The taboo of a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim is as big as the taboo of a Western Christian to marry a Muslim or Muslim. You know half the world.

Second, there is a housing requirement. This intervention is crucial, social and obvious. If a person from abroad is transferred, it must be guaranteed that the person concerned can be accommodated properly. A closing housing will prevent newcomers from falling into humiliating conditions.

Third, there is an income requirement. For the N-VA, it is obvious that someone guarantees that he can maintain his partner. It can and should not be the intention of people to let newcomers happen, but to rely on the OCMW for their maintenance.

Colleagues, in order to be successful and actually reach the trend break, the proposal needs to be as broad as possible. By far the largest group involved in family reunification is the group of the Belgians. Seventy percent of all family reunions to Belgium are family reunions with Belgians. Without the Belgians, this law is an empty box and that’s just what we don’t want.

Dear colleagues, in front of you stands a proud Chamber Member. I am glad that I was able to move a stone in the river. I am pleased that the intense work has rewarded. I am proud that I have been able to provide conditions that are social, emancipating, and ensure that newcomers can appear armed at the start, that they are ready and that migration can become a success story for themselves and also for our society.

Finally, I would like to express my thanks to all the colleagues who have put their shoulders under this project. I thank colleague Somers for his clear vision and commitment, also for the experience he has thrown into the scale from his Mayorhood in Mechelen at crucial moments. I would like to thank colleague Lanjri who, with her dedication, workforce and genuine social concern, has a very large share in this success. I would like to thank my colleagues Ducarme and Galant in particular. They have realized that reinforcing family reunification, changing migration patterns and interfering with the migration flows in this country is not a community issue, but a social necessity. They have dared to break through the paralysis as the first French-speaking party, to leave the taboo behind and to cooperate with us for the sake of the common good. Let us hope that this trend break is the beginning of a beautiful story.

I will begin my speech with two solemn questions.

Should Belgian citizenship now become a sub-nationality of European citizenship?

Can our country request to follow an integration path for foreigners who are allowed to settle in our country?

These are two solemn but extremely simple questions.

Can a Belgian citizen enjoy fewer rights than a European citizen residing in Belgium? Is it a disadvantage to be a Belgian in your own country? Is it to be able to continue to prophesy simplistic slogans such as "Integration is a failure" that we must go so far as not to set up a real path of integration to allow foreigners to live better together in our country?

In short, can one denounce a situation and do everything so that it does not change?

For the Socialist Group, the answer to these two questions is very simple. No to No! No to No! The Belgian citizen cannot have less rights than a European resident in our country. Yes, dear colleagues, it is necessary to make mandatory the path of integration that will not only help the person who settles in our home, but above all will promote social cohesion.

I cannot imagine that in this Assembly, this noble Assembly, you did not provide the same answer as my group to these two questions.

I cannot imagine that a majority of this Assembly rejects Belgian citizenship because it is citizenship in our nation-state: it is na-tio-na-li-té!

I cannot imagine that a majority of this Parliament itself establishes sub-rights for its own nationals.

Just as I cannot imagine that a majority of this Parliament refuses to encourage the integration of foreigners who settle in our country, who come to join their families. When I’m talking about family, I’m not talking about cousin, cousin, aunt or uncle.

My group has submitted two amendments to provide a simple answer to these simple questions. So I solemnly ask you to join us and support our amendments.

When we voted in the committee on the text we are examining today, we explained and expressed our point of view well. Yes, yes and yes, we support 90% of the text because we want to fight against abuses that undermine the right to family reunification. Yes, we want to fight against white marriage chains and we have demonstrated this by our presence in the committee. Those who worked there know it, we demonstrated it in the working group and at the last meeting of the committee. Let us fight against abuse!

But we had expressed an abstinence to lament this senseless discrimination, this surreal discrimination to lament the absence of integration pathways. Today, you can join us and adopt our amendments. The goal will be achieved.

Together we will fight against abuse, together we will strengthen controls and together we will facilitate integration.

Do it, dear colleagues, simply by adopting our amendments: thus, we will not have broken the value of the Belgian nationality and we will not have created ourselves a new discrimination that will strike our nationals!

For months and months the debate around family reunification has been ongoing in this parliament, a debate that is part of a transposition of a European directive that our country must act.

Mr. Speaker, we have been working together for five months on a law on family reunification, a crucial topic. I have always seen in the PS a lot of openness and a very constructive attitude in relation to the theme, a very important topic for the PS electorate. I am aware of this.

Mr Mandrane, you are asking two questions to the political groups that will vote for today. Your first question concerns the discrimination between Belgians and EU citizens and the second question concerns integration.

I would like to answer this question; it will ⁇ be discussed in the debate later. I also want to ask you two questions. First, what did you approve in the committee three weeks ago? If I am not mistaken, the MP voted in favour. I wonder what has happened since then.

Second, why has the PS for years done nothing to the fact that in Article 40ter of the Foreigners Act the Belgians are now treated stricter than the other Europeans? The Foreigners Act was approved by the PS. She has been part of the governing board in this country for forty years, so the PS will ⁇ have supported it.

Currently, according to the Foreigners Act, a Belgian who wishes to have the parents or grandparents of the foreign partner transferred must meet income conditions. A Frenchman who lives in Belgium and who wants to have his parents or grandparents suffer, does not have to meet the income requirement. The Belgian is now being treated stricter.

So I have two very clear questions. Mr. Mandrane, what did you approve three weeks ago or may you suffer from amnesia? So why has the PS in the past apparently not incorporated that great principle, which we all support – and I also look at CDH’s colleagues – in the Foreigners Act? Was that big principle less important then? Why did they vote to treat the Belgians stricter than the Europeans? This is not clear to me.

I would like to agree with you, but I will try to remain positive.

Colleague Madrane, I am pleased to note that you have now become the great advocate of language lessons and citizenship. You think they need to come and that it is a pity that it is no longer in the bill.

It was originally in my bill, but it has been removed. I have said very clearly that Flanders, fortunately, did not wait for a federal law to implement it. This does not require a federal law.

Colleague Madrane, I am pleased that you finally find it important that those who want to come to our country must immigrate, but you are mistaken about parliament. You are in favour of citizenship, but our Parliament cannot take care of it. This is one of the powers of the Wallish Parliament, in terms of education. You must realize that there, advocate it, and then we can talk about it in a few years.

The Federation of Wallonia-Bruxelles.

Attention, Mr. Jambon: We cannot use the term. You said you did not recognize him. I am sorry.

Mr. Speaker, I understood from the Prime Minister that it should be used as a second name.

I will not answer the question which is a question, since I ask questions and you answer me with questions. The target is not there and the disk is scratched. We worked together enough for eight months. All these arguments, you know them and I know them. We listen to each other until the end. I don’t want to answer questions with questions.

For months and months, those who were in the working group knew it, those who were not there will be able to read the reports: we worked a lot. All these arguments, we know them, we sent them to the figure for weeks.

For months this debate around family reunification has taken place within this Parliament, in the working groups. This debate is part of the transposition of a European directive that our country must act, this is a reality. Each political group submitted legislative proposals, amendments. There have been long and lively discussions, intense negotiations and we still see it: it still does not make consensus.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, this is no secret to anyone: this topic is important for every political group in this Assembly but probably not for the same reasons. I would like to remind those who have forgotten that family reunification is a right. “Everyone’s right to respect for their family life is a fundamental right guaranteed by international conventions such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the European Convention on Human Rights.” We will always firmly defend fundamental rights such as the right to live in a family.

Let’s be clear: we will fight equally strongly against abuse and chains. Family reunification is one of the only legal possibilities for immigration in our country. Abuse has been observed through the existence of white marriage chains. For the PS, it has always been important to act against abuses and chains, without angelism and without diabolization. We have always strongly condemned all forms of abuse and chains. We have always been determined to make them disappear and I repeat it here solemnly.

If I had to summarize the position of my group, Mr. Speaker, I can reaffirm that we have always been supporters of a firm, fair, human and responsible immigration policy. The Socialist Group has always been constructive in this debate, always in the constant search for a balanced solution, a solution that should, in our opinion, gather the greatest consensus. That is why we immediately called for the creation of a working group gathering all democratic formations in order to produce a very broad majority.

That was the wish we made. You will remember it, Mr. Francken. This working group has met several times and for months to try to reach a compromise. The text that is proposed to us today reflects, on the other hand, in large part the work carried out by this working group as well as many of the comments that we had formulated and highlighted during the discussions.

We can be pleased today that the text proposed to us and with which we agree 90 percent tries to improve the fight against abuse and chains, in particular through the requirement of a regular and sufficient stable income, as provided for in the Directive, the obligation to possess a decent housing in order to accommodate his family, as provided for in the Directive, the obligation to submit the application from the embassy and the requirement of a previous residence permit of 12 months, with an extension of one year of the duration of the control of cohabitation after the issuance of the residence permit. This is the case with the abuse, the chains!

With regard to the more human, more social dimension of the text, we can also welcome that protection is provided for victims of domestic or domestic violence. Thus, if the cohabitation ends for reasons of violence, the victim does not lose its residence permit.

Within parentheses, I would like to pay tribute to my colleague, Linda Musin, who submitted the same proposal during the previous legislature.

Then, the social, socio-economic and family situation of the person is taken into account before expelling him for disturbance of public order and security. I would like to remind you of the general rule: the preservation of family unity.

Now that we have addressed the positive aspects, Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight the two major problems, the two fundamental problems of this proposal that threaten to make him miss his goal. These problems concern, on the one hand, the absence of integration pathways – I should rather speak of the abolition of the integration pathway – but also the intolerable discrimination stated in this text between EU citizens and Belgian citizens.

Regarding the path of integration, my group regrets infinitely that it is not or more integrated in this text.

by Mr. Francken wishes to take the floor, Mr Madrane.

I did not interrupt my colleague. If at every speech he interrupts me, I will not be able to go to the end of my reasoning! We did not want to interrupt it, because we believe that speakers should be allowed to continue their reasoning.

Mr. Madrane, you are apparently not interested in answering my questions, but you have been fulminating against this legislation for a quarter of an hour. Three weeks ago, your group voted for three times. You have abstained yourself. I find this very bizarre. You do not want to answer the question of why you are now so struggling with the legislation.

I personally think the PS Federation of Brussels has flooded you back. I think the Onkelinxes, the Moureaux, the Lalieux and the Mayeurs have floated you back. I think that is the reason. He is the Vice-President of the Brussels PS Federation.

I deeply regret it, because for me it is a nice test case for how it will deal with migration in the coming years. You have always been very open. I see a certain degree of openness on the subject. You are from Brussels. You know the problem very well. In my view, you are a PS of the next generation. You know what needs to be done. You also voted for. I know that you are the driving force and are trying to get the proposals approved in the group. It has not succeeded now. I regret that the PS, the old PS of Onkelinx and Moureaux, has thwarted that and that apparently you will now finally not vote for this bill. I deeply regret that. I think that is the answer to your question.

Colleagues, I suggest that everyone can make their statements and that we carry out the discussion afterwards, because otherwise things will now be completely confused. In Parliament, texts can always be changed. You can always be prepared to come up with proposals. So I suggest listening to each other first so that everyone has the opportunity to give their presentation and then start the discussion.

I think this is an excellent proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I will not offend the colleagues of the N-VA to say that we are witnessing a “race to the squalot” with the members of the extreme right who are the pom-pom girls of Vlaams Belang!

Take care of your party. I think that would be better right now.

I ask you to let me go to the end of my development and listen to my arguments. Then, if you wish, we can talk.

That being said, we deeply regret the fact that the issue of the integration path is no longer included in the text.

Indeed, we believe that it is essential that the newcomer can follow, where he wishes, an integration path so that he can be welcomed in the best conditions, be accompanied during his installation and, ultimately, be integrated into the host society, and build his life project through, in particular, a good knowledge of the language and the place where he is called to live. As stated in the working groups, these elements are essential. There is no need to discuss this issue again, it has already been discussed enough.

Still it is that by no longer incorporating this aspect, the text goes by side with one of the main objectives, namely the integration of first arrivals. The text submitted to you does not provide for one, not two, not three, but four levels of discrimination.

The first is the minimum amount equivalent to 120% of the integration income for Belgians, while it is only 100% for Europeans.

The second is the exclusion of a certain type of income for Belgians while this is not the case for Europeans.

The third is the exclusion of the possibility of reunification with certain family members for Belgians, while this is not the case for Europeans. I’m talking here, of course, about parents, father or mother.

The fourth is the requirement of decent housing for the Belgians while there is no requirement in this regard for the Europeans.

Is the Belgian, yes or not, a European citizen like any other?

To make it simple, to be concrete and pragmatic, it will be easier, in the future, for a Spanish living in Brussels, Arlon or Ostende to bring his Moroccan wife to Belgium than for a Belgian to bring his Tunisian wife. Is this the model you are proposing?

The State Council has been clear. It is not Mr. Madrane, this is not the PS, it is the Council of State! It excludes the possibility of providing for stricter conditions for family reunification with a Belgian than for family reunification with other Union nationals by applying to family reunification with a Belgian the same conditions as those governing family reunification with a foreigner who is not a citizen of the European Union. It is not me who says it, it is the state council! The European legislation on which the Council of State is based goes in the same direction.

It prevents national provisions – I know that some look north, beyond Moerdijk and are fascinated by this model – from depriving EU citizens of the effective enjoyment of the rights conferred on them by the status of European citizens. A Belgian citizen is a European citizen like another, neither more nor less!

How can you explain this intolerable discrimination? Simply because some parties have decided to ignore it both legally and, more seriously, ethically. How can we accept that a Belgian is treated less well than a European? For my group, this is unthinkable. Not only in relation to European law and the principle of non-discrimination, but also because my party is at the origin of all anti-discrimination legislation in our country. Our values are not for sale and I would like to repeat it here.

I will add, on a legal level, that if this proposal is voted in the state, some parts of it are likely to be cancelled by the Constitutional Court, which will de facto create a legal void that no one wants.

For all these reasons, I call on some parties in this assembly to find reason and to take note of our amendments that meet these concerns but above all to subscribe to them, so that we can vote with a large majority on a firm but just, human and responsible text. The position of the PS, Mr Francken, is very clear! Twice yes and once no. Yes to the fight against abuse and chains! Yes to integration, but no to discrimination! Unfortunately, if some parties do not find the reason, my group will be obliged not to vote on this text.

I thank you for your attention.

I would like to return to Mr. Speech. Mr. President, this is a debate. While respecting the developments of each, as it has been requested, the minimum in such a place is to be able to discuss such a text. If anyone wants to interrupt me, let him do it and we will debate! We are here for that!

Mr. Duchamp, someone wants to interrupt you!

already already !

Mr. Ducarme, I have not said that we cannot conduct the debate. I suggested to listen to each other first and only then to conduct the debate. I am absolutely not against the debate.

I would like to highlight a first element. Some have spoken of a “historical day.” I don’t know if we should go so far, but I think we are in the presence of a great and beautiful reform. We undertook it in the absence of a real government, because it is in ordinary affairs. The Belgian people must know that their parliament is working and is able, even in the context of the crisis we are going through, to include major reforms such as this on their agenda. It is true that it took time. The discussions lasted almost six months. Since November, we have tried to gather consensus around this necessary reform of family reunification. But we had to realize that not all participants necessarily had the same will to change what was supposed to be.

In fact, in February, after more than three months of discussions, we had to move to higher speed. I would like to thank the colleagues of N-VA, CD&V and Open Vld for being fully aware of the need for our country to truly reform the policy of family reunification. On the other hand, we could judge that the Socialist Party, the CDH and Ecolo did not share this will, even though I no longer know very well where you are, Mr Madrane – I ask myself... For months...

The [...]

For months... You have a too big “me”! For months...

The [...]

of course !

FDF is included.

The MR is multiple and diverse, don’t worry!

For which PS do you speak? The one who, for months, fought against this proposal or the one who voted for us in the committee? Bravo to you! bravo!

by Mr. Madrane goes up to the tribune and says to us, “Yes, we told Mr. Ducarme, Somers and Francken... that their text emanated from the extreme right."You fought foot by foot against our text to finally, fifteen days ago in the commission, vote for.

Today Mr. Madrane goes up to the tribune to tell us that if we do not return to reason – so you lost it a little since you voted for this text – the PS will not be able to support this text. You will abstain because you will not have the courage to vote against. Maybe if the PS doesn’t have several chapels, it probably has a number of baronesses and that’s the way you’ve found not to crack yourself out publicly because you don’t agree with each other on this matter! We will then be able to avoid the lessons you are trying to give us!

Mr. Ducarme, you called for the debate, but a debate does not mean that you have to pack yourself! I note that the first inconsistencies come from the MR group who, one day, voted, in terms of nationality, knowledge of the language of the Region. This is quite special as an approach, while, until now, the FDF, one of the important branches of the MR, majority in Brussels, did not enter into this logic.

I would like to know today whether the FDF, one of the important branches of the MR, majority in Brussels, will vote what you are telling us today, that is, things that essentially discriminate against Belgians. Is this the great reform you are going to impose on us? I doubt that the FDF, I repeat, a majority in Brussels, can follow you in this logic.

I would like to read a brief excerpt from the report, page 61. A certain gentleman defends the legislature’s preference for the nationals.

“Given that Belgium is integrating into the European Union, Belgians and citizens of this Union should be treated as similarly as possible. Therefore, the approach that consists in making the legal position of the Belgians less favourable than that of the citizens of the Union, by putting the Belgians on the same foot as the non-Community foreigners, is in itself astonishing.”

Who stated this? by Mr. by Ducarme. Mr. Ducarme speaks of divisions, but Mr. Ducarme of today is not the same as in commission!

(The applause )

It is not enough to speak loud.

by Mr. Ducarme signed a proposal incorporating a discrimination between Belgians and Europeans while he called such an attitude "properly stupefying". I find it hard to follow!

I will answer Mr. First. Talk about the path of integration. Contrary to what Mr. Madrane, it is not the MR who carries the failure of immigration on his shoulders. You want to impose an integration path: in fact, what did you want to do? You wanted to communityize this matter, to regionalize access to the territory. Now you are trying to teach us lessons!

Read the amendments you submitted to the committee. You simply wanted to communitarianize the matter to fail the great reform that we are about to vote on.

Yes, Mrs. Genot, on this point: as similar as possible. I said this at the very beginning of the discussion. Madame Genot, I have humility... When one studies a file, as one digs, one discovers that many countries inscribe in their legislation not discriminations, but differences in treatment between their nationals and Europeans, between their nationals and non-Europeans. France does, as do the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom or Denmark.

Madame Genot, I learned from these countries. Indeed, pragmatically, given that most of our immigration is organized by family reunification through the reunification around the Belgians, the conditions must be as similar as possible.

But there is also a national sovereignty that allows us to consider the question of nationals differently from Europeans in terms of free movement. We assume, this is not discrimination! These countries are not discriminating against their nationals, they treat them differently. This is happening and that is what we want to do. And we assume it!

Mr. Ducarme, you confess yourself that at the time you looked at the file, you knew nothing about it. In view of the inepties that were exchanged in this committee, we have repeatedly asked to conduct expert hearings, to hear law professors. We did not want it! What will this give? A law that you are stupidly struggling with while everyone here realizes that it will be cancelled in six months and that we will have to start the work again. Is this a way of working?

All the parties that submitted this text made sure to incorporate a number of comments made by the State Council. We have strictly ensured to comply with national and European legislation on this subject. You call discrimination what is not a discrimination: it is a difference in treatment. This is the case in many countries in Europe and we fully assume it!

We demand, because this is a minimum, that for Belgians and non-Europeans, one can rely on an income, a reference amount that we insert in this proposal, around 120% of the RIS. Why Why ? Because we wanted to watch first and foremost with our colleague in this reform of family reunification to be social and humanistic, where others do not hesitate to ask for a smaller reference amount to plunge people into precariousness. Why Why ? Because that arranges them.

Family reunification must be done in dignity. People are not sent to Belgium to plunge them into precariousness. We wanted the same thing by writing...

The income ceiling for Europeans is set at 100% of RIS, i.e. 987 euros. For the Belgians, they will ask for 1,185 euros. So you consider that 987 euros is to plunge people into poverty. So every day, we plunge hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens into misery. This is what we do!

We have a bill on the table to increase RIS. I hope that you will support it because you told us that we are plunging people into misery.

It is very easy what you say here.

What you do not say, what the PS does not say, what the CDH does not say, is that there are also conditions that are imposed on Europeans when they settle in Belgium. Of course they must show white foot and prove sufficient income. Of course they must show that they are looking for a job or that they have one.

It is not true!

Of course that is true and that there are conditions for the European who settles in Belgium. He cannot enter Belgium as a social allowant! He must demonstrate that he is looking for a job!

It is clear, as far as I am concerned, that if we cannot go further in terms of immigration and conditions placed on free movement or at least on freedom of establishment with regard to the arrival of Europeans in a Member State of the European Union, we must conduct this reflection at European level. The limits set by the European Directive on this subject may need to be re-discussed. I have the conviction.

I am convinced that there is now a debate. Mr. Ducarme has asked for it himself, so I will not stay behind.

I have a question for Mr. Ducarme and I should have asked Mr. Francken as well. If you are so familiar with the social aspect, if you are so advocating that the people who come here are well received, why have your parties, Mr. Ducarme and Mr. Francken, not voted for citizenship?

Mr. Ducarme, I would like to repeat again that your party voted in favour of naturalizations, but not in favour of family reunification. Naturalization refers to people who have been in the country for a long time. A family reunion is about people who have just arrived. It is ⁇ important for them that they know the language and customs of the country section and the community in which they end up. This is just a social measure. If we want those people to integrate, if we want those people to work, they need to know the language.

If you say that you are so concerned with the social aspects, then you should explain to me why you vote against citizenship.

Mr. Wathelet, the question was addressed to Mr. by Ducarme. I will then pass the word to Mr. Mayor and then Mr. and Madrane.

Since we wanted to have a discussion, it would be more fun to answer immediately. Otherwise, Ms. Temmerman will have to wait for her response.

I am still in charge of the discussions. Ok to Ok?

Well Mr President!

Mr. Ducarme, you have just explained to us that a European citizen, who has thus freely circulated on the European territory, fulfils a number of conditions, which are sufficient for him to be entitled to family reunification, because he is not in the precariousness.

Why, in this case, demand more for a Belgian while for this European citizen, you just explained to us that the conditions were sufficient?

by Mr. Ducarme expressed the depth of his thought. It is important! He said the bottom line of the problem was how to better control and limit immigration. I am not repeating his words word by word, but that is his intention. He doesn’t know how important these are! Actuality is true! Boats are on their way from Tunis to Lampedusa. According to AFP, a fleet has now decided to turn back, as immigrants have learned that we are going to vote a much more binding law! I thought it was better to go back to Tunisia.

Beyond the humour, which you possibly have not well understood, do you believe that the measure you are preparing to vote today will change anything to the distress situation of those people who leave Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, etc. Looking for refuge in Europe?

This means that you make the good people believe — that you abuse — that through this law, you will regulate immigration. It is false! This is completely false! So your statements are not only discriminatory, but will of course be broken by the Constitutional Court. They are completely populist: you try to flatter the low instincts of a few. It is a pity that this logic is in place!

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague Ducarme that it is time to assume!

Mr. Ducarme, it is time to assume the exchange, it is time to assume the merchandise you negotiated with N-VA! You accepted that the text contains discrimination between Belgian and European citizens in exchange for a withdrawal from the integration path because it posed a problem to you. Mr. Ducarme, you should have read the amendment we submitted, it advocated reciprocity and it could have avoided all your anxieties. Per ⁇ you could have slept better and we would not have witnessed this deplorable trade that honors no one!

Mr. Speaker, there are two things. First, Mrs. Temmerman, the N-VA is of course still for that citizenship. You submitted with copy-paste the piece about citizenship from my bill as an amendment with the question: N-VA, would you not support this? Let us not faint. You think differently, but I think there was no possibility of finding a majority in this Parliament in favour of the draft law on family reunification. The SP has 13 seats, the MR has 19. We are now in a very small majority. Therefore, it was necessary to involve the MR in this agreement. The agreement made with the MR is that we do not let the citizenship fall, but put it on the table in government negotiations. This is indeed a very sensitive topic for Flemish-Brabant, my province, my constituency. That is one. We should not be embarrassed about this, that is.

Second, for all clarity, in practice nothing changes. In Flanders everyone is entitled to citizenship. Every family reunifier or accompanying migrant who arrives in Flanders receives within three months a letter from the reception office that he must register and that the citizenship obligation begins from the day he applies. That does not change. The only thing that could change if we also insert this here is that a link is made with the residence legislation. Of course that is more interesting. What should we do in Flanders? I have been the deputy cabinet chief for citizenship of Geert Bourgeois for years, so I know something about it, I think. What is the problem now? We give a fine between 50 and 5 000 euros to those who do not meet their citizenship obligation. This penalty is not purchasable. If you park a car on a parking lot and leave it standing for three weeks, you will be fined every half day. You cannot buy them. You will again have to comply with the citizenship obligation until you have fulfilled it.

Of course, it is even more interesting to link this matter to the residence legislation. Instead of imposing a fine, you can not grant a residence permit. That is a much stronger stimulus to get everyone into the citizenship class, which is evident. Therefore, I am still in favour of linking to citizenship. In the current situation, however, we do not have a government. We do not have to pay a political price for this. I tell you very clearly: we will not let this fall, not now, not tomorrow, never. We would rather take this step, a big step with six or seven points on which Flanders have been waiting for years. We leave the citizenship aside for a moment, but we do not let them fall; we will ⁇ get it in government negotiations, in agreement with the MR, of which I am 100% convinced.

I will be very brief. As a member of the MR, I fully assume my vote on naturalization in the committee and I will continue to support the proposal that is submitted to us today. We are mixing everything. I hear everything and everything: we mix family reunification, reception and immigration policies. I think we need to re-center the debate, which is about family reunification. I am in favour of this difference in treatment between Belgians, non-Europeans and Europeans! In fact, when you look at the Belgians who use the regroupment, you find that 70% are from immigration, that is, they come from Turkey or Morocco.

Let’s finish Mrs. Galant!

Regarding the path of integration, I want to clarify the position of the PS, because if we want to put everything on the table, we will do it. For access to citizenship, you are regionalizing a federal jurisdiction by accepting a two-speed integration path!

If you allow it, I continue with order and method, giving the floor to Mrs. Temmerman, Mr. Tobback and then Mrs. Genot.

Mr. President, Mr. Francken, I would not violate history. Indeed, you said that no agreement was possible and that you therefore dropped one of the important principles of the N-VA, in particular the citizenship. (The Romanian)

I am sorry, but it is so. It is not a copy/paste but a slightly modified text. We have always been for citizenship. There is no contradiction in our party.

One of the key principles, citizenship, has you dropped to get the MR over the bridge. Ladies and gentlemen, I hope you listened well. You have been bought because Mr. Francken has already said, “Now we do so, but soon we will vote in favour, because we will do it again, afterwards.”

It is correct if you say that this is not a problem because in Flanders there is a citizenship course anyway. I remain that this, however, can be bought; one can pay a fine and continue to pay it. Forcing people who enter the country to obtain citizenship is a much stronger argument and you have said it yourself.

Again, an agreement would have been possible if you had taken a little more time and not thrown your principles overboard.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Temmerman can ⁇ bring this up with more enthusiasm than I do, but Mr. Francken has inspired me about two points.

First, I thank him for explaining in this public meeting what the ratio in seats is between sp.a and MR. Implicitly he says that whoever wants a good policy to be carried out in Flanders prefers to vote for the SP, because then something can be done. For what thank you! I highly appreciate your call. I hope many people have heard it.

I hope people also heard where you missed the ball. You say with great enthusiasm that you have not paid a political price for this. Mr. Francken, the political price you paid is there. If you have admitted to the citizenship requirement in the language of the region where you are settled to get the MR, then you know exactly what you have done?

The N-VA has granted facilities to newcomers in the Brussels Rand! With this compromise, you have de facto expanded the facilities. By doing so, you probably showed what was most important to you. You want to score quickly and in return you are willing to make unimaginably many concessions.

For all of you, Mr. Francken, I will approve the principle of strengthening family reunification, because in this regard I stand on your side. Although I have some doubts, but that can explain Mrs. Temmerman later better than me, about the durability of what you have cooked, precisely because of some flawed compromises you have put in it. We will try to remove them with our amendments. You have the choice of how hard you want to make the text and how far you want to go to make a solid compromise, or you can leave the text on the twisted legs where it now stands.

In any case, I will approve the proposal. Remember, however, that with the price you paid, you showed what you really care about.

I am ⁇ surprised by the words of the Chairman of the Commission on Naturalization. When a person is granted citizenship, he becomes a Belgian. There are no several categories.

I am increasingly shocked. From the moment when policies are conducted to allow foreigners in our territory to become full citizens and to be granted citizenship under certain conditions, these persons are Belgians. If, because this arranges us, we use the quality of being Belgian to take away their rights or to prevent them from actually exercising their rights as Belgians, then I assure you that there is really a discrimination that, in my view, frills racism, when it is expressed so! I am increasingly shocked by these words.

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by Mr. Tobback. Of course, a lot of nonsense is sold here in the hope that there is still something hanging. Mr. Tobback, can you specifically specify what changes with this regulation in the Flemish Rand for the facilities? Well, there changes nothing. Mr. Maingain, by the way, does not look happier, I must say. Can you specify what changes there?

Today, apparently, there is a lot of tumult here about something that was also in the government agreement. I quote the Government Agreement of 20 March 2008: “The Government will harmonise the conditions relating to family reunification and family formation, more specifically concerning the proof of regular and sufficient income, so that the families can provide their livelihoods autonomously, sustainably and adequately.”

I now hear several people fulminate against the fact that income conditions are set. When we talked about harmonization in that government agreement – Mr. Fracken just said that I participated in those negotiations – it was about harmonizing for the Belgians as well. I find the punishment that there are no problems over a number of things, which have been realized in the meantime, such as the regularization, while there is tumult arising now that we also want to realize the reverse side of the medal, namely the strengthening of family reunification.

Mrs. Genot, you make it seem that we are creating two types of Belgians, those who have become Belgian and the others. I will continue to defend the criteria. In this case, it is a poor home – it does not have to be a villa or a house with a minimum number of square meters – and a poor income, where the income conditions at us are even a bit lower than in the Netherlands. What can we have against that? Why should we impose this in your eyes on foreigners and not on Belgians? The conditions are very human, we want to give people who come here a future by integrating here. We don’t want them to draw their plan, but to see that they can save it here. Again, we do not only want to bring people here, but also give them a future, we do not want to deceive them. I don’t think any Belgian will have a problem with that, of course, rights are also bound by duties.

Mr. Speaker, it was not my ambition to encourage Mr. Weyts. I rarely had the impression that he needed me for that.

Mr. Weyts, I will explain to you what you can change. I will explain to you what opportunities you miss by voting against the sp.a. amendment.

My great reproach, Mr. Weyts, is that you do not change anything in terms of language in the Rand, but rather make it worse. The opportunity that sp.a. you want to give is to ensure that people who come here in the framework of family reunification re-establish themselves, so do in Vlaams-Brabant, where in exchange for the right to family reunification they are obliged to become citizens in Dutch.

If so, I do not see the problem of voting in favour of the amendment.

I note that you will vote against the amendment. I will tell you why you will vote against the amendment. This is because your comrades at the MR, starting with Mr. Maingain, want it to remain possible to do family reunification in the Brussels Rand without being obliged to learn Dutch.

You have for an entirely new population category – Mr. Francken can better than I calculate how many there are each year and where they all come today – the facilities extended for indefinite duration. I will give you the opportunity to put an end to this, but you will vote against it later. We will see that.

Mr. Duchamp, I suggest you continue. You have heard the opinions of each other.

First of all, I would like to congratulate you on starting the debate.

If you try to close it.

Certainly not immediately, Mr. President, because I consider myself very little expressed, given the many interventions!

If one wants to let me speak, beyond the fact that I am delighted to have launched the debate, I am delighted that the MR has been able, within the framework of the family reunification reform, to be the union trait between two opinions. Otherwise, what would have happened? We would have faced a French-speaking block against a Dutch-speaking block. In the end, what would have happened? As for mr. Tobback said; we talk about the reform of immigration policy and we hear the words "facilities" and "periphery". The Reform Movement, like some Flemish parties, wanted to reform the immigration policy, Mr. Tobback, and avoid plunging into another communitarianization.

Of course, a path of integration is necessary and one can ask why the Socialist Party and the CDH, did not put one in place, at the level of the French Community, while the MR made proposals in this matter.

(Brouhaha) by

Of course, it is done! And how! It is a small arm. This is not a true path of integration.

(Brouhaha) by

If you dislike this proposal, vote against it. If 120% of RIS seems too much, vote against! As well as Mr. As Mayeur said, the MR and other parties flatter the low instincts of the good people, vote against! Vote against it!

We will take care of you!

Mr. Speaker, the income requirement for the MR is essential: we can no longer continue to plunge people into precariousness, as the Socialist Party wanted to continue to do. And assume it!

We no longer wanted a person to arrive in Belgium and, from day to day of his installation, she requested family reunification. That is why we have put a minimum of twelve months of legal and limited presence in the territory before we can apply for family reunification. If you do not agree, vote against.

We took care to insert a very important element in this text and Ms. Lanjri repeated it: the obligation of adequate and decent housing. If you do not agree, vote against.

We also took care to make a significant distinction between non-European and European Belgians in terms of marriage and cohabitation.

I would like to go to the end, Mr. President: they can talk afterwards.

by Mr. Giet asks for the word.

We are not in the theatre. We are in parliament and the debate has all its rights, but beyond, it begins to go beyond the boundaries!

If you begin to deny what happened in the committee, if you start to deny the votes cast in the committee, if you start to deny the words spoken here by the representative of the Socialist Party, then, obviously, no debate is possible anymore: it is you who then transforms this debate into theatre, or even into nothing at all! This is completely unworthy!

(The applause )

Mr. Giet, I do not know what is most unworthy: is it to hold a line closest to the end or is it rather to counter a text, vote against and then abstain? This is what appears.

Dignity is first and foremost respect. Where are you? You will vote against this text to remain dignified.

Mr. Speaker, when you are accused by a member of the Socialist Party, in the name of a majority in this parliament, of flattering the low instincts of the people...

The [...]

In this case, you do not have a hand. You are uncomfortable and you can see it.

(Brouhaha is)

I hope that we can conduct this debate in a slightly more serene, but therefore not less engaging way.

Dear colleagues, our group is very pleased – it can also be said of different among us – that after months of work today we can finally get to the vote of our bill on family reunification, a proposal that we have been working on for six months.

It is a problem that we have been dealing with for years – Mr. Francken has just said it –, since 2007 in the negotiations, but actually already much longer. I also see Mr. Dewael sitting here. I remember when I was still in the opposition, I fought Mr. Dewael to work on those stricter criteria for family reunification.

In short, it took a little time, not just a few months but even a few years. In the end, however, we have come together with various parties to the proposal presented today, with criteria we all agree on, criteria with which we create a clearer and stricter framework for family reunification.

After all, this family reunification is one of the main migratory channels, in fact the main migratory channel, to our country. Since 1974, the borders have been supposedly closed for labour migration. There are still very many asylum seekers coming to our country, last year 20 000, but you know that only 15% of them are recognized, all the rest are not recognized. However, the biggest migration gateway is family reunification, last year 41 366 people.

It is not intended to say now that through these criteria we want to ensure that the number is halved or reduced. It is not about that. It is about people who come to our country in the context of family reunification, who come here to build their lives, who come here to live, who will have children here, those children will grow up here, who will become here Belgian at some point. We want to set conditions so that they can actually build a future here too. That is the purpose of our proposal.

The main countries of origin today are Morocco, Turkey and Congo. People come from all over the world, including from Europe. Those who do family reunification are foreigners, Belgians and also Europeans.

The present proposal is also intended to not close the eyes to a number of existing abuses and to address them. By imposing stricter requirements, we can also protect victims of hypocrisy, hypocrisy, forced marriages, but also forced coexistence with parents or grandparents. I have received numerous phone calls and people because under pressure from the family they had to take their parents or grandparents home with them.

All the above elements are situations that we want to address in the present bill. We want to lay a dam against such abuses.

However, the right to family reunification remains central to us, which is a fundamental right that we will safeguard in all possible ways. However, there is also the right to a human dignity. It is not just a right to come to Belgium without a future. No, we also seek the right to a human dignity. Therefore, we also propose, along with a decent housing, to provide an income.

I just read the passage from the Government Agreement. Several groups then agreed that we should do such an intervention. It only took a long time – until today – to realize something.

We also want to try to equalize the latter as much as possible. I have heard a lot of discussions here today about discrimination between Europeans, Belgians and non-Europeans. However, no one can deny that these discriminations exist today. There are discriminations and differences between Belgians, non-Belgians or foreigners, Europeans and even a fourth group, especially those from countries with which we have a bilateral agreement.

It has always been our intention – including an amendment of the SPAA has contributed to this – to ensure that we harmonise those groups and that we ensure as much as possible that the criteria in question, which we consider defensible for all, can be imposed on the different groups. There is already a lot of discrimination.

Madame Lanjri, I hear you mentioning the various international conventions which have been validated for a number of years and which have not really been the subject of the subsequent Foreign Ministers, Mr. Lanjri, until today. by Michel, Mr. De Gucht, Mr. Vanackere...I would like you to explain to me. I couldn’t imagine this summit: being able to change bilateral conventions between Member States from a spoonful to a pot in Parliament. I suggested to your Minister, Mr. Vanackere, to come into commission. It is a pity that he did not respond to the invitation. He will be there at the time of the vote. I would like him to give us his opinion on the amendments made by the Belgian legislator without any contact with the States concerned by these bilateral agreements. How does this happen? What do you think of your Foreign Minister?

I will respond to this immediately, in the section on the bilateral agreements. I will not stand alone with this. Mrs. Temmerman will ⁇ supplement me in this, because it is also an amendment that we have added at the request of the sp.a. Allow me to finish my thought process. I will ⁇ not forget you in the section on the bilateral agreements.

We have tried to uniformize the criteria for different groups as much as possible. We already see that there are other criteria for Europeans. For all clarity, one of the most important criteria that still exists today for Europeans is the income requirement. It is not correct, Mrs. Genot, that the income requirement for Europeans states that it must be 100% of the living wage. No, Europeans who come to Belgium must either work, or be self-employed, or have sufficient income to avoid being burdened by the government, the OCMW. That passage, which is already in the legislation, is not far from the criterion we propose to meet the conditions for family reunification.

We have, of course, also, with regard to our bill, made no effort to seek advice from the State Council. We asked for advice and we gave the State Council enough time. Then we received the comments. As is the case when a government requests advice, we have fully implemented those advice. There are opinions that we have interpreted. We have said why we agreed with it, or why we did not fully agree with it.

This brings me to the different criteria. First, the condition imposed on the Belgian nationals. After that, I told you that more than 41 000 people are coming to our country. You should know that 15,022 people of these are Belgians. It would therefore be absurd that we impose rules here, without thinking of letting them apply to our Belgian citizens. Is this discrimination? Apparently not, because in other countries this has existed for a long time. It exists in the Netherlands, as well as in Great Britain and Denmark. There have also been judgments which clearly show that the European law cannot always be invoked. This is not possible for people who live here and are Belgian. This was recently confirmed by the case-McCarthy.

It is also referred to the judgment-Zambrano. Each time, however, the opponents give a partial reading of this judgment. The core of the judgment in Zambrano actually states that the EU Citizens Directive does not apply to Belgians. This has recently been confirmed by the case-McCarthy. The fundamental right to family reunification for Belgian nationals should be able to be exercised. That is the essence.

It is clear that we do not want to abolish the right to family reunification in any way. Only we say that conditions can be linked to the right to family reunification, as, by the way, happens in our neighboring countries. We find the conditions we link to them good enough for others, for people who are not yet Belgian. Why would they not be good enough for people who have already become Belgians or who have been born as Belgians? This seems to me obvious. Otherwise, there will be discrimination in the opposite direction.

A second requirement is the right to decent housing. This is not an entirely new criterion. It already existed. There is only legal uncertainty. We have included in our proposal that the property must meet the criteria laid down in the rental legislation. The home should be good enough to accommodate yourself, the partner and possibly the children. In other words, it should not be a crust, or a house that is about to be destroyed.

A third condition is the condition of sufficient means of subsistence. We believe that one should take responsibility for the partner or the children that one lets happen and that one should ensure a decent income.

Sometimes people are outraged by the income limit we impose: 1,184 euros, which is 120% of the living wage. In the Netherlands, the border is a bit higher. That is 1,424 euros and you have to prove that you have had this income for at least 12 months. We place the limit a lot lower and we add that it is important that it is not income from living wages, guardianship allowance, overbridge credit or child allowance. Of course, people are entitled to child allowance, but that serves for the care of the children. This will not allow the rest to be ⁇ ined.

Of course, we make exceptions for vulnerable groups. For the elderly, for example, not only the pension is eligible but also the income guarantee for the elderly. We also make exceptions for disabled people. Assistance for disabled persons is eligible.

Fully in line with what the judgment-Chakroun says, income will always be considered a reference income. It is not intended to get a total nnt for 10 euros less. It will always be considered whether this constitutes a problem or not.

The next point is about the fake partnership. We all know – especially in Antwerp – that many people who were faced with an investigation into hypocritical marriages resorted to cohabitation. However, a lot of abuses have been identified.

Therefore, we now clearly define in the law what is cohabitation, what is a lasting relationship: one must know each other for at least two years or have lived together for a year or have a common child. In addition, we also say: you are responsible for the partner that happens, also financially, and in the event that the relationship is terminated or there is fraud, you will also be held responsible for the costs of repatriation.

We also want the applications, as it should be, to be made from abroad. In other words, you don’t have to come here first as a tourist and then say you want to get married. Applications must be made correctly from abroad.

A new but also important point is that we say that family reunification with parents and grandparents should be stopped. We consider it a fundamental right to transfer your partner, married or unmarried, and minor children, but your right stops there too. It is not about getting an automatic right to bring your parents and grandparents here anyway. Often this happens under pressure. One of the partners is put under pressure from the family to allow parents or grandparents to come here too. They then come inhabiting, which often leads to tensions in the family and a break in the family. Therefore we say that this must be taken out of the law as an automation; this is no longer a right. It can still be considered in very exceptional cases, but then case by case.

The seventh condition is that both partners must be twenty-one years old before they can make family reunification. This is not only important because in this way forced marriages can also be avoided in part, but also because one is much more independent at twenty-one.

Finally, all these criteria are checked for three years, and if one sees that there have been abuses or one does not meet the criteria, one loses the residence permit or may be considered to withdraw the residence permit.

Mrs. Lanjri, you mentioned a number of conditions, including that of parents. It is not at all the vision of the CDH to say that it is not a right to be able to live with his parents.

That is what you said. You said it’s good to have your spouse, your children, but not your parents.

In addition, I am surprised because if I am right with your reasoning, you prefer that there is no clear provision in the law so that a Belgian can bring his parents, even if he has a well-filled bank account and many rooms in his home. You prefer that there is no legal disposal and the same rules for everyone; you prefer to decide at the head of the client, in case-by-case, through the 9a, through the discretionary power of the minister.

When it’s right for you, when it’s someone you know, you prefer to send a file to give a favourable opinion to family reunification. Is this what you want? This is very special! This is strangely unfair. Being clear in the law rather than giving room to discretionary power seemed to me better to keep the way!

We believe that the right to family reunification applies to the partner and the minor children. In the case of a minor Belgian child, this is entirely consistent with the judgment in Zambrano. Even in such cases, the minor Belgian child must be able to make his parents happen. What do we see more and more? There is a family reunification and a few years later the partner asks to let his or her mother happen. A few days later, the grandmother is left. That was never the purpose of the law. We think that goes too far.

By the way, I don’t know in which world you live, but I get reactions from the migrant community, which says that they don’t really want it and that they are being pressured because it is apparently a right. Those parents and grandparents then ask to come to Belgium, so that they can also get a benefit. This is the way we talk about it. These people are themselves asking party to extract the provision from the legislation.

I am not inhuman. If striking situations occur, there is the possibility to evaluate this through the regularisations case by case. In this way, however, we step away from automation and go to an exception, a favor. Of course, criteria can be linked to this. You know as well as I know that you can still link conditions to a regularization. It is perfectly possible to judge in an exceptional case about allowing someone’s mother or father to come to Belgium, because that person no longer has anyone else and no one else can take care of that person. This can then be linked to the condition that one must be able to take care of that person, that one has sufficient income. It is not correct that criteria cannot be imposed, on the contrary. One can then really consider this as an exception and one can perfectly impose a number of conditions for it. In addition, the conditions can be followed much better, because if one does not meet them, one can revoke the residence permit again.

Madame Lanjri, if I agree with you, I can imagine that in some families, people do not necessarily want their parents to join them. Does that mean that, for a few families who don’t dare to say no, you’re going to prevent all others from receiving their parents? I find it surprising that as a legislator, you wanted to decide to resolve family conflicts by relying on exceptions to prevent everyone from bringing their parents!

What does the European Directive say? As long as they are economically active, they can accommodate their ascendants. Otherwise, it is mandatory to have an income equal to 100% of the RIS.

I am quite surprised by your conception of family relations and your defense against state intrusion in conflict situations.

I hear Mrs. Lanjri’s explanations. It remains, Madame Lanjri, that we are facing a discrimination: for Europeans, it will be automatic, while no provision is provided for Belgians. This means that parents of Europeans will be allowed to come, but not parents of Belgians. This is another discrimination: the one I denounced just recently...

Discrimination also existed. Not all parents could come to Belgium.

Let me take the example of two Congolese brothers. A brother has become Belgian and may have his parents moved to Belgium. The other brother has not become Belgian and can not. I give a wrong example here, because they are brothers.

The right to family reunification relates to the core family and not to parents and grandparents. In such exceptional cases, Belgium has always been humane enough, under certain conditions.

The [...]

Mr. Madrane, Mrs. Fonck, if you still think that it is a greatly unacceptable, racist, extremist discrimination that we will treat the Belgians as strictly as the third-party nationals and therefore stricter than Europeans, if you really mean that sacred principle of apparently left-wing Wallonia, then I have a question for you.

Will your ministers, Ms. Onkelinx, Mr. Wathelet, in the government or in the Parliament submit a bill to repeal Article 40ter, which states discrimination? In fact, it states that a Belgian who wants to allow his parents to survive must meet certain income conditions. A European is not obliged to do so.

The question is, will you then submit a bill or bill to eliminate that unacceptable discrimination?

I am asked by Mr. President. by Francken. He knows very well, like me, that discrimination is acceptable if it is justified. A Belgian can be treated harder than a European if it is justified. The difference in treatment must be acceptable and proportionate.

Compared to ascendants, we are in a completely different register because this is the absence of right. Should a Belgian be imposed more conditions than a foreigner? Should a Belgian be imposed more conditions than a European? I heard Mr. Somers has repeatedly said in a committee that imposing stricter conditions on a Belgian than on a European, is doing a service to the Belgians. This is a political discussion that can be held. We have had it!

This is another debate. It is not discriminatory to impose stricter conditions or not. The debate is about ascendants and the refusal to grant a right. It makes it impossible for the Belgian to bring his ascendants. There are no harsher conditions. We cannot justify this discrimination under the pretext that we want more difficult conditions in order for the reunification to go better. Here it is different! It is not about harsher conditions or discrimination that could be justified! No to No! It makes the right purely and simply impossible!

Mr Francken, you say that we have been discussing this text for five months. But, this discrimination on ascendants, you introduced it after the opinion of the State Council. The State Council should not be able to emphasize this. You were super smart and I congratulate you! The hat! This discrimination was introduced in the last amendment submitted after the State Council’s opinion. Well played ! In order to be sure that the Council does not take a decision on this point, it should be submitted in a subsequent amendment. Politically it is clear.

This aspect, the State Council already highlighted it as discriminatory, as well as the Centre for Equal Opportunities. Furthermore, the Flemish bars wrote to parliament and took the effort to give their point of view. They also consider it discriminatory. Now, instead of responding to the discrimination relating to ascendants, you add a layer of it!

I hope that we are mistaken, but ... the reasoning that Mrs. Galant has had just before is to say that they are people of foreign origin who, after being naturalized, have only one purpose... Between parentheses, it is us who naturalizes them, all of us!

This is a decision of Parliament. This is to pretend to accept that only such persons can benefit from regularization. On the other hand, to impose harsher conditions for a grouping of ascendants, this is discussed and may even be justified, as well as the difference in treatment, which could be the subject of arguments similar to those invoked by Mr. and Somers. I do not agree with all of them, the reasoning is at least present. But the pure and hard, total impossibility, without exception possible in relation to the ascendants, is a purely discriminatory measure.

Madame Lanjri, I will finish. In the amendment you are submitting, you indicate that "it is simply up to the Secretary of State to regularize." "Mr. Secretary of State, regulate!" is what you mention in your amendment! No income condition is imposed, as one could do in a family reunification, nor a housing condition, as one could do in the framework of the Family Reunification Act! All, we thought to specify more difficult conditions in the law on family reunification. We all said it to ourselves.

But when it comes to ascendants, we return to the discretionary power of the minister, in this case, the Secretary of State! There is some form of legal uncertainty. What is the consequence? You give it. This is the risk of air call. This is legal uncertainty and air call risk. What we are busy doing here by filing a clearly discriminatory text against parents – one cannot even discuss it – is creating a text that, tomorrow, can be directly cancelled. And a text that, tomorrow, directly can be cancelled, equals to recreate legal uncertainty and a disorder that will increase the number of family reunions. Is this what you want? I had the impression that it was the opposite!

Remove at least this discrimination because it is manifest! If we can still discuss other conditions, this one is obvious. And above all, do not give, do not ensure that family reunification of parents can only be done in secret, within the scope of discretionary power, without conditions of income or housing in the head of the minister or the secretary of state!

Discrimination is there, it is a fact. Parents of European citizens can come, but parents of Belgian citizens cannot.

I am very pleased with what Mr. President has just said. by Francken. In the end, he wants a government and I invite him therefore to help us find a majority to form one. We will then be able to move forward on all the files he talks about.

Mrs. Speaker, Mr. Wathelet, one of the core discussions that we have indeed held several times in the committee meetings, is about whether we should treat EU citizens and Belgians equally, or whether we can distinguish between them. There is a difference between discrimination and discrimination. This is both a legal and a political debate.

As for the legal discussion, I have updated the annual report of the Centre for Equal Opportunities and for Combating Racism. I have a very difficult time with a lot of recommendations contained therein, which happen to me very politically oriented.

The same report, however, lists, on page 126, countries that respect European law but make a similar distinction between EU citizens and their own countrymen. It is not about the first best country, but about the Netherlands, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Denmark and Austria. If in those countries it is possible to distinguish between our own compatriots and other EU citizens, why would it not be possible for us? Or are there two types of European law, namely one version for the other 26 Member States and another version that only applies to Belgium? From a legal point of view, your reasoning is not correct!

Mr. Wathelet, what stumbles me greatly about all those so-called progressive parties in this hemisphere is that one dares to talk about discrimination when parties try to protect their compatriots against domestic milkers as effectively as third-country nationals. What should make you angry and rebellious is that you cannot implement the same protection for EU citizens. What you should motivate is to ensure at the European level that we can introduce the same protective measures, also for EU citizens.

We implement protection for young girls who are victims of forced marriages. Fortunately – and I am proud of it – we do so for our own compatriots. We do not leave those girls, if they are Belgian, away. We ensure that Belgians do not fall into rubble when they marry others. I am happy and proud that we have entered that into this law. For me, this is progressiveness. It is not, sharply stated and described with an abstract concept, discrimination. It is on the ground, in our cities, close to the people, to ensure that those girls and those individuals who marry have equal opportunities and a real perspective to function fully in our society. You let them go, Mr. Wathelet!

What Mr. Somers may not have noticed, just like other speakers when they cite other European countries, that since then, there has been a stop, fruit of the hard work over several years of a small Belgian lawyer, the judgment said Zambrano of 8 March 2011. It is on this latter that the State Council is based to say very clearly that the Court of Justice still qualifies as totally excluded such assimilation of national nationals to non-European foreigners.

Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union gives all Belgians the status of citizens of the European Union. It opposes national measures which have the effect of depriving Belgians of the effective enjoyment of the substantial part of the rights conferred by their status as citizens of the European Union. The Legislation section states very clearly that it does not see how Amendment 147 can be considered in accordance with this case-law in so far as it has the effect of assimilating the Belgian to foreigners who are not citizens of the European Union.

You have made a small cosmetic arrangement but this does not correspond to the Zambrano stop. Indeed, other European countries have made other choices at other times but since this decision fell, on March 8, 2011, other legislation will fall one after another. Why do we, who make a law after March 8, 2011, vote a law that will be broken? I cannot understand it.

Mr. Secretary of State, if I am not mistaken, it is currently so that third-country nationals can not even allow ascendants, parents and grandparents, to happen. If we propose in our bill to make the ascendants no longer possible for the Belgians, then we are doing very consistently what we have been saying for months that we want to do, namely, first, to give the maximum fulfillment to the directive and, second, to equalize the Belgians with the non-Europeans. The ascendants of third-country citizens cannot happen, and we now do so for the Belgians. We maintain a consistent attitude throughout the whole line. I do not understand what the problem is now.

I would like to answer Mr. Discriminatory Aspects and Differences in Treatment.

Mr. Somers, in the list of countries you referred to recently, you can add one: Belgium. In our country, there are already a number of differences in treatment between Belgians and Europeans, especially with regard to ascendants. Therefore, we have made the difference of treatment ourselves.

I know that in this debate, the tendency will be to caricate everything. We had a wonderful demonstration!

For my part, I would like you to understand that there is a distinction to be made between a difference in treatment that is justified... We can have a discussion on this. But by saying that you want to protect the Belgians who are asking for family reunification by giving them the assurance that their family will be able to come in good conditions, you get into a political reasoning. I agree that the idea you defend is partially true and that it can be the subject of debate. In addition, this has been the case. But let me draw your attention to the fact that we are not in this debate when it comes to ascendants. In fact, it is not about providing for safer, harsher conditions, but to prohibit, to make impossible. This discrimination affects European citizens.

It is true, Mr. Francken, that for third states, this is not possible. But you know properly that, in this case, there is discrimination between a Belgian and a European or between two Belgians, one of whom has already circulated in the European Union. This discrimination is obvious. Why Why ? Because we don’t even give a chance. If you had said that we would impose much stricter conditions for ascendants, you would have initiated a debate more of political order than legal. In fact, it would be about justifying the fact of treating Belgians and Europeans differently by imposing stricter conditions on them. But in this case, it is not about that. It is simply about making the right impossible. In this sense, discrimination is purely and simply manifest.

We can continue to turn around in this debate. We have said very clearly that we have automatically removed the right to bring parents and grandparents to Belgium from the law. In exceptional circumstances, it should still be possible to apply it. There is Article 9a. You know that conditions can also be imposed.

I do not understand how you agree with the right of family reunification for parents and grandparents, but at the same time it is normal to think that it does not apply to foreigners. We believe that there is no right to family reunification with parents and grandparents, except for minors.

Mrs. Genot, I have explained it to you a few times. You always refer back to the judgment-Zambrano. That is there. Recently, there was also the case-McCarthy. It states very clearly that it is possible to impose on own nationals the same criteria or conditions as on others, as is happening today in the Netherlands, Great Britain, Denmark and other countries. If it is not destroyed there, it will not happen to us either. It’s going to be a dumbman conversation, so I’ll close around this point.

There was a lot of discussion about the conditions of citizenship. It is true that I had initially included the citizenship conditions in my bill. As everyone knows, during the six-month negotiations we have tried to keep as many parties on board as possible. Eventually, the knots had to be cut. We chose to continue with this file. We could have continued for another six years. No one agreed on all the criteria. Then a choice was made. For us, it was more important to address all those abuses, set income conditions, add housing conditions, and leave the settlement conditions for what they were. For all clarity, that doesn’t mean that people who come here are not required to take a citizenship course. This will also be the case in the future.

Mrs. Temmerman, it would have been even better – I have proposed that myself, by the way – to link it to the residence legislation as well. Since there was no majority, we did not.

At some point we had an agreement with four parties, CD&V, N-VA, MR and Open Vld. At the last moment, namely fourteen days ago, it turned out that the PS wanted to vote in favour. We are then a party of our word and do not say that we leave other parties in the cold because the PS wants to approve it. We did not do that. That is just our linearity. I am not saying that I do not regret that it is not included, but that is also a consequence of the choice that one makes at a given moment.

However, I would like to say very explicitly that I am very pleased that in Wallonia, Mr. Madrane and others, everyone is now standing in favour of citizenship, that this must be approved as a condition. Mr. Madrane, it is not this Parliament that organizes or decides on those citizenship courses, it is in the Wallish Parliament that you must decide what we have done in Flanders years ago. This cannot be achieved by passing a law here.

Congratulations, now that you have them, you can finally apply them. Per ⁇ within a few years, if in the meantime those citizenship courses are also fully operational, we can take the next step. Today this was not possible.

Even if we had entered those citizenship conditions into our laws, we were not there yet. You yourself also asked to include that one would be exempt if there were no courses. It was an empty box, but for some rules it was an empty box.

Mr. Tobback, I am not the big specialist on facility communities. This is not my specialization and I would like to leave it to others. One thing I know, and you know that too. The citizenship decree is applicable throughout Flanders, including in the Flemish Rand, also in Grimbergen. Thus, in Grimbergen, as a newcomer, one is already obliged to follow a citizenship. Tomorrow will be no different, Mr. Tobback.

I will note this as a concern of yours and I share your concern. However, you do not have to worry, even in the Flemish Rand it is already an obligation today.

Then I come to a question from Ms. Fonck on the bilateral agreements. Everyone knows that our country has for years concluded a number of employment agreements with Algeria, Bosnia, Croatia, Morocco, Serbia, Tunisia, Turkey and Yugoslavia. That was actually meant for the family reunification of people who came here to work, to make their partners and children happen easier. I am, by the way, the product of it myself; my father came to Belgium in 1964 and subsequently transferred my mother.

However, I tell you today that I find it absolutely not logical that those bilateral agreements that were approved a few generations ago still apply to the third, fourth, fifth, sixth or even tenth or twenty-first generation because those people came by chance from a country with which there is a bilateral agreement. They are not intended for that.

For all clarity, for those who come to Belgium today in the framework of an employment agreement, for those who come to Belgium today from those countries to come here to work, no problem. We have also said this as a result of the Amendment by Ms. Temmerman. They may rely on those bilateral agreements, which remain applicable to them. They continue to apply, but we simply say that we use them for what they are intended for. They are intended for employees and will continue to apply to employees. There has also been a lot of justice recently. We see that this was usually followed, but in some cases not. That is why we say that this jurisprudence should also be fixed in our laws. This is an interpretative provision that we have received.

I dare to say here with confidence, Mr. Madrane, that I find it neither logical nor necessary that this would still apply for ten generations. This must and will be applied to those for whom it is intended, including our grandparents and those who still come here today, either at a company or at an embassy. So here is my reply to Mrs. Fonck.

Mrs. Lanjri, in your opinion, how many people per year does this represent?

Mr. Madrane, can I clarify something? In 2010, 113 people arrived in Belgium through bilateral agreements. Do you understand Dutch? I said the same for you. There are 113 people.

Mr. Madrane, we are not naive, right? Today there are 113 people. However, once our legislation applies and we thus introduce an income condition, it will not be 113 persons but 10 000 persons. That is logical. Today, it is easy for everyone to come to Belgium. Why should a person concerned get tired of relying on the existing, bilateral agreement? After all, today anyone can come to Belgium, without income conditions or criteria. Therefore, it is not necessary to invoke the conscious bilateral agreements.

However, in the future, especially from today, after we have approved the current law, certain individuals will find that they need to have an income, after which they will rely on the bilateral agreements as Moroccan or Croatian.

That is not the intention. I repeat that the mentioned bilateral agreements remain applicable to the target group, that is, to whom they are intended and to no one else.

With the previous words, I also concluded that point.

Madame Lanjri, I would like you to clarify me. I understood that your group wanted to revise these bilateral agreements. So why did your Minister of Foreign Affairs not deal with this?

It is a pity that he is not here today.

Mr. Speaker, I am actually surprised by such a question, asked by a member of Parliament. The MP asks whether this Parliament can approve an interpretative law relating to a treaty, while the executive power, the administration, does it permanently. The administration gives its officials the interpretation of an international treaty, i.e. how it should be applied. The administration, i.e. officials, would be allowed to do so, but the Parliament, the first power in this country, would not be allowed to pass a law that does not amend an international treaty, but interprets it. This contradicts the logic of our parliamentary democracy.

In addition, anyone who has ⁇ a little training in law knows that it is perfectly possible to approve an interpretative law. Ultimately, it will be the judge who will judge whether an international treaty has been interpreted correctly, either by the administration or by this Parliament. We are therefore perfectly able, Ms. Fonck, to approve in this Parliament an interpretation of the bilateral treaties.

I would like to make a small correction. The amendment originally came from us. Ms. Fonck, we do not change the bilateral agreements themselves; they simply continue to exist. We only ask for a correct interpretation, because the interpretation is sometimes given in different ways. Sometimes people are treated differently. Examples are there. We now only do what the Council of State and the Council for Foreign Disputes say about this. Again, we do not change the bilateral agreements in themselves at all; they remain absolutely applicable.

I was reviewing the report: you advanced the same type of argument that it was an interpretation.

First, it is not an international convention. It is a bilateral agreement between two states; there are several, but the agreement is bilateral, that is, between Belgium and all the states.

Mr Francken, if I am not mistaken, you said yourself in a committee, payments, that these conventions and these bilateral agreements should be settled at the governmental level or, in case of an initiative from the Parliament, at the parliamentary level through the introduction of a proposal for a resolution.

I agree with you. If one wants to change, one assumes, one shows courage and one sends his minister of foreign affairs to negotiate, in respect of other states. Taking his position and not acting in stoemelings: do it knowing that it will not really work.

Or we push the government to do so: then, I join you, Mr. Francken. A proposal for a resolution is submitted and the government is urged to negotiate, State with State, and to review the content of these bilateral agreements.

Mrs. Fonck, I am still very pleased that you apparently listen very well when I interrupt. I have indeed said that, but I do not have the brilliant mind of Mrs. Temmerman, because it is a brilliant amendment. I had never looked at it that way. I thought it was not even possible. When I saw your amendment, I realized that the N-VA would gladly approve it.

We will not renegotiate the bilateral agreements at all, because Morocco has not wanted to do so for years. That is why it has failed all those years and it will never succeed. We will simply incorporate an amendment into the law, thanks to Mrs. Temmerman, who is very brilliant in this, in which we stipulate that those bilateral agreements from tomorrow will be interpreted in such a way that they are limited and only concern the contingent of host workers for which they were intended, namely the miners of the 1960s and 1970s. Actually, it means no one anymore. It is magnificent! It is brilliant! I had never looked at it like that.

There is progressive insight, Mrs Fonck, thanks to sp.a.

We are not waiting for a resolution or anything else to renegotiate the bilateral agreements. After all, renegotiating means that we will ask for something else. We do not ask for anything else! We simply demand the correct application of the bilateral agreements.

Mrs Fonck, do you find it logical that someone else is treated according to the Chamber of the State Council that deals with the application?

I want to finish. First, anyone who thinks — and some would like to believe this — that the bill is only a struggle, is wrong. It is true that we have strengthened a number of criteria for protection. However, we have also included a number of other protective measures in the proposal, such as the reduction of the treatment period. The treatment period could last 15 months. We have shortened this period to 12 months. If there are no problems, the deadline is even only 6 months. We have also ensured that minors Belgian children can let their parents happen, as a result of the judgment-Zambrano. We have also ensured – this is also a question you had asked, Mrs. Fonck – that there is no income requirement in the case of letting the minor children happen. We did it for everyone, for the Belgians and the others. Ms. Fonck, read the bill again. We have accepted your proposal. If one leaves only their minor children, no income conditions are set. We have done that.

We have also ensured that recognised refugees, as well as subsidiary protection beneficiaries, can undertake family reunification without problems during the first year.

We have also taken care of victims of domestic violence. In overwhelming cases of domestic violence – I mean slaughter or imprisonment – it is not intended to withdraw the residence permit if the woman or man – usually women – leaves the house. Victims of domestic violence can count on protection and will not lose their residence permit.

Finally, I want to thank everyone. We worked hard for six months. I would like to thank not only the colleagues with whom we reached the agreement. I would also like to thank Ms. Fonck, Mr. Madrane, Mrs. Genot and others, with whom I have often had discussions, with whom I was not always on the same line and who had a different opinion than ours, for the work we have done in the committee.

I would like to especially thank my colleagues Theo Francken, Bart Somers, Denis Ducarme, Jacqueline Galant and Karin Temmerman for always working together constructively. Through them it is possible that we today not only move a stone in the river, but really create a serious breakthrough and trend break.

I hope it is the forerunner of a lot of legislative work that we can do together. After all, it is not because there is a government of ongoing affairs, which, by the way, also does a great job but cannot take new initiatives, that we in Parliament cannot take new initiatives.

Today it has been proven that we can take new initiatives and take an important step forward, for which I thank you.

Belgium has always been a migrant country. I am not telling anything new. Migration will exist as long as there is great inequality. People who live in bad conditions will always try to improve their conditions.

Members of the Flemish Interest, maybe you should listen. As long as we are not willing to do anything about it, we will continue to face migration. I want the Parliament not to forget that.

Marriage migration is a consequence of migration. It is not abnormal that in a globalized world marriage migration is more prevalent than before.

Several speakers have already said, as the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Anti-Racism in its annual report: marital migration is the main legal gateway for migrants; recent statistics show that it accounts for about half of all migrations.

Colleagues, let us be clear: family reunification is a fundamental right for sp.a., which we will absolutely continue to defend and to which we do not want to torment. Only today we must recognize that marriage is abused in order to migrate, and that this causes many negative discharges, discharges that are desirable either individually or socially.

Several colleagues have already pointed out the forced marriages, the organized hypocritical marriages in which boys and girls are brought here and live completely isolated from the rest of society, end up in a very dependent situation, their high expectations they cherished do not see fulfilled, which causes very great frustrations and sometimes very painful divorces; the phenomenon in which families are repeatedly confronted with first-generation immigrants, causing children to start already with a language lag in school and so on.

Therefore, we want to address the abuses that have arisen over the past years and to better protect the victims, so that we can give all newcomers who arrive in our country every opportunity to participate as full citizens in our society.

Therefore, we ⁇ support a number of proposals from the bill. I will list the most important for us. First, we support the stricter condition for housing. It makes no sense to let people come here and then let them live in cracks and leave them even more to their fate. This does not please anyone, neither the people who live with it, nor the people we bring here.

The second issue is the income requirement. Again, it makes no sense to let people come here if we force them to live in poverty.

Third, as regards the stricter interpretation of the bilateral agreements, we have already discussed this in detail in the previous debate. We do not want these bilateral agreements to be renegotiated. We will not change these bilateral agreements. We only want them to be interpreted according to what they were intended for in the past, nothing less, nothing more.

This bill also has some shortcomings. A first disadvantage – it won’t surprise you – is of course the integration requirement. We have had an extensive discussion about this since then. I still find it unlikely that some parties will not vote for it. It was explained. It is a purely political issue, because otherwise you would not have a majority, but you have already said that you will do something about it afterwards. So I would think again.

What I understand even less is that one does not use the same reasoning any further. There is a citizenship requirement in Flanders, why is this reasoning not used for nationality and naturalization? There is also the integration requirement and the citizenship requirement. Why is it said about this very important point that one leaves it down? For those who come here with family reunification, it is more important than for those who apply for nationality. Why Why ? These are newcomers. These are people who are not established here and who only arrive here. That is why this integration requirement is so important. It is important that they learn the language.

Mr. Francken, you will question me. Allow me to say that you said yourself that the newcomers here should work as soon as possible, that we should integrate them into the labour market as soon as possible. Citizenship is the first requirement. If they do not speak the language, they will not enter the labour market. Why is this citizenship requirement not approved?

Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Temmerman, I would like to repeat this again. First, in practice, nothing will change in terms of citizenship. The family reunifier who arrives in the Flemish Region is entitled to citizenship. We jointly introduced it in the Flemish government in 2004 and expanded it in 2007. It is conducted by Geert Bourgeois, as Minister of Inburgering, and by your party partner Pascal Smet, as Minister of Education, for the Dutch language lessons. There is therefore absolutely no difference. In Brussels there is a voluntary citizenship route. Do not convince me of its importance.

Secondly, I have been saying all the time that citizenship must absolutely be there for us. Therefore, you should not say that we let them fall. At this time it was not possible to reach an agreement with the colleagues of the MR, whom I find very courageous.

I find it very courageous that they break through the French-speaking front for the first time to choose common sense, and not the narrow attitude of French speakers when it comes to the migration issue.

Second, Mr. Tobback, I heard your father cried out to me a few weeks ago. Per ⁇ it is because he is a Regiogenoot that he is so picked up. I think it is somewhat weird. We have made a compromise. Mr. Tobback and sp.a constantly say that it is scandalous that N-VA cannot make compromises. If we make a compromise, it is a scandal that we make one. Of course, you must know what you want.

Finally, sp.a has, to my knowledge, for years – including your father, Mr. Tobback – managed the Department of Home Affairs. Years of! Nothing has been done on migration. The migration legislation has not been tightened at all, on the contrary, the Foreigners Act is one of the most unreadable laws of this Parliament. The fact that there are so many holes in it makes so much proceedings and so many people stay here for so many years because there is only a verdict after several years, because there are so many backdoors in the Foreign Law.

In that sense, I absolutely do not feel addressed. I find you even misplaced to constantly point out to us that integration is important. We are working on this in the Flemish government. We continue to go for that. We do realpolitik, we try to come to an agreement on one of the most important legislation that exists.

I ask for the word for a personal fact. I apparently also encouraged Mr. Francken.

I want to say two things, Mr. Francken. I am the last to dispute that you have made a compromise here. My problem is, firstly, that you have concluded a compromise that fails in some areas, and secondly, I have to establish that you – I am less nationalist than you, so you should not take it as a reproach – when you conclude that compromise, you are apparently willing first of all to let down your Flemish beliefs, only to be able to pretend that you are doing greatly punishable business.

Again, we will approve this proposal. We must try to regulate family reunification.

I am sure that someone else from Leuven has also encouraged you. I have all the right to speak, Mr. Francken, and also sp.a. has all the right to speak. I challenge you – you who wish to have a government without a sp.a – to look at the figures. You refer to former Ministers of Internal Affairs of sp.a.

Look, Mr. Francken, at the migration figures, the refugee figures then and now. Mr. Francken, the last time asylum issues, asylum figures, migration figures were under control was among the last two sp.a. interior ministers. In other words, I have no lessons to learn from you in this area. It was under control, Mr. Francken, because it was not based on a lack of compromise, but on a clear policy. In terms of migration and asylum, this was based, among other things, on the abolition of the distribution of money, but also on material reception, something that the government has now helped back on its feet and had to let go again in 2007.

Again, Mr. Francken, because you do it in this debate a few times already, you make it difficult to yourself, because you choose your examples ⁇ badly. In this regard, I have no lesson to learn from the SP from you.

Mr. Speaker, there are only two things. First, I note that some N-VA parties constantly point to the fact that they have dropped an important principle from their party program, in particular a citizenship path for newcomers. Mr Francken always feels the need to react to this quite strongly. Apparently that is something difficult.

In these I just want to protect and defend him, Mr. Tobback. We should be delighted: we are in a pedagogical process where the N-VA learns to compromise and realizes that if one wants to move forward, one must occasionally put some water in the wine. I’m really happy with that and I don’t understand why you always target the N-VA just when they make a compromise. Of course, it was a difficult compromise, but the compromise is closed and that is the most important thing.

Secondly, I would also like to address Mr. Francken for thanking him for systematically painting the policy of my party fellow Marino Cologne, who has begun the citizenship policy. It would adorn him if he would make sure – I refer again to a number of colleagues who also carry responsibilities in cities – that this Flemish government also provides sufficient citizenship paths. The waiting lists in the cities are a reality today, Mr. Francken. Your party could also do something about this in the Flemish government by ensuring that people in need receive a course.

Sometimes I feel like I’m in several different assemblies at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow Mr. Tobback to speak about figures of SPD ministers in the way he does now. Therefore, I ask the word in the interests of all colleagues and of the Sp.a’ers in the first instance.

Paars came to power – Mr. Tobback, you were, of course, quite young at that time – with the first round of regularization, in which fifty thousand illegal aliens, thanks to your good care, or at least that of your party, received papers.

That same year, more than forty thousand asylum seekers also entered the country, all of whom naturally hoped the same. You are shaking no? Please show me the figures at the next plenary session. More than 40,000 asylum seekers entered when the purple government came to power.

I would point out that the hypermigration arose during the eight years under Verhofstadt, when you were also part of the government. The immigration figures exceed, for the first time in history, even the time of the host workers, the one hundred thousand persons per year.

Finally, Mr. Tobback and Mrs. Gennez, you, as the only Flemish party, have made sure that the rapid-Belgwet was approved in this Chamber.

So, Mr. Tobback, please keep silent.

Mr. De Man, the discussion began following the listing of the Ministers of the Interior, by Mr. Francken. I have only one question for you. Call me one sp.a. minister of interior affairs in a purple government.

Mr Francken, I would like to make two further remarks in connection with your replica.

First, you never forget to mention Mr. Vande Lanotte as Minister of Interior as a good example of migration policy and expulsion policy.

Second, you have failed to convince your Wallonian colleagues of the MR of the citizenship. However, we have succeeded in convincing the colleagues of the PS of citizenship.

Mr Madrane’s explanation of citizenship was very clear!

This time too, the SPA is trying to make us somewhat wise. Between your proposal on integration, Mrs. Temmerman, and that of Mr. Madrane, there is a heavenly difference. He says that one can choose a system within which one will integrate.

We have the freedom to choose, right, Mr. Madrane?

This, of course, also applies to the Flemish Rand. I assume that you will not imagine that in Flanders one should choose the Flemish system. Mr. Madrane has a different system. They are so clever. I would like to give it a moment.

They are very clear about citizenship, Mr. De Man. I would like to give you that too.

Colleagues, I ask you to be consistent and not to vote X one time and Y another time. I urge you to support our amendment. The legal objections raised in the committee have been removed by amending the amendment.

The second imperfection is the violation of the rules of European law. We also anticipate that this law will unfortunately not last long. The State Council’s opinion was devastating, in the sense that it was firmly stated that it violates the rules of European law.

We are absolutely for strengthening. We will approve the proposal. Only I will abstain, but I will give a vote later on.

The bill is a first step. It is a beginning. At least equally important, as Mr Madrane pointed out, is that we strive for a European harmonisation of migration in general and family reunification in particular. By ⁇ ining inequality between different countries and between European legislation, we create the European routes, the Belgium-Netherlands routes, or whatever it is called. That is nefast. As a country and as a Parliament, we must continue to demand European harmonization.

Finally, it is important that we invest in a preventive policy. This has not been discussed throughout the debate.

We must ensure that the communities themselves are convinced that family reunification can actually be only in certain ways and not simply the gateway to migration, for that is not the intention. How can we do that? Continuing dialogue with different communities. That is very important. Young people must be resilient from the beginning. This too has not yet been cited here. Consequences of marital migration must be made discussible, also in the different communities and with this I mean all communities, of course, including the immigrant zone. We must cooperate with the countries of origin and organize information campaigns there so that we ⁇ do not create an unrealistic picture of Belgium and above all no unrealistic expectations. Colleagues, that is, by the way, something that is absolutely requested by most youth migrant organizations and women migrant organizations. Let us not be blind to this; let us enter into it.

As I said, the SP will support this proposal. Only I will abstain symbolically because we believe that the injustice between EU citizens and Belgians cannot, and especially because the necessary requirement of citizenship has been omitted in this law.

Mrs. Temmerman, I highly appreciated your argument. However, I have a comment. It is not so much a reproach, it is a comment, because I greatly appreciate that you will approve the proposal.

You say that you, as a migration expert at the sp.a., will personally abstain because the equalization of Belgians and third-country nationals and the discrimination that would exist between Belgians and other Europeans, is very difficult for you and is almost unacceptable. I also understand the casus from Gent. The situation with those Bulgarians is obviously difficult. They are all Europeans and it is difficult to explain that a Bulgarian can make his whole family happen, but a Gentleman who lives next to it, in a way of speaking, could no longer.

For that, I might still be able to gain understanding if I had not done some research work. In 2007, the Flemish government strengthened the citizenship decree. At that time we were together, also with the SP.A, in the government. This struggle meant that Belgians would be treated stricter than other Europeans. This principle has been very concrete since 2007 or early 2008. If a Belgian marries a Filipino, the Philippine is obliged to be citizens. If a Frenchman who lives in the Flemish Rand or elsewhere in Belgium marries a Filipino, then we can or should not compel that Filipino to citizenship. This is exactly the same principle. The SP has then very enthusiastically approved this. That discrimination was thus introduced in 2007 by the Flemish government, in order to treat Belgians stricter than other Europeans in the context of citizenship and integration.

Thus, this principle was approved in 2007 by the sp.a, but now you have difficulty with it. It is strange, however, that you are now having trouble with it, while you thought it was okay in 2007.

I also consulted the State Council. I am addressing myself especially to the colleagues of the CDH who always refer to the opinion of the Council of State, which would say that equal treatment cannot be, that we discriminate by treating the Belgians stricter. This is what the State Council, according to Mr. Wathelet and Mrs. Fonck, has now said in an opinion.

In the opinion of the Dutch-speaking Chamber of the Council of State, from 2007 – now it was the French-speaking Chamber – no comment was made on that so-called discrimination between the Belgians and the other Europeans.

I find this very strange. I am not referring to the SP in particular. It is a determination, of course. I just did my homework and I’ve cleared out how one and the other things are exactly in common. Then there was apparently no problem, and now there is a big problem. Again, I find that very strange.

Mr Francken, I remember symbolically, but the party supports a piece of that symbolism. I am ⁇ not alone.

I just said it in my presentation that we must strive for a European harmonisation, such that that inequality no longer exists. Only then will we be able to carry out a sound policy. Again, we are not against struggle, hence we vote in favour. However, we would like to point out that the discrimination that exists now is actually not possible and that we must continue to try to eliminate that discrimination.

This is only a fraction of the symbolism. The second particle, much more important to us, is citizenship; hence I abstain.

The European harmonisation needs to be done as soon as possible. Much under pressure from the various Member States, including Belgium, which take individual measures, the European pressure will accurately increase and Europe will adjust the legislation.

So it is good that we adopt this proposal today, because we are the only country in the row that makes it clear to Europe that we have taken our responsibilities and that it is now up to them to take their responsibilities at the European level. I am convinced that this will follow and that we should not wait for European harmonisation before we do anything.

Together with you, I support European harmonisation.

Lanjri, it is precisely for this reason that we will approve the proposal. Again, we would also like to point out to the heads of government that we must continue to strive for harmonization.

Unfortunately, citizenship is not there.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard many colleagues congratulate the climate that had reigned during the discussions. Personally, I did not find the working conditions ideal. We wanted to work very quickly; the committees had to meet absolutely. It was an emergency! However, it took seven months to accomplish this work. There was no emergency!

He refused auditions. We quickly realized that these matters were complicated and that it would be interesting to hear the field actors to see how the regrouping procedures were applied. We shouldn’t listen to them because we didn’t have the time. Those who offered hearings only wanted to delay the work. In the end, as you can see, a part of the parliamentarians did not know the dossier. You say things at the beginning; you say the opposite after...

In order to save time, we have lost it.

What is very symptomatic is the first request to the State Council. It was so badly justified – we talked about the crisis of the reception – that the State Council repackaged the request by indicating that given the flattering justification, it would not examine the text. Then a second request was made to the Council of State. This clearly shows the Bordeaux climate that has ruled throughout the preparation of this text.

Unfortunately, it is not only the climate that has been Bordeaux, the result is too!

I am not a lawyer. Sometimes I find it difficult to read the opinions of the State Council but, in this case, its opinion is very clear. He points with his finger very clearly on several issues – it is contrary to the Constitution, it is contrary to a decision of European justice. It is not the small cosmetic amendments that have been addressed that will correct the legality of this text.

What will happen? This is not a new fact, as we know, housing provisions have already been cancelled in the past in terms of family reunification.

Here too, we will have a text that will be dismantled gradually. So I invite all my colleagues to take their agenda because in six months we will have to vote on small corrective laws. You will tell me that this is not the first time but if we could, for once, work properly, it would not be worse!

Some said they were proud of the way Parliament worked. I confess that I am not proud of this: I hoped that Parliament could work quietly, serenely and that it could produce solid and lasting texts. As far as I am concerned, going fast, working badly and having to start again is not a good method!

Nevertheless, this is a real debate and real discussions could be held on the subject: who can come and under what conditions?

Nevertheless, we had some discussions. We discussed the issue of housing a long time ago. From the beginning, it was said that it was necessary to consult the State Council so as not to waste time discussing housing requirements based on regional codes for which we are not competent. We continued to discuss the subject for long hours and, indeed, the State Council said that we were not competent! We are now back to the original texts. What a lost time!

The debate on integration has also been very long. Everyone agreed on the importance of proposing a course that would enable everyone to better understand Belgian society, to have access to language courses, to integrate themselves into the labour market. Divisions have emerged on the obligation to know the language of the Region, on the fact of being able to dispatch a family member who would not have followed the whole course, on the inepty of not having provided with derogations, for example for school children.

The debate was really overwhelmed following the vote that had taken place in the Naturalization Committee. The MR said to himself that he had voted stupidly once and that he would not do it a second time. The MR therefore did not really analyze things and decided not to talk about integration. He had been caught in the Commission of Naturalizations where he voted at the expense of French speakers residing in Flanders and this is the reason why, in this text, we no longer speak at all of the course of insertion, while it has all its interest.

The best thing to do, and this point is being discussed at the level of the Regions, is to allocate resources to it. People want to learn the language; they want to take classes on how the Belgian society works.

When I talk with people who have followed the inburgering in Brussels, I find that they are enchanted. Unfortunately, there are not enough classes. Everywhere, there are waiting lists in all associations that give lessons in French or Dutch. Therefore, it is not necessary to advocate large obligations; it is sufficient to give means to the actors who give quality courses.

I will soon address the three major black points of the text. The first is the discrimination between Belgians and Europeans. In addition, the income requirement is ⁇ high. Finally, it is the vexatory deadline imposed on the newly regulated. The text proposes lighter procedures for Europeans who have used their freedom of movement than for Belgians. Non-Belgium Europeans will be able to bring their parents. Their income condition will be 987 euros. Belgians and non-Europeans, on the other hand, will not be able to bring their parents and will have to earn more than 1,185 euros to welcome their children or their lover. The opinion of the State Council is very clear. It shows very clearly that this discrimination is an aberration.

In terms of income, they must amount to 1,185 euros for Belgians and non-European foreigners... (Mrs. Genot begins to cough)

Mr Francken takes advantage of this to ask for the word. This is not very correct, but finally...

Mrs. Joy, I have a question. I also have a question for Mrs. Brems, because I know that she is quite concerned with the problem of migration.

I read a very interesting article last week in The Tomorrow. The title is “I was his shortest path to papers.” It is about a number of immigrant young women from the city of Antwerp who have united and fight against the smooth migration legislation because this very often leads to problematic situations and very quick divorces. You should know that the percentage of divorces in follow-up immigration marriages is higher than in Flemish and Moroccan families where there is no migration movement.

I like to hear the ladies Genot and Brems talk about discrimination. I would like to go green! And Ecolo hear what they think they can. How can we put a brake on that problem of “I was his shortest way to papers”? How can we prevent this? I would very much like to hear this from my Regiogenote, Mrs. Brems.

Mr. Speaker, in order to save Mrs. Genot a little, I would like to take the word, although I would like to do it again later.

This is not a law against hypocritical marriages. Our group is very strongly opposed to abuse of marriage, against hypocritical marriages. We firmly support the struggle against hypocrisy, but this is not a law against hypocrisy. This is a law that aims to reduce follow-up migration as much as possible, as you consider possible in a European framework, but which clearly goes far beyond what is possible within a European framework.

Our group shares some of the concerns expressed here, including by Lanjri and Temmerman. We are talking about green! And with people from the immigrant community already discussed that it is not necessarily desirable to continue looking for a partner in the country of origin. We find it advisable to conduct a policy, to engage in dialogue with the communities and to make it discussable, as Ms. Temmerman also says.

I am even sure that there is a lot of support within the communities. That is something different from making your immigration policy as restrictive as possible, so that the free choice of partner is restricted in a way that is in no way compatible with European law, nor with human rights, nor with European Union law, and in which you are ultimately misleading the people.

I woke up with you on the radio. I give it to you to proclaim this to the land, but it is to make people wise. This law will be passed, but it will no longer exist within a few months, whether it comes from the European Commission, the Court of Justice, the Constitutional Court or all.

You know what you are doing. Some come here to say that they also think that it is contrary to European law, but that they will vote in favour. I find that strange. I do not understand that. What is their view of the rule of law if they do this?

In response to Mr. Francken, just this morning, an association in my neighborhood that organizes French courses and professional training for newly arrived immigrants organized a awareness session on the question of arranged or forced marriages. We were projecting a movie before starting the discussion with the group who was asked what they knew, what was happening around them, what can be done to prevent this and what are the resources. This work can help people on the ground.

The family planning organizations that undertake this kind of action crumble under the demands and do not have enough means to go to all the secondary schools that call them in this pre-holiday period to deliver this information, to distribute brochures explaining to young women and young men their rights and possibilities. This is the fight against abuse.

There is also the problem of white marriages. This is someone who monetizes the possibility of marrying someone else so that the latter person can get papers. I do not see what in this text will prevent a single white marriage. When one claims that this text is a tool for combating abuse, I disagree. This text serves to prevent those who do not earn 1,184 euros from getting married. This text serves to force children to wait longer to meet their parents. He will not prevent any white marriage.

Mrs. Genot, you say that the bill does not contain elements to address some abuses. For all clarity, we have never claimed that with this bill all abuses belong to the past, but there are indeed instruments in it.

For example, it is very clear that one must meet the criteria for three years, otherwise the stay is revoked. You also know, or you do not know, that within those three years, and even longer, it is checked whether one forms another family, and whether it was not a false marriage or false cohabitation.

Therefore, there are indeed things in place to deal with the false cohabitation and the false marriage. You now let it shine out as if this is not the case, but it is.

Mrs. Genot, I take your word when you say that the abuses must be addressed. There are still legislative proposals. You know that I have submitted another bill on tackling hypocrisy and the establishment of a database.

You are apparently today an advocate to address those abuses. I count on your support and vote.

Madame Lanjri, these controls already existed! Only the duration has been extended. For the rest, there is nothing new in the text. The aim is not to fight abuse but to reduce migration. Thus, someone who falls in love with someone at the end of the world will not be able to bring them to Belgium if they are not rich enough. This is what this text is for!

In fact, this text will exclude 40% of self-employed, those who do not earn 1,184 euros, part-time, the majority of invalids, pensioners and dismissed workers. It is clear! In addition, this income condition was broken in the Netherlands by the Chakroun ruling. Why should we repeat the same mistake? The Chakroun ruling says very clearly that one can demand stable and regular income but that one cannot have a demanding income ceiling. You can refuse, Madame Lanjri! Read the decision of the State Council.

This is manifestly wrong. You say that the income condition was rejected by the judgment-Chakroun. That is not true. First, it is formulated so that the amount is a reference amount. Secondly, also by DVZ we have predetermined the income condition of 120% and that is not impossible. Thirdly, the European Directive also allows the establishment of an income requirement. You should not pretend that it is impossible; it is possible. We also want to make the law so that it is fully consistent with what the Chakroun judgment prescribed, namely a reference amount. This is also written here.

Furthermore, Mrs. Genot, the required income is not even exhaustive. It is about 1,184 euros, which is a pack lower than the required income in the Netherlands, which is almost 1,500 euros. So it can indeed. In addition, we have provided an exception for pensioners and disabled persons. The required income is quite feasible. This is necessary in order to ensure a family’s proper existence. Or do you advocate importing poverty anyway and making people here live in poverty?

The bill will ⁇ not stop people who are in love. Those who are in love also take care of their partner and that also means taking care of them financially.

If, for Ms. Lanjri, to provide 100% of RIS is to keep people in poverty, then it is urgent to raise the level of RIS: in Belgium, hundreds of thousands of people have to live with this sum. If you consider this amount insufficient, I hope you will support the bill currently filed in the Health Committee, which aims to raise this ceiling in four years.

We also talked a lot about abused women. Through this proposal, women victims of domestic violence can be protected. Unfortunately, the proposal as currently drafted will not allow these women to leave their couple.

This morning, during this animation, the animators of the planning alluded to several cases where beaten women left their homes and, as a result, lost their right of residence, failing to know all the legal subtleties to keep it. We have kept this mechanism: yet it is too complicated and applies painfully in reality. This is why we have submitted an amendment that I hope will meet your votes.

This amendment aims to enable the Foreign Office to judge on a case-by-case basis when persons have suffered violence within their spouses: they must be truly protected and dare to leave the home. Extending the duration from two to three years means for some women to have to stay one more year in violence and abuse. I think it is essential that the mechanism works in real life. I hope you will support this amendment.

The third point is also problematic: the deadline. Why impose on a new regularized, who would not have seen his children for several years, to wait a year before they can introduce the procedure? Especially since this procedure will still take some time: once the application for bringing their children is introduced, it is necessary to wait for the results of the DNA analysis and other formalities that take time. Why impose this deadline?

This term seems to me only vexatory. It will not prevent any abuse. The only consequence is to tell these people that they and their children are not welcome in Belgium.

The climate in which the discussions took place raises my concern.

According to some, this is a test on how immigration can be managed in the coming years. This test is not conclusive. Indeed, it demonstrates that populists tend to intimidate Democrats and make them “plug”. I really regret what happened in the committee with the vote of the PS in favour of the proposal and the absence of the CDH. I still hope that some will eventually recapture themselves so that they can finally make respect for the law and the European Convention in this matter. These are minimums.

( ... ) : [...]

We attended all the meetings we were invited to.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, in the midst of this exciting debate, I have the opportunity to explain the position of my group. We have already heard interesting things today and we have also read in the newspaper a number of comments on the present bill.

We have noted in the newspaper that this is a very exceptional debate. After all, we have a secretary of state who, if we can believe the newspaper, is opposing in his own policy domain. This is, of course, due to the fact that the government is in progress. It is a unique given.

I have also determined that we are with 151, Mr. Madrane. After all, there are two Mr. Madrane in the hemisphere: Mr. Madrane from the committee, who voted enthusiastically for it, and Mr. Madrane from the plenary session, who attacked the bill. They are two equally sympathetic colleagues, but they are clearly two different.

Finally, I am pleased with the pedagogical process of our friends of the N-VA, who gain experience with falling and rising in making good compromises.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleague Somers that there are no two Mr. and Madrane. by Mr. Madeleine abstained in the committee. So I wanted to correct you, because I think you were wrong!

There are three Madranes. There is Mr. Madrane, who was enthusiastic in the committee. Then there is Mr. Madrane, who abstained. Finally, here is Mr. Madrane, who burned everything. So we need to urgently conclude the debate or it is full of Madranes here.

Colleagues, the present bill is an important bill on an important policy area. This will explain why the emotions are sometimes high. It is about how we organize migration in our society. The present bill, which addresses family migration, is actually the main legal gateway that gives access to our territory, as many speakers have already said before me. Every year there are more than 28 000 people entering our country through this gate. That accounts for 48.4% of all legal migration. For some countries of origin, that percentage is much higher and is even more impressive. I will take the example of Morocco: 85% of immigrants from Morocco to our country do so through family reunification; 70% of immigrants from Turkey who come to our country legally do so on the basis of the legislation on family reunification. The revision of this legislation is therefore fundamental.

What is now the ambition regarding the re-alignment of the migration of my group and, I suspect, of a number of other proposers of the bill?

I think some people are afraid of migration. Some think that migration is necessarily a negative given. Well, my group does not have the ambition to stop migration or make it impossible. Let us also not fool the people: with the approval of the text, the migration to our country will not be stopped. We do not have to be afraid of migration.

We should not be afraid of a society in diversity. On the contrary, it is the reality of the 21st century and we must learn to live with it. We must strive to find the opportunities that a society of diversity and diversity offers us. That is the starting point.

But I think we must make sure that migration goes in a different way. Both for the migrant concerned and for the host society, migration must take place in acceptable, thus human-worthy, enriching conditions.

That is the problem. The flow of migration to our country is not only vast, but also unbalanced. Meanwhile, I think the size is not even the essential problem. Some parties find it terrible that migration exists, but for me it is not a fear picture.

Migration is unbalanced. I will explain myself more closely.

Half of the migration to our country is migration in the context of family reunification, while the average in the European Union is 27%. We are one of the record holders in Europe. There are almost no European countries where the percentage of family reunification-based migration is as high as in our country.

On the contrary, migration based on economic motives, i.e. labour migration, which by its nature contributes immediately to the prosperity of our society, is nowhere as small as in our country. In particular, it is less than 10 %, while in the Netherlands it is 18 % and in Europe it is on average 25 %.

There is a huge imbalance between the two types of migration. There is, on the one hand, a very small, well-closed door for labour migration and, on the other hand, an immense wide-open door for family migration. Family migration brings a brake to emancipation and integration.

The imbalance has many negative consequences for our society and for the processing, acceptance and reception of migration in our country. What does family migration do? What is especially the imbalance between, on the one hand, a large number of migrants who often enter a dependent situation and, on the other hand, a very small group of migrants who enter from a stronger position, namely from the willingness, the capabilities and the opportunity to contribute to our prosperity? What are the consequences for our society?

In this way, the upward social mobility, which is necessary to make migration acceptable and enriching and to create prospects, is curbed. There are not enough positive role models created in our society. As a result, the adoption of new migrants into our society is so difficult in our country and we have too few bridge figures, too little social progress and too little cohesion.

Colleagues, family migration causes too many migrant families in terms of integration and emancipation to have to start every generation from scratch. Colleagues, I am now speaking as mayor of one of the most multicultural cities of Flanders and of the most Moroccan city of Flanders. Twenty-eight percent of my inhabitants, of my Mechelaers, have their roots in Morocco.

What are we putting on the school gates? We record at the school gates that mothers who have grown up in my town from childhood and who speak perfectly Dutch come to school with their child on the first school day of the first academic year. However, their child does not speak a word Dutch at any time, because the mother is married to someone from the country of origin and Berbers are spoken at home.

This child is a bird for the cat from the first day. From the first day, there is a delay in education, which it never recovers. It is tired from the first school year. This is the case on a large scale.

Let me give another example of family migration. In my cabinet I heard the story of a Moroccan woman. Her mother-in-law had become a widow. There was great pressure in the family to include that mother in the family. The woman herself lived in Mechelen from the age of twelve. She had two schooling daughters. She said that she must have fought an emancipation struggle, that she has advanced in society. She tries to give her daughters the opportunities she never got. The story is not for Story; it is the reality for a mayor from a multicultural city. That woman came with tears in the eyes in my desk asking to prevent that mother from coming to live in the family. From that day on, the chances of emancipation of her children, the grandchildren, are mortgaged. On the contrary, we are powerless.

It is a story of depravity, exclusion and isolation. That large, massive family migration is not only an image, but also a reality of the dual society with a deepening and strengthening colored subclass and the most dramatic is that it works fatality in hand. On this point, I fully agree with several colleagues from the left. There is fatality among the indigenous people, who say that migration is forced to be a story of deprivation and exclusion, as well as among many young immigrants, who see failure after failure around themselves. They see a lack of opportunities and thus settle into immobilism and fatalism. We must fight for them. That is why a re-alignment of the law on family reunification is so important. It must be subject to a number of new emancipatory conditions, conditions that create opportunities and exclude abuse.

I find the intervention of Mr. Somers interesting and I can follow a large part of his reasoning. Indeed, his description of the real land is rather correct.

The first point I do not understand in his reasoning is that concerning children. Children who come to us and enroll in our schools (Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels), will attend a school course that will teach them our democratic values, of emancipation. They will allow them to fully integrate into our society, because they will have been formed by it. This seems to me to be preferable to workers who, when they land, do not speak either Dutch or French and are in clandestine lines of work, a situation that is much more complicated to manage.

If I can follow you on your open-minded reasoning – and you are right, the 21st century is that century, and that is the difference with your other assertions, and that’s so much better! – say that welcoming children is not timely, etc., you are wrong! This is precisely better, since we can give them the opportunity to acquire the cultural values of the region in which they live, of the country in which they live, of the Europe in which they now live. I find it absurd not to invest in this.

Secondly, you seem to affirm that those who arrive at us and pretext the family regroupment contribute less of productivity to the end than those who come to seek labour. But what do you know? This is not true! Nombre de jeunes qui arrivent, tout d'abord, rajeunissent la population, permettront d'aborder plus tard les problèmes de pension et trouveront un emploi chez nous. It is not only this that those who arrive by the family reunification do not participate in the economic force of our country. This is not this! You can not affirm it! C is inaccurate!

Dear colleague, I have tried and will continue to do so during this presentation, to maintain a nuanced and honest discourse. I have not said that people who come to our country in the context of family reunification or follow-up migration, by definition, do not contribute to our society and prosperity. I have, however, the figures of the King Boudewijnstiftung. According to these figures, two out of three people have no work after a year. They are unemployed. That is a massive, impressive figure that should make us ask questions and make us worry.

Your first comment is the most important. I think we have not understood each other enough. This may be due to the fact that we have been meeting on this issue for months in the committee.

My point is the following. When a man or woman grows up here and, in the context of migration with falling and rising, conquers a place in our society and contributes to society, and when he chooses to find and find his bride or bridegroom in our country, then I am convinced that the children in that family, the second generation, have better start chances than in a family where the mother – the people who grow up in our society carry values, learn to speak the language of the region his legio – marries someone from the country of origin, for example Morocco. Excuse me that I often talk about Morocco, but that is the reality that I know best. Then the home language becomes Berbers again. The child then grows up single Berbers until the first day it is deposited at the school gate. That child has less chances from the beginning than children who are deposited at the same school gate and, in my city, can speak Dutch.

Mr. Somers, I am an immigrant of the second generation of Turkish descent. In my first year in kindergarten, I did not speak the word Dutch at the time. I could not, but I was hit.

Whether or not one speaks Dutch well often has to do with reaching a higher level in their own mother tongue than with blaming parents who have another mother tongue. Every scientific study of multilingualism proves that. We would rather ignore it.

Often it is more interesting to invest in that multilingualism and raise the level of the mother tongue so that one speaks Turkish, Berber, Arabic or Russian well with his children. One must ensure that one brings the level to an abstract middle class level, which is used in education, so that those children learn to switch. That was also my salvation, that I learned to read books, including in my own language.

What happens often is the following. Saying to parents of the second generation, who speak poorly Dutch, that they should especially speak Dutch with their children often results in them learning to speak several languages poorly.

I want to say the following. The debate is much more nuanced, especially when it comes to school lag. I have done a lot of research on it. You know that, Mr Somers. I myself came up with proposals to the then Minister Vandenbroucke. We have made policy proposals in the Flemish Parliament.

When it comes to multilingualism, I agree with you that good Dutch learning is of tremendous importance. However, it depends on much more than just the language one speaks at home. It mainly depends on the correct level of language use. I am not saying that, because this is scientifically sufficiently known.

I gave you my example. It is a pity that we always have to go back to casuistics. The examples in cities such as Mechelen and Antwerp hopefully show that there may be a thousand white swans, but only one black swans is needed to demonstrate that one cannot shave everything on the same chest. I hope you agree with me on this subject.

Then I come to the parents. This is also referred to Casuality. When we talk about social cohesion, in our society, care for parents is often mentioned as a positive feature of immigrant families. I also know a lot of people who come crying to the police and say they are being abused as old people. These examples also exist. I just want to say again that black-and-white thinking is ⁇ dangerous.

I agree with you that family reunification is a very complex issue. Let us not reduce the acquisition of Dutch and the backwardness in education to a responsibility of those parents alone. I think this is not true. The same applies to the reception of parents. There has been a rupture in the lives of people who have migrated. It was their custom to take care of their parents. Let us call a cat a cat. All figures and statistics show that the problem is no longer there. Individual cases are important. It is true that in some cases this leads to a problem within the family, as is the case within our Flemish families at a time when someone has to leave to a home.

The big problem is effectively family reunification and the whole debate is about whether one can solve that problem by sanctioning, legislative action, or by initiating the debate with those communities.

The latter, both in the examples cited and in the way the debate is conducted, gives me a very uncomfortable feeling. That I have to say as one of the many living examples that it can also be different, even if you did not speak the word Dutch in the first kindergarten class.

Mrs. Almaci, I truly believe that we are deepening a very exciting debate. Allow me, however, to say that the example you cite and the way you approach the problem testify to me of a very neoliberal approach. You start from your own individual success story, for which I am very admiring, and you blame me for trying to look at the large number of children born in families where one has taken the spouse from a third country and who grow up in that family. I find this a proof that people also learn the language of their parents and grandparents. This is an absolute enrichment. It is foolish to think that someone who comes from Morocco to our country is doing the wrong thing to teach his children good Berbers or Arabic if they speak Arabic. However, it is very important that we allow the progress that the previous generation has made by acquiring Dutch too to be lost back to the children. That is why it is necessary, colleagues. Among other reasons. The law on family reunification...

Mr. Somers, I understand that of course you want to give a replica, but what I have accused was the causality between things. I say that the causal relationship between whether or not knowing Dutch and the fact that parents speak Dutch or not is not so intertwined as is claimed here too often. All scientific studies show that it is often much more interesting to raise the level of the mother tongue. That we need to work on this – that’s another debate – I agree with you on that. However, mixing all these things into the debate about family reunification only pollutes this debate. I absolutely agree that one should work on language acquisition, with parents and with children. To say that the fact that a child does not speak good Dutch in the first kindergarten class is a factor of backwardness, that is true. That this, however, means a causality because the parents are married to a partner from the country of origin, that is not true. The exercise you need to do is then make sure that the level of language usage matches the level of language usage used in education. This requires very different tools than those provided by this legislation. You have nothing to do with this legislation. That is the kind of causality that I want to accuse here.

Ms. Almaci, in this Parliament we can do nothing about this, because it is a competence of the provinces, the communities, to develop a policy in this regard. What we can do here is to reduce the likelihood of people having to start an integration process again and again because the partner comes from a third country and thus the process is restarted. That is the reality from my ten-year experience as mayor in a city centre.

What are the emancipatory conditions? How do we create opportunities? How do we eliminate abuse?

We do this on three levels. First, there is an age requirement, with which we try to go against forced and arranged marriages, and the boundary between the two is very narrow. Second, we do so with a housing condition to prevent people from becoming victims of house milkers or being housed in inhumane conditions. Third, colleagues, we do that with an income condition to ensure that people do not have to grow up in bad conditions and only know the way to living salary.

That this is necessary and that this is a serious and real problem, Mrs. Almaci and colleagues, says the King Boudewijnstichting. One in four marriages in the family reunification window fails, separates within the year, one in four. Two-thirds of people who come to our country in the window of family reunification have no work after a year. Thus, they are vulnerable people, often vulnerable people, often disadvantaged people, often isolated people, often people who end up in the very side of society. There is a lot of human drama, a lot of human suffering.

Often, and that is the worst, those who come to our country in the process of family reunification are not the strongest from the Maghreb or from Turkey. They are often people who come from disadvantaged areas, from highly conservative and traditional families where the practice of forced, arranged, regulated marriages is still accepted.

My knowledge of the Maghreb teaches me, in fact, that the middle class, the young generation now rebelling and rule of law, absolutely no longer accepts to enter into a story of family reunification and forced marriages. It is a very nuanced story in Morocco. It is the weakest, the most vulnerable, who are victims of this process.

This also inhibits the emancipation within the migrant community. Let me give you another example. Marriages between nephew and niece are an archaic tradition in the Maghreb. This has to do with inheritance, holding together the heritage, ensuring that it remains together.

The study of the King Boudewijn Foundation has shown that in our country there is much more marriage between nephew and niece than in Morocco. The delay in integration, in the emancipation process, has suffered under our current regulation.

For me, this law is not just a constraint. It is not intended to exclude people. On the contrary, we must protect people, we must create opportunities and address disasters.

Mr. Speaker, I hear the argument of my cherished colleague on the report of the King Baudouin Foundation that our working group has long examined in committee. In Belgium, three out of four marriages end in divorce.

With all respect, Mr. Madrane, not in the first year. This includes people who get married and come here, after which 25% divorce within the year.

Mr. Madrane, the King Boudewine Foundation says it is a social drama. People come from a third country. They get married and in the next year they divorce. What happens to those who divorce? We can laugh at it, but I know such cases. You know them too. Girls who have to live in isolation in a small room, who do not dare to return to their family out of fear of being married again, who are left to their fate. We leave those people away today. We need to do something about that now.

My last point, Mr. Speaker, is the scope of the law. This is an important and difficult discussion. We have already entered into this since then.

Whoever says that we should continue to apply these bilateral agreements and continue to interpret them as we do today, but that we should stay away from the Belgians, approves an empty box. Nearly half of marriages take place with Belgians. A significant proportion of the people who marry and do family remembrance comes from precisely the countries with which we have concluded bilateral treaties. Nearly 30% of family reunification takes place with people from Morocco, with whom we have concluded a bilateral agreement.

Whoever claims that he is in favour of such a law, but that one must leave the Belgians out and one must abstain from the bilateral treaties, wants us to approve an empty box.

What do we then do? Do we discriminate or do we help people? I am not ashamed to say that we want to impose stricter conditions if we want to better protect Belgians in terms of protection against house milkers, from living in crabs, from abuse, from marriages or from forced marriages. I am not ashamed of that. I find it a very human, very progressive and very liberal policy.

I do not understand the so-called progressive parties of the left. I am terribly difficult with it. I do not understand how those parties in this Assembly can fulminate against the fact that we want to help and protect young people with the Belgian nationality. How is it to be explained in Brussels, in Mechelen, in Antwerp, that we allow girls with the Belgian nationality to enter into a forced marriage, while we protect people who do not have the Belgian nationality? How will one explain that we accept that compatriots, people with the Belgian nationality, end up in cracks, in unhuman conditions, where the electricity is exposed, but that we do not want that for foreigners?

I cannot understand that. My political mind is too small for that. I am even rebellious about it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word to my colleague Bart Somers.

Mr, I can’t let you say that all family reunification is the result of white marriages. I don’t understand why you can’t design it!

Mr. Madrane, we can of course ignore the sunlight. Evidently, there will also be women over 21 who will enter into a forced marriage. Are you asking for discrimination based on skin color, or what do you say now? However, we need to develop a general measure as stated here.

First, there is a small translation issue, I wanted to point it out.

Next, I would like to recall two points. First, everything we have to do about family reunification also depends on everything we have to do about fighting complacent marriages and complacent cohabitations. As you know, before the government fell, the texts I had submitted on the subject were linked in the sense that we wanted a common approach. If someone married in order to obtain papers and subsequently introduced a family reunification procedure, the two elements must be considered together. This means that we must not forget that the two elements are linked.

Secondly, Mr. Somers, if a complacency marriage has been entered into, for three years, during the control period, if it is seen that the reason for the marriage was exclusively the obtaining of documents, the residence permit may be withdrawn. The extension of control enabled this and that was already what we were doing. I proposed for my part that we do the same for complacency cohabitations, that we extend the period of control. The cohabitations of complacency, of course, do not detect them all. Of course, people get married because they want it, this is not criminally punishable, even if they are of different nationalities, even if they are of different skin colors, it is not necessarily illegal and reproachable.

It is in the fight against complacency unions and in the duration of control that one can find an answer to your question rather than in the proposal you make.

As we said before, it will be an en-en-story. It will both approve this law and also approve the other proposals of laws existing in connection with hypocritical marriages.

You know that government texts were drafted in connection with the approach to hypocritical marriages. In the meantime, they have also been converted into a bill. I have submitted a legislative proposal to address hypocritical marriages and hypocritical partnerships, including through the establishment of a database.

If we are already taking this step today, we can by way of speech tomorrow approve all that other bill and I think to be able to count on the support of CDH, which today holds a plea for it.

Colleague Madrane, if it is said here that this law is partially intended to address false situations, it will also be so, including by extending the control to three years. However, nobody says here that all marriages are hypocritical. You do not hear us say that.

It is not that for those 41,000 people who are doing family reunification, we will see a sudden drastic decrease next year or within two years. This will not be realized. This is not our intention and it has never been. It is our intention to remove the abuses and to impose a number of criteria on all those others who are in good faith, so that they can live well in our country.

I would like to offer my apologies to colleague Madrane. The translation was not fully completed. There was a confusion between hypocritical marriages and white marriages, making me confused.

Addressing hypocrisy requires an integrated approach. Justice should also be involved. This law alone will not provide an answer.

What is humanly worse than a hypocritical marriage? This is a forced marriage, a marriage in which one is pushed against his will into a relationship, must coexist, in all meanings of the word, with someone whom one does not love, with whom one does not want to be, but in which one must do so under the pressure of the environment and the family. We must give people more opportunities to arm themselves against them. I think we think the same about it.

I think we are doing something important with this law. I look at colleague De Croo who has been part of this Room for many years. I suspect that we must go back many years to find an important, fundamental law in which the engine was not the government, but the Parliament, in which at some point even the grip of the particulation – and I look at colleague Madrane, whom I have learned to greatly appreciate – became looser. Through debate, dialogue, interaction and the mature exchange of arguments, people began to convince each other, even so that on such a difficult matter in the committee at some point there was almost quasi unanimity, one tactical amendment not to mention.

This has greatly delighted me. This also gave me the conviction that if there is intellectual space in this Parliament to openly exchange ideas, it is possible to make progress together. We have not been stuck here in the political impasse; we have taken the hole that the political impasse in this country has created, to do something valuable and positive for the people, for the future. I thank all my colleagues for this.

Colleagues, maybe first outline the broader context of what is being discussed here today. The first has been said several times: family reunification accounts for 50 % of applications and is therefore the main way for foreigners to enforce a residence permit. It has already been said that nowhere else than here one finds so many family reunification percentages. This is not found anywhere in the EU.

The numbers are, as a result, hallucinating. Ten years ago, it was about 4 000 family reunions per year. Today we are talking about the tenfold. The Secretary of State said in the Committee on Home Affairs of 22 March that in 2009 there were 43 332 family reunification cases and in 2010 there were 41 449. That is, therefore, roughly the population of a medium-sized city such as Dendermonde or Vilvoorde, only before family reunification.

I am not talking about the more than 20 000 applications for asylum and the 27 000 applications for regularization a year ago, nor about, for example, the abuse of student and other visas.

The two largest groups of immigrants who use the lax Belgian legislation to their advantage are, as we know, Moroccans and Turks, groups of whom we all know that they are difficult to integrate into our European society, if they do not completely surrender to our Western values and norms, and this from their Islamic culture.

This is understood by few. However, I read today that the right-wing government of Denmark has understood it. In Denmark there is a stricter legislation on family reunification. The proposed legislation will be issued with the aim – I quote – “to keep out Islamic immigrants from Islamic countries.” That is how strongly the provision is formulated in Denmark.

Let us return to Belgium.

Two parties that have been responsible for hyperimmigration for years and days – it can no longer be called otherwise – being CD&V and the whole Open Vld, have seemingly turned the wheel since the disastrous election outcome of 2010 for them.

In the Committee on Internal Affairs, they, together with N-VA, submitted a series of amendments that are supposed to lead to a tightening of immigration rules.

The Flemish Belang, however, believes that CD&V, Open Vld and N-VA make the population somewhat wise, for the following reasons.

First, the income requirement from the original proposal will be further weakened. Now, in some cases, even a income of less than 120 % of the living wage is sufficient for the applicant. They will have to investigate some things by the already overloaded Foreign Affairs Service. I see a lot of concrete things not happening in this regard.

Mr. Ducarme noted in the committee that “les chômeurs pourront regrouper”, which is important to know. Thus, the parties concerned will allow that a person on the basis of unemployment allowance nevertheless causes another person to suffer. Therefore, we do not have enough immigrant support trailers. We will make an additional part happen.

Statistics show that a large proportion of newcomers do not work. The assertion that foreigners will take care of our pensions, as I have had to hear here a few times this afternoon, is nonexistent.

Second, in certain cases, a decision on a family reunification application should be made within six months. In the absence of a decision within the aforementioned six-month period, which is fairly short, a residence permit will be delivered. At that point, therefore, the authorisation appears to take place automatically, which is the opposite of a constriction.

Third, family reunification with an unmarried partner is still allowed. Those who register as cohabitants can still apply for family reunification. I would like to point out that the European Directive does not impose any obligation in this regard. The use — not to say the abuse — of societal contracts, not to say of phony societal contracts, remains therefore entirely possible.

Fourth, it has long been talked about the age limit of 21 years. I want to. That would be a struggle if, in some cases, the reunification would not be possible from the age of 18.

Fifth, there is still – which is not insignificant – no cascade ban. This means that anyone who has come to Belgium as a spouse or unmarried partner can, in turn, have a new partner after the end of their relationship. You can hardly contradict that, Mr. Francken.

Mr. De Man, I have read your press release very well. You are simply overflowing the criticisms of the Flemish Interest on our bill. However, I think you should be consistent. First, as regards the income requirement of 120%, the Chakroun judgment, you say that at certain times it will still be possible. This is imposed on us. It must be examined individually, file by file, each time.

I do not dispute that.

Secondly, you say that the cascade ban is no longer capable of doing so. Mr. De Man, the cascade ban was removed from the Foreigners Act two years ago, because we are condemned, because the cascade ban according to the European directive can no longer be. The Flemish Belang says that it is scandalous that it is not able, but you dance on two legs.

I will talk about the European Directive.

You say that the Flemish Interest does not recognize the European Directive. You say that the judgment Chakroun does not count and you say that the cascade ban should be reintroduced. You say that the EU directive is a soft thing and that it needs to be stricter. You do not recognize them. The Flemish Importance does not support it. That is good. That is your point of view, but then you ask why, for example, a five-year residence is not allowed, because the European directive allows it. You must be consistent in your argument: either you do not recognize the European Directive, or you do.

It is on my magazine. You have to wait for your time.

[...] have not been completed at the maximum. You should remain a little consistent in your criticism, Mr. De Man.

Mr. De Man, ⁇ it is your intention to be purely demagogic and to proclaim things that are false, whatever you know. If that is your intention, then it will not be pardoned to you. Either you do not know the matter enough, and then it will be pardoned to you.

I don’t really need your forgiveness, for the clarity.

The [...]

You have already made curves too.

I suppose it is from ignorance. You may not have fully understood the interpretation of the judgment-Chakroun.

That judgment states that it is possible to introduce an amount, but that this must obviously be a reference amount. As the Netherlands applied until now, this was a problem, because in one case the Netherlands applied 120 % and in the other case less. It was not uniform. With us it happens uniformly and therefore there is no problem. With us, the right to OCMW support is also at the same level everywhere; that does not differ from municipality to municipality. We will not encounter these problems.

If you had better listened or better wanted to listen, you would have understood it.

Then you’ll come back with the cascade effects. The previous amendments were implemented in 2006, after long debates. I found it absolutely regrettable that we had to amend the cascade ban as we used to know it and that was in our legislation in 2006 in accordance with a European directive. You ⁇ ’t be obliging us to go against that European directive now? Europe says clearly that the cascade can only be limited to a maximum of two years. You make it seem like we want people to marry, divorce, re-marry, and so on. It is not so. It has become impossible because of what Europe has imposed.

We have applied this directive to the maximum. Europe says people can be deprived of the right to family reunification for a maximum of two years. We have entered a year in the law, because we know that the application can also take a year, which brings the total to a maximum of two years. We have therefore fully taken this into account. Either you know that, and then you consciously speak demagogically here, or you did not know that, but then I hope you will remember it once and for all.

I don’t really have much to learn, Mrs. Lanjri. I will tell you the following. I would like to say at the end of my list that we do not agree with the European Directive. For you, that is apparently a taboo and impossible to turn to it. We believe that this should be tackled in Europe.

What is doing politics? That is, in my opinion, an attempt, if one is in the opposition at least, to modify the legislation. If this cannot be done here in this House, then it must be done in Europe and be assured that we will be looking for partners at the European level, to a number of countries where it is agreed to supplement that directive in a different way. This seems to me quite widespread.

Mr Francken, I will now answer your questions. After saying that we do not accept that directive, there are indeed a number of things that are possible within the directive, but that you do not even get to. That is twice as bad. You are based on a guideline with which we do not agree, and what we could then still follow for a bit, you do not even fill in, Mr. Francken.

I will give you an example. Foreign students have a temporary residence right. They can still allow family members to happen. Well, the EU directive limits family reunification to persons with a residence permit with a validity of at least one year and prospect of a permanent right of residence.

I give you a second example. The right of residence of the newcomer can only be revoked within the first three years, while the directive refers to the first five years. Also there you do not go to the limit of what is actually offered to you by the European Directive.

Mrs. Lanjri, I do not think that the European Directive prohibits integration conditions. Where are the conditions for integration now? They are not in there. There is a proposal from Ms. Temmerman and we will even support that. We can be so constructive. The N-VA has dropped it, because otherwise it did not get the MR and especially the FDF over the writing. It is, by the way, very questionable whether this will succeed later, because to see the throne of Mr. Maingain, you will come home from a cold quarter.

Overall, I find that CD&V, Open Vld and N-VA blast unjustly high from the tower. Mr. Francken and Mrs. Lanjri, instead of 42 000 family reunification, we will count maybe another 38 000 or 39 000 next year – if all goes well. And that, Mr. Francken, is that oh so great victory that you now intend to make.

I tell you that there will be only a few thousand fewer on a gigantic number of 42 000 or 41 000. By the way, your ally in this regard, Mrs. Lanjri, has just said that it will not bring much change. Again, a few thousand, such a great victory is not that!

There are also bilateral agreements.

Mr. De Man, first and foremost I wonder what the proposal of the Flemish Interest is in this regard. I assume that you have no problem with the right to family life. An American professor, for example, who comes to teach at the KU Leuven for a few months, can, I suppose, let his wife or partner happen anyway. I assume that you have no objection to this, nor to a U.S. business leader who comes to the port of Antwerp for several months to observe the management of a large international firm. I suppose that this still likes.

If someone comes here with a contract, that’s fantastic.

We put the reading of this law on Dutch reading, which you may know well, because you are the expert of the Flemish Interest in it. Our family reunification law will be largely the same. Ascendents of Belgians will no longer be allowed to happen to us – last year there were two thousand people, including nine hundred Moroccans – while the Netherlands still allows the ascendants of Dutch. On some points we are less strict and on other points we are more strict.

Earlier this year, a report was published on the effects of the law on family reunification in the Netherlands, since it entered into force, four or five years ago. Well, the result is 18% less family reunification. You say it’s about a few thousand.

No, Mrs. Lanjri says that.

That report shows that it is 18 % and that it is precisely the category that falls into the structural disadvantage, as it immediately seeks support and immediately calls the OCMW. With this law, we want to ensure that if someone else wants to happen, he or she must be self-saving and the partner must earn enough from work or through an unemployment benefit.

Mr. Francken, who will control this?

The Foreign Affairs Service of course.

The Foreign Affairs Service is already overloaded. Who will control it after a year? And after two years? And after three years?

You should not come here to tell me that it will have no impact at all.

I did not say that.

In the Netherlands, it is 18% less since the law came into force. Moreover, it is precisely that category that lives in structural poverty. It is about the social security migration that we are against and in which connection last year in Flanders was given a clear signal. Your party has been saying that for years, unfortunately in a very unnuanced way, but that is your problem, not mine. In that sense, I regret your attitude.

I have not yet heard of the Flemish Interest any solution regarding family reunification and the right to family life. Or will you abolish Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights? What exactly is the intention?

Of course, a caricature is drawn here again, as if the Flemish Interest would say that the right to marriage and family life is abolished.

I have heard that complaint a few times, also from Jozef De Witte of the anti-racism center, as if we wanted to make marriage and family life impossible for those poor immigrants. No, of course not. This right is indeed stated in the Universal Declaration.

Only, if the bond of two people who start a relationship, a marriage, a registered partnership, is greater with, for example, Morocco or Turkey, then we find that the reunification or cohabitation should take place there and not necessarily always here. That is a rule, which can be applied and which, by the way, exists in Denmark and which we unfortunately cannot invoke.

Then comes the bilateral employment agreements. These have been in place for 50 years, but they are actually host employee contracts. These host employee contracts are now only applied to a few hundred people a year. Most of them come here, of course, through the existing lax system. That is obvious. They don’t need these host workers’ contracts.

We say, therefore, that if one introduces a narrowing of the right of family reunification, one will again see an influx through the circumvention of the host workers’ conventions.

At the end of last year, we submitted a document. It states that the bilateral employment agreements with Morocco, Turkey, Tunisia, Algeria, Bosnia, Serbia, the former countries of Yugoslavia, must be terminated. You said no to that. The N-VA could not support that. The N-VA group would at most abstain in this regard.

I will give some correction. We have jointly pulled the car for the employment agreements. The only difference is that we believe that it needs to be renegotiated. There depends on much more than just the matter of family reunification.

You confuse some things. I think a hundred people will come here on the basis of the collaboration agreements, but that more will come in the context of family reunification. That is Article 10, first of the Foreigners Act, if you know it. That is exactly what needs to be revised.

What we have supported is the fact that the treaties need to be renegotiated. There is more to be done than just family reunification. You should not attack us by saying that we did not support you in doing so. We have even nuanced and improved the proposal.

You abstained, as I said. We believe that the agreements should be cancelled.

We believe that the right to family reunification should be viewed completely differently. First, it must be limited to real family reunification.

Mr De Man, in connection with those bilateral agreements, you may not have read the amendment of Mrs Temmerman of sp.a correctly. Mrs Temmerman’s amendment now says that all bilateral agreements, not only those with Morocco, not only those with Turkey, but also with Tunisia, also with Algeria, also with former Yugoslavia, all important migration countries, must be interpreted as in the very important judgment of Geert De Boeck of 2009. As you know, that is a judge at the Council for Foreign Disputes. That judgment states, in short, that the scope of application is not the scope of the eighteen-year-old Moroccan girl and the Turkish boy of here and now, it is the scope of application of the host workers and the families of the time, of the 1960s, when the agreements were concluded. It was very concrete about the case of a nineteen-year-old Moroccan girl from Brussels, who had appealed to the Council for Foreign Disputes. She did not get right, because Geert De Boeck filed a judgment that was no longer applicable. These bilateral agreements had to be concluded. That interpretation, which for us is a very interesting interpretation, has put sp.a. in a brilliant amendment. This means very concretely that the interpretation of those bilateral agreements for the Foreign Affairs Service and the people of the embassies will be very clear and clear, namely that those bilateral agreements are without object, unless it is a person of 60 or 70 years old who has been here since the 1960s. Of course, no one is like that anymore. Those girls and boys aged 18, 19 or 20 will no longer be able to come from, among other things, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey. This will no longer apply. I suppose you support that, because you have been fighting for it for years.

I would like to suggest that Mr. Of Man, because I feel like I have already heard the same arguments many times in response to the same questions.

Ms Temmerman has, if I am not mistaken, four further amendments to be voted. We are not talking about the same amendment. Ten minutes ago I talked about the citizenship, which she still wants to introduce. We will support this provision.

I tried to explain how we see it. Family reunification shall be limited to the partners in a marriage entered into before the arrival of the applicant. This is the real family reunification. During the whole afternoon, two concepts are mixed up, family reunification and family formation.

Family reunification is clear. I spoke later about the grievance of the left side and of Jozef De Witte, who argue that one must be able to form a family, because that is a universal right. This is indeed a universal right. But when almost two Berbers from the Rifgebergte marry or enter into a registered partnership, do they not necessarily come to live in Belgium, in Flanders? I think it can be better done in the region where they both come from, namely Morocco.

The same goes for Turkey. If two Turks from Emirdag and surrounding areas want to get married and start a family, be my guest! I even want to send a flower, if they stay at least in Anatolia.

We do not want to violate a universal human right. We only want the massive influx of more than 100 000 foreigners per year to be severely restricted.

Furthermore, we want that in the case of family reunification, persons over 12 years of age – one cannot impose that on children 3 years of age, which is obvious – the residence permit only if they pass a test on the regional language. Family reunification with unmarried partners, which remains possible in the proposal, would, in our opinion, not be possible. It can only be based on a marriage.

Finally, even for foreigners who have only a temporary right of residence, such as students, family reunification would no longer be possible.

The European Directive on Family Reunification should be revised. I also know, Mrs. Lanjri and Mr. Francken, that we cannot do this from the House, but nothing prevents that, given the land flow that I think can be seen in Europe, where many countries are hesitantly taking steps in the right direction, that may ever happen. Better tomorrow than overmorrow, but well.

It is the task of a politician to change laws and replenish laws. Especially as an opposition, that is even our absolute duty.

Finally, in general, I would like to say the following. It is crazy that so many people here in the hemisphere, especially among the left parties who find this so important, do not apply the precautionary principle. The Greens are strong in this: they use it, for example, in terms of climate. We should not take any risks; when it comes to climate, we must, in my view, take the crazy tours to avoid climate warming out of hand. The precautionary principle is about a sacred cow.

I suggest that one think about why that so renowned precautionary principle would in fact not count when it comes to the mass displacement of populations from very different cultures. I think that very strict rule of ultimate precaution would apply better here too. So, in summary, it is a pity, but we will not support Mr Francken’s proposal.

The time is moving forward, slowly but surely! Some topics have already been discussed, but I would still like to return to several points and make a series of proposals.

No immigration policy can ignore the issue of family reunification. It is the first route of migration, a central element of the rules that organize the entry and stay of foreigners on the territory of different states including Belgium. In the six months that we have been conducting this debate and in advance within the government, the CDH has always wanted two things: on the one hand, to clearly combat abuses in family reunification by tightening the rules and by avoiding family reunification from being a cost for the community or for the state. On the other hand, it must be kept in mind that family reunification also represents a fundamental human right, that of being able to live with his family and his children. We believe that this right must be able to be exercised in a framework that enables the development of everyone.

We were the first French-speaking party to submit a bill in this direction to Parliament. It is always interesting to recall it. We are clearly in favor of tightening the rules. In this regard, I would like to highlight today some elements on which we clearly agree and which we consider important to change in the law. This includes the income condition for third-country nationals, i.e. 120% of the RIS for three years. These are also the condition of decent housing and the condition of legal stay of twelve months in advance to be entitled to family reunification.

A second point seemed to me important. This is the fight against complacency cohabitations. I heard Mr. Somers talk, rightly, about white marriage. However, it is not this text that will change this situation. In the case of complacency cohabitations, control procedures have been established up and down. Family reunification will no longer be automatic when someone claims to have cohabited with such person in another country. On the contrary, it will be necessary to demonstrate that these people will truly have lived together and that, of course, they will not have previously entered into a marriage of complacency. The control carried out by the Office of Foreigners will have to continue for three years to avoid simulacres. The extension of the control to three years will serve to ensure that these persons properly meet the conditions set. If this is not the case, their residence permit will be withdrawn.

The least we can say is that we have all invested in this debate in the committee. The CDH has submitted a text and more than fifty amendments. Secretary of State Wathelet, in particular, submitted proposals for the text to be legal, to comply with European directives and the judgments of the European Court of Justice, but also to be applicable.

I see you laugh, Mr. Francken. You know that I have already mentioned your words in my report. And you did not deny me. So I will continue to refer to it, without giving you the page. But I’m sure you read it.

The [...]

But if, it is possible.

I remember very well that in the committee, you stated that Mr. Wathelet was right on a number of points, that you had to put some water into the mill. I will not go further because things seem very clear to me.

However, progress has been made. And I acknowledge that you have made your collaboration so that the text can respond to a whole series of criticisms – but not all – that have been issued by the State Council. This remains a point that we consider fundamental. And it cannot be said that we did not defend the same point of view from the beginning. We will not be able to say that we returned our jacket during the commission work. It cannot be said that we have not been consistent from the beginning to the end. And I hope that the Minister of Justice – who makes a noticeable entry – who is attached to justice and law will not deny me. Per ⁇ he will give us his opinion on the matter.

From the beginning, we say that it is important that Belgians enjoy the same rights as Europeans. This is not a political interpretation. Indeed, this opinion is shared by the State Council which has been very clear about this, but also by the Centre for Equal Opportunities.

You just mentioned Tomorrow. I read yesterday in this newspaper that the Order of the Flemish Bar pointed out exactly the same elements. I also heard that he had sent his opinion to the chairman of the commission. It is a pity that he did not give us a copy. I am sure we would be interested.

If this opinion had been given by the French-speaking bar, everyone would probably have said that it was once again the French-speaking who spoke. But, no, it is actually the flamenco bar.

Thank you for giving me the word.

Mrs. Fonck, Mr. Bracke is not present. What you do is cheap. Your information is not correct either.

Mr. Bracke is a very conscientious man. He effectively sent yesterday the advice of the Order of Flemish Balies, which was received only yesterday. I repeat that the opinion was given on the basis of a text that is not even put to the vote today. How amateur, then, one can be, but that is the work of the Order. However, he has forwarded the advice, including to your group. Per ⁇ there was something wrong.

Now, however, claiming that Mr. Bracke did not provide the advice to you or to other political formations is not correct. The advice came only yesterday, which, of course, is too late. The voting in the committee has already taken place. It was sent yesterday by the Secretariat of the Committee on Internal Affairs to all Members of Parliament, to all permanent members of the Committee on Internal Affairs and to all Deputy Members.

You may have missed it, rated. It could be. However, you should not now insinuate that Mr. Bracke would delay the advice. This is too much of the good, especially when he himself is not present.

That is right. But myheer Bracke is not present. I did not receive it, but it was only sent yesterday or before yesterday. According to De Morgen, the opinion was sent to the president. We agree on this point.

I like the way the Order of the Flemish Bars interprets this text. He points out technical and legal problems; he also says that with this text the Belgians will be considered as second-zone Europeans.

The fact of tightening the rules, the law is indispensable today because there are abuses in the field of family reunification. At the same time, I think we must be fair. We are not going to repeat the debate here on the different judgments of the European Court of Justice but it is clear that we do not have the same interpretation of the European Directive. Nevertheless, the various interlocutors consulted, the State Council and the Flemish Bar Order, say so.

At the CDH, we have a problem with the fact that Belgians, tomorrow, will no longer be able to bring their parents. and never! You will answer me that there is Article 9bis, which relates to the discretionary power. Personally, I have never considered that it is good to apply rules to the head of the customer, depending on the good will of the one who supports or the one that it arranges. In this regard, the fact of having rules that are known, that are applied and that are respected is an important thing.

In this case, the Belgians will never be able to bring their parents back, "even if," according to Mr. Wathelet, "they have three million in their bank account or a house of 14 bedrooms." Europeans can do it!

by Mr. Somers often talks about Moroccans. I will take some striking examples. A Belgian who lives in Belgium, and wants to bring his Moroccan parents, tomorrow, will not be able to. On the other hand, a Frenchman who lives in Belgium – I live in Hainaut a kilometer from the border – will be able to bring his Moroccan parents. Do you find this normal? Do you find this effective?

Mr. Speaker, Ms. Fonck, it has already been said ten times today, the CDH has a fundamental problem with the fact that ascendents, parents and grandparents of Belgians, can no longer happen, according to the bill that presents. This is something that does not exist in the Netherlands. It would be unique in Europe. We would introduce it for the first time. Last year there were 2,060 people, including 1,000 Moroccans.

I am reading your amendment. and 212. It is in French, but I think I have sufficient knowledge of that language. You say that it is still permissible, provided that, first, they have a sufficient income “moyens de subsistance stables, réguliers et suffisants” and, second, “disposent d’un logement social decent”. So you obviously say that they can still leave their parents if they have a sufficient income and a social home. This is a very strange amendment. Maybe I did not understand it well. “Un logement social decent”, ⁇ that is a mistake of your employee or of Mr. Wathelet’s employee. I don’t know that, but it would mean that someone in a social home could have their parents happen and that someone who lives in an ordinary home could not. I do not understand that. I would like to have some more explanation on that amendment.

“He has a decent social housing.”

A decent housing. I will explain, but I would like to come to this amendment by continuing my reasoning.

As I said before, this is not normal for parents. This is neither politically nor legally justifiable. In fact, this opens the door to a major insecurity.

Indeed, a Belgian living in Belgium, for example in Hainaut, realizes that he cannot bring his parents from Morocco, but observes that his French neighbors can do so. From then on, he will cross the border or install a mailbox and reside in France. After three months, he will be entitled to bring his Moroccan parents.

Thus, there will be two categories: Belgians and the other Belgians. Ms. Galant found it interesting to categorize: Belgians, other Belgians, sub-Belgians, sub-sub-Belgians, etc. I am not that logic.

This proposal provides the way to bypass the law: just cross the border! Considered as European – I thank you for your intellectual honesty Mr. Maingain, who acquiesces –, he can bring his parents; if he is economically active, no problem, if he is economically inactive, he will have to meet a criterion of income of 100% of the RIS.

This opens the door to multiple applications.

By now, it is as if you are putting this text on the path of a cancellation by the Constitutional Court. We do not want this legal uncertainty. This text is inappropriate and illegal on this point. For the rest, I repeat, we agree with the tightening of the other criteria.

This is not an exceptional example: the Netherlands experienced the same thing – in the other direction but no matter, it goes back to the same. Tomorrow, it will be possible for Belgium. What we want is to allow the text to be applicable and that it reaches the goal we have assigned to ourselves, that it does not bring perverse effects, that it does not organize things in such a way that it allows to bypass the law and then to be able to make right to family reunification.

In order for this text to be applicable, in order for it to keep the way, we offer you the key with Melchior Wathelet. This is the reason for the two amendments, 211 and 212, one main amendment and one subsidiary amendment. Our first choice is the main amendment that aims to put the Belgians at the same level as the Europeans. In our sense, it is the one that holds the most path on the legal level. I already know that you will not agree.

So we have a plan B. We do not see things in the same way in matters of discrimination but you are offered an alternative to this main amendment, this alternative being amendment 212 which takes back the conditions you have determined for the Belgians in your text: decent housing and the income criterion with 120% of the RIS. But it also allows a Belgian, under the same conditions, to bring his parents. This will restore something important.

One can agree or disagree about discrimination, one can interpret the judgments of the Court of Justice but it is unjustifiable that a Belgian can never bring his parents.

The discretionary aspect, excuse me if I repeat myself, cannot be admitted. Privileging the way of doing things in stoemelings, at the head of the customer, rather than in a pre-determined framework goes beyond our understanding. This is paradoxical, very paradoxical.

I would like to discuss two points with you. Just recently, I was surprised, Mrs. Lanjri, listening to your speech. But I have the impression that here the groups do not necessarily interpret the law in the same way. Certainly, the CDH has defended from the beginning the importance for a single child to join one of his parents in Belgium. This is fundamental in our view. Now, Madame Lanjri, you told me just before that we had done so for the third countries, for the Belgians, etc. You added that there would be no income condition for Belgians and third-country nationals to bring their child and that we had made a proposal for third-country nationals, but forgotten the Belgians. If you read the article well, you are cooler for a third-country national and harder for a Belgian: the third-country national has more ease to bring his child than the Belgian.

Madame Lanjri, I invite you to review the text, because the remarks you made at the tribune just recently do not correspond to what you voted on this point. I don’t know if it’s a “stuuut” or if you’ve made yourself “have”, but in any case, you’ve got to...

You have to explain to Mr. Landuyt what a “stuuût” is!

A problem, a thing that didn’t happen as it should have happened! Even at home, they say that.

So, Madame Lanjri, I don’t know if this is a “stout” or if you have made yourself “have”, but I’m surprised and I invite you both to review the law and to correct the statements that you are going to hold outside because, obviously, everyone interprets the law on this point according to what arranges it and according to what it means outside. It is a pity!

The last point concerns international conventions. I am very disappointed that Mr. Vanackere was, in the end, never arrived in this assembly. But you never know! If the debate lasts a little longer and it ends its meeting, maybe it will come. If he does not come, do not worry, I will not hesitate to ask him, from next week, what he will do.

In any case, yes, it is possible to change bilateral agreements. This is the responsibility of the minister, and he must have the courage to do so. Some may say that ministers do not dare to renegotiate these conventions with other states. I am curious to see how this will be implemented and what the consequences will be. Will people accept it? I’m not sure the minister is happy. I heard corridor noises that Foreign Affairs were ⁇ confused to hear that the legislator was going to change bilateral conventions without even speaking with the States concerned.

Mr Francken, I will quote you again. Definitely, this report is well done – thanks again to the services! A proposal for a resolution to encourage renegotiation of these texts is the right path. And you said it. Per ⁇ you wanted to have a little pleasure at the sp.a. Or you’ve said to yourself, “I’ve done it, even though nothing will change.”

The resolution proposal was the right path. You said it and repeated it – and in the bottom, you were right. This is also stated in the report. Let us ask Mr. Vanackere to negotiate directly! It will be more efficient. This will lead to a new agreement.

We will vote on this text tonight. We will vote for all provisions that tighten the rules on family reunification, with the exception of Article 40ter. I repeat, we cannot accept that Belgians cannot bring their parents back, while any other European living in our country can do so.

You will have noticed, we have a main amendment, Belgian-European equalization, and a subsidiary amendment to try to move things forward. If one of these two amendments is voted – ensuring that this law can be applied and finds a path that we consider much more appropriate – we would support the text. As I said, for the other criteria, we are in favor of a tightening.

I will conclude on two points. First, we really want to demonstrate that we will vote for all tightening provisions, except for Article 40ter, unless we can engage, through Amendment 211 or 212, an evolution at the level of this text. To prove this to you and to show clearly the position at the level of the vote of the CDH, we will ask you, Mr. Speaker, to carry out a vote article by article. Strengthen the rules, yes, very clearly! But let’s do it so that this text can be applied. Let us avoid this being a missed opportunity!

Madame Fonck, I thank you. I have registered your request to vote article by article. We just finished a first round. The next speakers are Mr. Louis, Mrs. Galant, Mrs. Brems, Mr. Maingain, Wathelet and Dedecker.

The issue of immigration is obviously a major challenge for our society.

The policy of the last governments in this area has been simply catastrophic, let’s admit it.

The policy of open doors and massive regularization, supported by the left-wing parties with the tacit consent of the MR and the Open Vld, has given our country abroad the image of an Eldorado opening the arms to all the unfortunate on earth.

If our country is to be a land of asylum for political refugees, for all persons who are in danger or who are threatened in their country of origin for political reasons, race, religion, gender or social condition, it is no longer possible to welcome, as is the case today, at the expense of the Belgian taxpayer, all the unhappy of the planet. We have neither the resources nor the necessary reception structures.

Therefore, I can only support this bill which aims to tighten the conditions of family reunification. I would like to say here that the MR will not be the only French-speaking party to support it.

The [...]

Mr, if you followed the information, you would know that the PP is no longer represented in this hall.

Family reunification accounts for more than 80% of immigration in our country. The restriction of immigration therefore comes through a tightening of the conditions imposed to benefit from family reunification.

As I said, dear socialist friends, immigration can no longer take place on the back of the taxpayers. So it is important...

(Brouhaha on the banks)

Let’s go to the essential!

If someone wants to waste time, I have no problem.

I invite you to continue, Mr. Louis.

It is not easy when everyone speaks at the same time.

I know . Nevertheless, I invite you to continue.

I said, dear socialist friends, that immigration can no longer take place on the back of the taxpayers. It is therefore important to require that only those who are able to provide for the needs of their family can use it and it is normal to require them to prove that they have an income equivalent to 120 % of the integration income (over 1 100 euros), but also a decent housing that can accommodate the persons concerned in good conditions.

What is more normal also than imposing a minimum of 12 months of uninterrupted presence on the territory of our country in order to be able to apply for family reunification.

Personally, I consider that a person who is unemployed or who depends on the CPAS can in no way see his application for family reunification accepted.

In addition to this, it seems to me primary that the individual he wants to bring along his side undertake to integrate into our society, to respect our values and to learn one of our national languages – so we are not disagreed on everything – and to participate also in the economic and social life of our country. It would indeed be intolerable that these people, upon their arrival on our territory, register with the CPAS and can live peacefully on the account of the citizens.

As I have already said during the discussions in the committee, I am in favor of imposing on migrants a true path of integration, through the participation in courses on the history and values of our country and the learning of one of the national languages. This course must aim to promote the integration of these people in our society, while asking them to respect our laws, but also equality between men and women.

Of course, I can only regret that this bill, submitted to vote today, does not go as far as I would like. Nevertheless, I will support it, because it is undoubtedly a beneficial advance for our country in terms of immigration.

This reinforcement of the conditions of family reunification is necessary and indispensable. Without this, it will be impossible for us to better frame the migration flows in our country and to lead an immigration policy that can be accepted by our population of the North as well as of the South, which demands, even if not always listened to it, that we finally put an end to the current drifts. These drifts are dangerous: they could lead to the rise of far-right parties, as is the case in neighboring countries.

It is therefore our duty to all, on the left and on the right, to act so as not to allow a feeling of hatred, of resentment towards foreigners to develop within our population. In this case, we all risk biting our fingers.

As we know, the State Council has issued a negative opinion on this proposal, but it is important not to play the game of hypocrisy in this important matter. Therefore, clear rules and responsible rules are needed.

The Council of State criticises in particular that this proposal refers to the case of applicants of Belgian nationality. It is almost impossible to do otherwise: otherwise, we should agree to make this law an empty shell. Of course, this would attempt some parties to do so, but it must be recognized that the majority of people applying for family reunification are Belgians.

It is impossible not to take the Belgians into account because we can nevertheless not pay ad vitam aeternam for the mistakes of previous governments in the field of immigration, which with their policies have blamed the Belgian nationality for too many years and have resorted to massive regularizations. It is for this reason and because of this left-wing policy that we can say that immigration to Belgium today is a real failure.

I hope that a majority will be able to form in this parliament despite the absence of a full-time government. It is ⁇ even thanks to this absence of government that the parliament will be able to fully play its role today and allow to finally succeed in the matter after too many years of inaction.

Many questions remain suspended. Improvements will need to be made, but by supporting this proposal, we are sending a clear signal to the population: immigration can no longer be done on their back. The policy of open doors is soon over.

Let me finish with a very positive note! Thro ⁇ the committee meetings and today, the PS regretted that this proposal does not impose a kind of inburgering, a path of integration as it is already applied in Flanders. I look forward to that, of course. If the PS is consistent with itself – and yet it must be and keep its promises – we will finally see this magnificent path of integration come to Brussels and Wallonia. He is so much awaited! Both regions need it. When you see how many community replicas are in many cities or neighborhoods of the capital, it is truly worrying.

Per ⁇ this PS awakening will put an end to those streets of Brussels in which we no longer recognize our country and where foreign languages such as Arabic have sometimes become the main language. I hope that your words, dear socialist friends, were not words in the air. It is now the "PS-cdH.vert" cartel to play by applying the system that has proven itself in Flanders to get Wallonia and Brussels out of uncontrolled immigration that is one of the causes of the crisis that our country experiences today.

Finally, I would say that you have taken important commitments today in front of this assembly. I can assure you that we will be careful that you do not betray them as this is unfortunately too often your case!

This discussion is the conclusion of an important work carried out by the whole Committee of the Interior. The moment is historic because the Parliament, and in particular the House, has fully played its role of legislator, demonstrating thus that while the government is in ordinary affairs, the directly elected members of the Nation have not escaped their responsibilities. They effectively took hands-on a spinal case that demanded a logical and coherent legislative intervention.

The direction and axis chosen by the text voted in committee meet the concerns that have long animated the MR, and myself in particular, namely the fact of reviewing the conditions under which family reunification can be carried out in Belgium, to make them clearer and avoid abuses.

Indeed, if family reunification remains an important right to be ensured, it is not acceptable that some abuse the imprecisions of the law or the lack of means of ground to obtain rights that they cannot claim, to the detriment of persons who, they, legitimately, can claim the right to family reunification. The fact of ensuring a better framework for the concrete conditions under which family reunification will take place, requiring an adequate level of income or decent housing, meets the very interest of persons who are brought to Belgium to join their spouse or legal partner there. We guarantee them that they will be received in decent conditions, allowing them to fully flourish in our country, and to peacefully begin the process of integration inherent in a willingness to sustainably settle in our country.

The right to live in a family is fundamental, but it can no longer be galvanized. The effects of vessels communicating between abuses and deviations of legislation on nationality or on access to territory must cease. This will only be possible if we commit to a migration-neutral citizenship policy and a strict but clear territorial access policy.

In any case, as long as the citizenship is not reformed, we will have to remain vigilant on entry and access to the territory. Contrary to the reading of some European regulations and case-law, the fact of asking a Belgian to prove a higher income than its European neighbor is entirely justifiable and does not create a difference in treatment between Europeans within the meaning of EU law.

This was recalled by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in the judgment Shirley McCarthy of 5 May 2011. “The failure of the authorities of the United Kingdom to take account of Mrs. Shirley McCarthy’s Irish nationality in order to grant her a right of residence in the United Kingdom shall in no way affect her right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States or any other right conferred on her by her status as a citizen of the Union. In that regard, it must be noted that, contrary to what was characteristic of the case leading to the judgment in Zambrano, the national measure at issue in the present case in the main proceedings does not have the effect that Ms. McCarthy would be forced to leave the territory of the Union. Indeed, she enjoys, under the principle of international law, an unconditional right of residence in the United Kingdom as long as she possesses the nationality of the United Kingdom.”

It deduces from the full reading of this judgment as well as some expected of the judgment...

Madame McCarthy was not English, but Irish. This is precisely what makes the problem in the arrest, since she appreciated...

This has been repeated, Mr. Wathelet.

The problem was that she invoked her Irish citizenship as a criterion of free movement. In explaining that she had always lived in the United Kingdom, she thought that simply having Irish citizenship would allow her to benefit from the directive. The verdict supports the opposite. But what he says too – and I understand that you only cited a few paragraphs...

Let me continue until the end!

We will try!

It follows from the full reading of that judgment, as well as from certain expectations of the judgment in Zambrano, cited by the State Council, that the absence of access to family reunification does not automatically imply a restriction on the right of free movement of the national concerned and, consequently, the non-respect of the essential rights related to his status as a citizen of the European Union. The MR is very attached to the development of European citizenship, and this is a process that needs constantly to be deepened.

The State Council interpreted the Zambrano judgment corresponding to a very particular case of a minor, the State Council contradicts, by the European Court itself, in the recent judgment Shirley McCarthy.

by Mr. Ducharm has praised the debate so far. I understand that this annoys you! I need to correct your words. In the McCarthy judgment, the Court recalls that, when a person has stayed in another EU country, that is, when he has used the free movement, it is the directive that applies. In our case, Mrs. McCarthy had never moved. She had always remained in England, but she invoked her Irish citizenship to benefit from European law. The court found it was going too far.

I will quote the paragraph that you obviously did not cite, which does not surprise me: “This Directive is not applicable to a citizen of the Union who has never exercised his right of free movement.” This means that a Belgian who settles in Lille for two months becomes a beneficiary of the directive, while the Belgian who has always stayed in Belgium – he is not worse than another! For if I hear your doctrine correctly, the fact of staying in Belgium and being a Belgian-Belgian should give rise to the award of a medal – is treated differently.

In short, a Belgian who has always remained in Belgium is treated differently from another Belgian who, for professional or other reasons, went to settle abroad. This is what McCarthy’s verdict says. He simply says that having another nationality is not enough. Keep this element! Because this judgment demonstrates that we do not discriminate against Belgians with Europeans, because the Court authorizes it – true! We can do it! The Belgians with the Belgians. This situation is no longer subject to European law but to Belgian-Belgian law!

If you allow me to continue, I will answer your question!

Obviously, the Treaty on European Union requires us to treat at least both a European citizen established on our territory and a national, since their freedom of movement within the European space cannot be hampered.

However, this does not imply that we cannot ask our nationals, as soon as they make their application on the Belgian territory, to prove that they have sufficient incomes to ensure their spouse or partner who joins them a quality of life up to their expectations.

In a country like ours where living standards are high, it does not seem unreasonable to ask the Belgian to prove that his monthly income is equivalent to 120% of the minimum income of social integration, or about 1,421 euros per month, and that he waits 21 years to apply for family reunification in favor of his spouse or partner.

I also welcome the fact that we asked the non-citizen of a European Union country to provide proof of the same minimum income and that a reference income for European citizens is specified in the law based on the same elements as those provided for Belgians and non-Europeans.

It is important that everyone understands that although family reunification is a right, it cannot take place without ensuring that the members of the family so assembled can lead a decent life, without depending on financial assistance from public authorities.

The intensification of the fight against marriages and legal cohabitation of complacency remains also at the heart of our concerns and will need to be implemented quickly.

For all these reasons, the MR will support the text and ensure that the work undertaken continues by extending it with a coherent reform of citizenship and asylum.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Galant, you continued to read your text saying that you responded thus to what was just demonstrated to you by a+b M. by Wathelet.

I would like to point out that what you said has nothing to do with what the Secretary of State said!

Mr Galant, you explained that the EU directive allowed Member States to provide stricter conditions. But this is not what it is about! Tomorrow, will a Belgian who has always lived in Belgium benefit from the same conditions as a Belgian who passed through France for two months before returning to his country?

The [...]

No to No! On the basis of the text as it is drawn up, what conditions will be met by a Belgian who has never left his country?

The conditions are to reach 120% of RIS and to have decent housing. On the contrary, the Belgian who has put two feet on the other side of the border and took a mailbox, when he returns to Belgium, his conditions are reduced to the requirements of the European directive: if he is economically active, it is OK; if he is economically inactive, it is to reach 100% of the RIS.

Another big difference is that the one who has never left Belgium will never be able to bring his parents, unlike the one who has deviated the law.

Madame Galant, therefore you did not answer the demonstration: how do you explain what I just demonstrated to you?

Madame Fonck, you have explained the same thing several times before.

But he never answered, Mr. President.

It’s normal if you don’t understand the same thing.

You have the word, Madame Galant, but I feel like you will never agree.

Mr. Speaker, you just gave my answer: we are in the interpretation and therefore we will never agree. The debate has been going on for many hours already, everyone wants to vote on this text to know a first advance in the field.

Thank you for communicating the interpretation I was going to give.

I just made a statement.

Madame Brems, you have already begun your speech.

I did not interrupt anyone.

You are right, Madame. You have the word.

Now it is a little less, but then there was atmosphere, a party, there was great enjoyment of the debate, there were people thanked and plumes distributed as if someone had won a prize or scored a goal. Personally, I wasn’t involved in this party atmosphere at all. I consider the vote that will come later to be a low point in Parliament. How does that come? I am one of those people who find it good that those who invented our democracy have made human rights the core, the substantial basis of it. Consequently, I am disappointed when I see in the formal center of democracy, the Parliament, how those human rights are being violated. I’m not talking about the Foreign Affairs Committee, where I spend much of my time. When it comes to overseas, the further the better, then all political parties swing with human rights. Not so in domestic politics, ⁇ in situations where we, as people’s representatives, should not feel that it is about our human rights, but clearly about those of others. Migration records are a very clear example of this.

Belgium, like most European countries, has its borders largely closed for migration, but because we are a democracy and because we want and must respect human rights, we still have to allow a number of people to enter the country, for reasons of human rights, want or not. The right to asylum is a human right, this is not the matter. There is also the human right to a family life. That is what we are talking about today. This means that partners should be able to reside in the same country and that children should be able to be with their parents. This follows from Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 22 of the Constitution, Article 17 of the United Nations Convention on Civil and Political Rights and Article 16 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Honestly, who needs all those treaties to know that it is about something fundamental: the coexistence of loved ones, the formation and keeping together families.

The present proposal aims to make follow-up migration of partners and children more difficult by linking them to more conditions. The proposal, which aims to significantly curtail a fundamental right, appears to have the support of a significant majority of the political groups and it is not always clear to me why, because the discourses are sometimes rather blurred.

Mr. Somers does everything for the people themselves, he says, in a very special paternalist liberalism where one protects people from poverty, for example, by staying abroad or without leaving their family poor. Why the Socialists do not defend these vulnerable groups is not clear to me. Why the Christian Democrats do not defend family life and European citizenship is not clear to me either.

The most coherent, of course, are the parties that clearly say that it is only to them to allow fewer foreigners in our country, such as the N-VA, in addition to the Flemish Interest, that the proposal does not support because it does not go far enough. I will not soon forget those frons on Mr. Francken’s face when it became clear to him that that European Directive on family reunification has the explicit purpose of promoting and not restricting that family reunification, as everyone here apparently wants.

The European Union is a union based on fundamental rights, just as in principle the Belgian federation is based on fundamental rights, although not all people’s representatives are equally perceived. Maybe we should organize a summer course.

There is little doubt, Mr. Speaker, that this law will have to be swallowed back. The Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice will do their work in this regard. Ladies and gentlemen, you have made a bit of it. The text is not on one point, but on several points, in violation of the right to family life and the European Directive. In addition, the text is discriminatory. This has already been extensively discussed. I will not go over it all in detail.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Brems, I am actually glad that we absolutely do not agree. Ecolo’s party program includes the abolition of closed centers and an open border policy. I want to have absolutely nothing to do with that. An open border policy is not exactly what the majority of Flemish voters want. I am very pleased that we do not agree on migration.

Mrs. Brems, I hope that your people will sprint to the European Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court to try to destroy the law.

I hope, together with you, that they will attempt as soon as possible to trigger the first judgments on the fundamental issues, including on discrimination. Then we know it, as they know it in the Netherlands or Denmark for years, where the law has never been abolished, or as in Germany and France. Then we will know.

Where you read the passage on the open borders is not clear to me. and green! It is not a party that supports open borders.

However, it is true that your and my party are ideologically far apart, which is good. Democracy would offer little if we all said the same thing.

We also differ in seats in the room.

That is true and sure. You have also experienced that it was different. You can be proud of your number of seats. I give you reassurance. I have no problem with this.

The point I want to make is the following.

We can and should be ideologically different. What is the point of having a Parliament? Of course, we also want to ⁇ other things with policy. However, there are frameworks that we have agreed on, that we have fixed in the Belgian Constitution, that we have fixed at the European level and that we must respect. That is the point of my presentation today, in particular that there is a deliberate opposition to those frameworks.

The opinions of the Council of State and of the Order of Flemish Balies are present. These are two clubs that can’t really be located in the left corner. Their advice is very clear. I will not list all the problems. They are already listed. However, there are two problems that I would like to point out, in particular the reverse discrimination against Belgians and the condition of sufficient livelihoods, which for us may be fixed at 100 % of the living wage.

However, 120 % is not necessary and is disproportionate in order to avoid anyone being charged by the OCMW. Therefore, by itself, the condition in question is contrary to the right to family life. However, such a condition is also clearly contrary to the EU directive, as evidenced by the Chakroun judgment. You claim that a reference amount has been made of it. That is not true. There is literally a minimum.

No, but that does not cancel what is underneath. From the minimum one will look at the specific circumstances, but one should not ponder that minimum.

In any case, the judgment-Chakroun is deliberately ignored. The judgment-Zambrano is ultimately the interpretation of it. We’ve heard several of them before, but ultimately it confirms that it’s a matter of common sense. Belgians are also EU citizens and should therefore also be able to enjoy the rights of all EU citizens.

Even if discrimination is allowed, it still creates a ridiculous situation in the country, if it is done. The examples have been given. I do not need to repeat it. For example, a Frenchman would like much more than someone who happens to be a Belgian.

There are many elements in this proposal that are contrary to European law, not 1 or 2, but a whole bunch. One must have the courage to propose such a draft of a law as an achievement on which this Parliament should be proud. The Ecolo-Groen! group is already filled with substituting shame and will of course vote against.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, many arguments have been exchanged and I congratulate those who have worked hard to exchange relevant arguments, ⁇ in a difficult legal debate. I have heard, for example, Ms. Lanjri developing a legal argument that deserves at least consideration, as it is true that she herself acknowledged that a number of questions could be legitimately asked on the legal level.

I have heard some other rather fantastical arguments. I even heard Mr. Tobback, who is no longer present, suggest that my party organized family reunification to better occupy the outskirts of Brussels. It goes without saying that as soon as the interested parties leave their country, they already have my party member card in their pocket. Everyone knows it! Let us let these divagations run: they are not in nature to participate in a quality debate.

A very important question has been raised, that of the relationship of this proposal with European law. It must be acknowledged that this is not a certain legal debate, neither in one thesis nor in the other. There is a great demand for the case-law of the Court of Justice. Let us be honest! None of the aforementioned judgments contains elements of facts that today correspond to what the proposed legislation will implement in practice. There is not yet a judgment that really takes up a specific figure case that would correspond to our proposed legislation. So let us be careful!

There is no less and I am especially attentive to it, that I have the feeling – it is even more than a feeling! – that this proposal does not strengthen European law and that is what I reserve! It is true that European citizenship is not yet a legally completed concept. It is true that European citizenship does not prohibit that a national legislation is, in certain aspects, more restrictive than what the European regulation grants as rights.

But is it to fit into our conception of building Europe and the recognition of European citizenship than to pull down the notion of European citizenship? This is what I reproach this proposal in some aspects, even though it is legally defensive over others. It does not fit into a strong conception of European citizenship and it is not inaccurate to say that there will be, in any case, a discrimination between Belgians according to their place of residence. Regardless of whether they are established in Belgium or abroad, they will not be recognized the same rights with regard to family reunification. And I only take this as a risk of discrimination. I do not think that it is to join the current of history that advocates for a dynamic European citizenship and that strengthens rights equally for all citizens of the European Union that it is to pull down this notion of European citizenship as is done in this bill.

I know that some who support this proposal do not have the same conception of the future of the European Union and of European citizenship as the most democratic parties in this assembly. I say that if, in all sensitive matters concerning fundamental rights, each State considers that it can organise for its nationals an exception to the common law regime guaranteed by the European Union and that the rights guaranteed by the European Union are no longer recognized but on the condition of being established in another State than that of which one is a national or a national, one is simply negating the very spirit of the European construction. This is what annoys me in this proposal. (The applause)

Of course, I fully agree with the goals pursued by the authors. Yes, it must be admitted, family reunification is used abusively. This is often the case, we should not be afraid to say it! Family reunification is often used abusively to be an immigration chain, as are other procedures.

Per ⁇ today there are also certain forms of legal cohabitation that do not allow civil status officers to verify the reality of legal cohabitation – whereas it can still be done in the case of marriages – and that allow to organize certain branches. Yes, it is time to give the signal of a willingness to clarify legal certainty, but it is necessary to specify legal certainty when it is questioned the willingness of the European Union States to join a common dynamic, in particular as regards the explanation of the rights of EU citizens.

That is what is at the heart of this debate, a delicate debate. It is clear that European law, unfortunately, has not yet allowed to sufficiently develop this notion of European citizenship to provide a response to the legitimate expectation of clarification of the notions of family reunification. In short, we have this difficult debate because Europe has difficulty managing this debate for multiple reasons. Therefore, legislation is being drawn up, at least on the legal level, dangerous, because Europe is failing.

But it is because Europe does not assume its responsibilities that we should not build legislation that gives argument to all those who want less Europe and not more Europe. I will say to all those who have always wanted more Europe: think about it because this is a fundamental issue. European citizenship in relations between EU citizens: if we do not have the courage to take on this debate by bringing the values to the highest, we will give right to all those who want to bring down the European building.

Therefore, in agreement with my group leader and sharing the concerns of some members of my group, I will ensure that I abstain. (The applause)

I would like to return to what Mr. Maingain just said, when he insisted on the need to maintain a European vision, more integrationist than based on differences in legislation. I would like to prove this by one example. by Mr. Somers explained earlier that a state can discriminate against its nationals. This is entirely true. But what were the consequences in other countries, for example in the Netherlands? The number of family regroupments requested by persons of Dutch nationality in Belgium has, since the introduction of this discrimination, purely doubled.

I am constantly questioned in the House by you, who complain that Dutch people come to Belgium to submit applications for family reunification, because they can be based on European law and invoke the directive, before returning to the Netherlands. This can be seen in the figures, which rose from 2,000 in 2008 to almost 4,000 today. This means that we will simply reverse the movement.

We must continue to advocate for a discussion with the Netherlands, but also with the other states of the European Union, to harmonize the system and avoid shopping. These people go to another country to request family reunification, because their national law discriminates against them. Ask the municipality of Antwerp. This happens all the time!

To this discrimination that will be inserted for Belgian nationals, the parade is already known. We already know how people will react to benefit from the directive: traveling to the Netherlands, France, Luxembourg or elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, I had prepared an intervention, but I believe that this discrimination against the Belgians should be limited. It is a problem.

For several reasons. It is true that one can make a reverse discrimination: no problem. You can discriminate against your own people.

The State Council, in line with what Mr. Maingain says that this does not correspond to Article 20 of the Treaty, therefore to this notion of European citizenship, but that it is permissible for us to do so, provided that we at least justify it even if it is contrary to his vision of the European Union.

Our problem is that instead of doing it as such by justifying it, you have purely and simply taken away a right to Belgian citizens: the right to be able to bring his own ascendants.

Mr. Wathelet, what you say about the increase in the number of Dutch people who come to marry in our country is a rightful comment. This makes the debate undoubtedly nuanced and fragile. You say that the number of people who have come to our country from the Netherlands to get married since the introduction of the new scheme in the Netherlands has increased by 2 000 per year. This is not an insignificant increase, but it still remains only a fraction of the total number of people who in the past married in the Netherlands.

It is not just about marriage.

You are right that there is a certain shift due to the European regulatory framework, but it is obvious that it is not a 100% shift, but on the contrary. It makes the threshold much higher. The fundamental question is not whether this is legally possible or not. You confirm that we have the possibility to do so. The fundamental question is to know what society wants. In this context, it is very important, instead of demolishing this law, to build up the newly brought understanding of the quality conditions to be met by migration at European level.

I have not fully followed the following in your reasoning from a humanitarian point of view. You are talking about discrimination. I think you mean that in the broad sense of the word, namely making a distinction. The word comes from the Latin discriminare or make a distinction, not necessarily with a negative meaning. You are upset by discrimination, thus making a distinction between people of Belgian nationality and EU citizens, but you have no problem making a distinction between EU citizens and Belgians, on the one hand, and people who come from any other country, on the other.

Ideally, everyone should have the same rules and the same protection everywhere. Unfortunately, we cannot give European citizens the same protection. Just like in the Netherlands, Germany, France and Britain, it is important to strive at the European level – you are well placed for that – to offer the European citizens the same protection that we are unfortunately unable to provide now. I do not understand why your political energy is focused on demolishing the protection of the Belgians, while it should, together with our energy, focus on building a protection for the EU citizens.

Mr. Somers, regarding your first argument, it is true that only a part of them come to Belgium. Contrary to what you think, there are people who meet the conditions. All those who want to do family reunification are not necessarily fraudsters or people who don’t get into the conditions. Those who come, i.e. 2,000, are those who did not meet the conditions in the Netherlands, otherwise they would not have had fun travelling to Antwerp to settle there, to enter the family reunification file there and then return to the Netherlands. This means that in the Netherlands, 2,000 people, so I imagine almost everyone who did not get into the criteria, found the parade! This is what we are doing at home. He said that negotiations should be held at the European level. So I should negotiate with my European colleagues by giving them a signal that I blame something in the Netherlands while I do the same thing! This is not very good as a signal to try to get deals!

The European Commission will publish its Green Paper on family reunification by the end of the year. In order to negotiate, in order to ensure a true harmonization, it is necessary to show its willingness to harmonize. Everyone says that we need to work at the European level and harmonize all the rules. But we do the opposite! We must move towards a system that harmonises the rules, towards a system that integrates more our citizens and European citizens instead of continuing to have completely discriminatory and different mechanisms.

Mr. Wathelet, I have to contradict you on one point. I do not follow the reasoning that if we do the same as our three neighboring countries, we are going against the European spirit. The debate in the Dutch Second Chamber was exactly the same as here. In the Netherlands, too, the problem of the non-equal treatment of EU citizens and Dutch citizens was struggled with. This has also been debated in the Dutch Second Chamber and also there it has been determined that it is absolutely necessary to improve the European framework in this area, precisely in order to provide greater protection to EU citizens. That debate in the Dutch Second Chamber is exactly the same debate that we are conducting here now. It is therefore important to work together with Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Denmark and Austria – yet not the least EU countries – to work hard to realize what we do on an individual scale, also collectively. Then we can turn off the shadow movement of people who actually go shopping across the border. Then we can treat all people exactly the same and equal way.

Mr. Somers, you are advocating for harmonization at European level and you are introducing discrimination. It will take a day that you will try to explain to me how I could advocate for harmonization when the first thing we hurry to do here is to discriminate, to change the rules!

and wait! What the Netherlands has never done, nor the Danes, nor the Germans, nor the French, what no one has ever done, is to refuse purely and simply a right. Not making it harder to obtain, not imposing stricter conditions, not: refusing it. For ascendants, this right is now impossible. When you are a Belgian citizen, you can no longer bring your ascendants. It is impossible, it is forbidden. A European citizen can do that.

And discrimination, Mr. Somers, here too we must be very clear: we can do reverse discrimination, as they say, put against European citizens. On the other hand, you cannot withdraw rights as you do. It is very clear: this discrimination is so obvious that it will be broken. The real problem is not only the problem of European integration but it is the fact of discriminating Belgians among themselves. Belgian citizens are discriminated against each other. You know, like me, for having read the judgments before coming here, like everyone else, that when a Belgian goes abroad and settles there, when he returns to Belgium, he must be treated in the sense of the directive and not in the sense of Belgian law. True or False? Stop Singh, stop Carpenter, stop McCarthy who repeats it again this time. Do you know it anyway? At least we agree on this.

This means that of two persons of the same nationality, on the same territory, who may be neighbors, one can bring his ascendants, the other not. A discrimination between Belgians is inserted on the basis of the same right that is denied to one and granted to another. Such discrimination is unjustified and discriminates against our own nationals.

This goes against the spirit of the European Union and European integration! I disagree with your arguments, although it is normal to have this debate. Some say, "You have, on the one hand, the left and the laxists and on the other hand, the right and the hard ones that bomb the torso! We are known! We are used to it!”

In this case, there is another issue! At the limit, I have no interest in doing what I do. I should let the text follow its course and kindly cancel it to make it inapplicable. That’s what I would have done if I didn’t want to make the conditions for family reunification stricter. But I want it to work and the conditions for family reunification to be harder to ensure that these people will not be borne by the state because that’s what we’re looking for. We must make sure that those who can come do not become people in charge of the state. As I want it to work, I don’t want to give those who want to kill the text the key to do it!

I make a bold comparison. Suppose that because of European law, we would be unable to impose its educational obligation on EU citizens aged 6 to 18. Suppose that we would face the difficulty of imposing only on the Belgians, or not doing it. What would you choose? I would not doubt for a second. I would absolutely introduce discrimination and ensure that Belgian children are compulsory school, in the best interests of those children.

In fact, the discussion we are conducting here is exactly the same. Will we protect people? Will we support people? Will we give people opportunities? Or do we not do it? We can indeed do it only for Belgian citizens, and not for other EU citizens.

What I would do as a minister or as a secretary of state responsible for this policy is to do everything I can to persuade my colleagues to enable compulsory education for EU citizens also at the European level. In other words, I would do my best to ensure that the lack of protection for EU citizens was addressed.

That should be your first task! No, try to make an empty box with legal arguments of this law. You know that if we get that out, the effect of the law will disappear for 80 percent or 90 percent.

Mr. Somers, let’s try at least to have a proper debate!

A large proportion, 30 % to 40 % of the people who engage in family reunification, are people with Belgian nationality, often of origin from a third country. When you get it out, the importance of the law collapses.

Mr. Somers, I understand that you are trying to caricate! I understand ! Did I propose to purely and simply remove a number of stricter conditions for the Belgians compared to the others? In this case, read the amendments submitted by my colleague Fonck. You will find that the condition for ascendants that is included in our subsidiary amendment text is harder for Europeans. We offer it ourselves! We should stop saying things that are wrong.

You always take the argument of the school. You have already tried it in commission. I understand ! But I say that there are elements of European law with which I do not specifically agree, but if one wants to play the game of Europe, one must respect and apply them. I said it in the committee, if the text is voted in its current mould - I explained in what it was illegal - and if one day I have to apply it, I will apply it loyally! This is our duty to all! But at the level of the European Union and the laws we are drafting, we are not yet “cons” enough to insert things as weak as those you propose!

The European Union is us. As for the EU directive, it was liberal ministers within the Belgian government who voted for it when it was adopted. We were part of it. We voted and supported it. Compliance with European rules is very important.

Let us take another example: the imposed condition of custody for European children! This is contrary to the Directive. I find this excellent! The requirement that the person who requests the reunification for a child shall have custody of a child is an additional requirement to the text of the directive. I find this very sensible! But we cannot! Personally, I am in favor, because this allows to fight against parental abductions, to ensure the security of the legal bond with children... I am for, but I can’t.

We absolutely want to vote on a text and tighten its conditions. I understand, given the number of abuses. Furthermore, the housing condition, Mr. Francken, which is reflected in the text is the one I had proposed at the time. You have criticized me, but I may have had a brilliant idea, like Mrs. Temmerman. We have convinced you. thank you .

The conditions relating to income are generally the same as those that were envisaged in the text at the time. The same applies to the conditions relating to eligibility in matters of cohabitation.

It is wrong to say that we do not want to make the conditions stricter. The text demonstrates this.

If one wants this text to be applicable as such and if one wants to avoid creating legal uncertainty, all the possibilities of recourse that they could be the subject of must be removed. For this, it is imperative to remove this discrimination which is manifest and which is not justifiable. As for the others, we may try to defend them, but not this one.

I would also like to draw attention to the implementation of bilateral agreements. As part of this text, bilateral agreements with a number of countries will be amended. by Mr. Madrane gave, just recently, the number of people affected: approximately 133 people against 113 last year. This question is therefore not fundamental at this level.

These bilateral agreements have been concluded with countries such as Morocco, Turkey. These are countries with a significant number of citizens coming to our territory and with whom we are constantly in contact, ⁇ in the context of removal policies. We must be aware that we will be called to amend these texts.

Mr Francken cited you the decision of the contentious council which considers the worker not as such but as a person who came to the territory in order to work there. But the contentious council has made many other decisions even after the one in question with a different interpretation, and you know.

That said, you at least have the intellectual honesty to say that bilateral conventions would be modified, despite Mrs. Temmerman’s brilliant argument.

Imagine that you are concluding a contract with a country as part of development cooperation and that at some point our partner decides to change the terms of that contract.

I’m not sure if we would be happy, if we would still want to continue to maintain good relations with these countries.

I fear that today, by changing texts or at least by profoundly changing the interpretation of various texts, for 113 cases per year, we put at risk all the work carried out with these countries, on information exchanges, on work especially in the field of removal.

That is all I say.

Mr. Wathelet, there is a state, a third country, which criticizes work in progress in Parliament. You ask us to adapt our political insights to what a third country requires. I think this is not a good political argument in this council.

What matters is whether or not what we can do. That is the fundamental question. If we have the opportunity to make an interpretative law in a bilateral treaty, I think that this Parliament should not be inspired in its sovereignty by what other countries think about it. Since we had a discussion about this afterwards, I took Professor Velaers to participate. He says: “There seems to be no objection that the legislature, in order to clarify the scope of the treaty in the internal legal order, adopts an interpretative law interpreting the provisions of the treaty. Such interpretation is made solely for the sake of the internal legal order. It does not contain an authentic interpretation of international law, as it can only be given by all contracting parties. It does not bind the other contracting parties, but it is valid in domestic law under Article 84 of the Constitution.

I suggest that you calmly translate this into French or Arabic and deliver it to the competent minister with whom you are in contact. You can make it clear to him that we are perfectly arranged and behaved within our constitutional system. We do not affect the rights of the contracting party, we have the full right to draw up an interpretative law that interprets and applies a treaty for the internal legal order. So I absolutely do not think that there is a problem. If a third country does not understand this, I think it is your job or that of our ambassador to explain it in a quiet and correct way. I think the Moroccan authorities will understand this.

I will answer you, Mr. Somers. First, what you say here is completely true. It doesn’t even need to be translated into French, I understood it in Dutch. In my opinion, in a third state, it would not be necessary to translate it into Arabic. However, your statements are only accurate if you merely interpret. In 1966, we concluded a bilateral agreement with Morocco specifying that the beneficiaries are the workers. The judgment referred to by Mr. Francken considers that only the individual who came to the Belgian territory to work can be considered a worker. This means that he must be equipped with a residence permit upon arrival and that his will must be to work. The fact of being considered as such at the time of applying for family reunification is not sufficient if the person had come to Belgium for another reason.

Is it just an interpretation? I do not think so. Let us assume that this is the case. If you submit this amendment, for what reason? To reduce the possibility of using this convention. Even if it satisfies you, it may not delight the co-contractors. They will not rejoice in a change in interpretation that may be less favourable to them. So, let’s imagine that we are in a legally acceptable situation. The reason why you submit this amendment that satisfies you is precisely the reason that it will not satisfy the other. This is often the case in a synallagmatic contract, as it involves shared obligations. At the limit, the co-contractor may not ask us to go before an international arbitration court. No, he will decide to be much more reluctant in discussions about the implementation of the measures we have taken with him, and which can help Belgium – and I think of the distance, which I consider important. This is the real problem!

Mr. Wathelet, what you say here, I find punishment, almost shocking. I will explain you why. It is obvious that the law is intended to impose a stricter framework on the administration, because so far the treaty is also interpreted. Now it is interpreted by the executive power, by the administration. It gives an interpretation, through guidelines, of how we should deal with that treaty.

In Parliament we have the opportunity to make our own interpretation. One thing I know very certain, Mr. Wathelet: it will not be the Moroccan authority that determines how we should interpret that law and how we should interpret the bilateral treaty, it will not be the Parliament, it will not be the minister, it will be the judges. Ultimately, it will be the judiciary that, in our democratic rule of law, will decide whether the Parliament’s interpretation of an international treaty is correct or not.

I will be pleased if the judges say we have interpreted it too strictly. However, I do not accept that the Moroccan authorities dictate us how to interpret a bilateral treaty. We will do it ourselves and therefore we do not have to wait for the advice of the Moroccan authorities.

Mr. Somers, you have been Flemish Prime Minister-President, you have negotiated conventions with other countries; in such contracts, the words used, the way to execute the conventions are very important.

Like me, you know that a worker is someone who has a job, who works and who gets a salary. We add here an additional condition: it is required that at the time of his entry into the Belgian territory he had the ambition to work. Thus, someone who works today is not a sufficient condition; yet he is a worker! Bilateral conventions mention “the worker”, “werknemer”.

A single stop added an additional condition. Many others have simply interpreted the convention respecting the text, merely respecting the word “worker” as such. We, by pretexting an interpretation, change the text.

Moreover, from the moment you change a text, even by its interpretation, the slightest thing is to warn the contracting party of a change in interpretation. In the opposite case, we would appreciate that. It is logical.

This has been a constant case-law since the late 1960s. Nevertheless, you suddenly change this convention – the proof is what you say – without even warning the partners.

Mr. Speaker, to close this debate, the real problem of this text is neither its objective, nor most of its articles: it is that by wanting to bomb the torso, by caricaturing it in a purely political debate, we risk missing the objective.

The goal is simple: to have a text, legally as defensive as possible. In this case, you don’t give yourself all the means to ⁇ this by inserting a totally unjustifiable discrimination; you know it. You insert a discrimination between Belgo-Belgians, between a Belgian who moved and a Belgian who did not move. This is not European law, but it is a Belgian who is a beneficiary in the sense of the directive and a Belgian who is not. By failing to justify this discrimination, you ensure that your text does not insert the necessary legal certainty.

You make sure that a lot of people will put their foot in the breach and will challenge this text. This text will then be uncertain from a legal point of view, which will increase the risk of family reunification or, worse, which will increase the risk of family reunification at the expense of the State, i.e. for persons who will cost the Belgian State. You will not reach your goal by rushing.

By rushing, you do not reach your goal and do not ensure that we can carry out the most effective removal policy possible by ⁇ ining the best contacts with the countries with which we work on a daily basis.

Mr. Speaker, I will make a brief presentation on my bench, because I think that after six months of work in the committee, after six months of debates in the basement to come to a compromise and after a beautiful debate in the Chamber, where in an old-fashioned way was debated about a law that was not imposed by the government, I have not much more to add to the content.

I want to explain my voting behavior. No one will be surprised that I am in favour. I vote for it because it is a step forward, even if it is a step forward with short legs, as one great commissioner says. If I see here all the political parties that have been in power in the last twenty years, I think that they have made a little bit of our migration dossier.

I vote in favour because I see that those large parties finally see a small light at the end of the tunnel. It is just a candle light, because what is here is indeed only a small amendment to the migration law.

There are quite a few challenges, think of naturalization and the fast-Belg Act, but for the first time in twenty years, the breadth of the legislation has gone in the opposite direction and we are receiving a signal here today, not only in this Chamber, but also a signal to the people who continue to abuse our legislation unbrokenly.

I therefore support this law. I will also support the citizenship amendment, because I do not think that we should pay this as a price, as a compromise to get it. People who come here need to immigrate. The whales should also understand this.

However, I would also like to warn the supporters that this is not a victory. If it is a victory, then it is a pyrrus victory. To be honest, I think we must admit that in order to reach this compromise, even due to the complexity of this legislation, the legal-technical legislation is still a cracking legislation and that there are still challenges to put the law on its feet.

I also believe that it will not lead to a large decrease in the use of family reunification. I have heard a colleague here say that instead of 41 000 cases, there may be 38 000. Indeed, there is still a lot of work to be done, as this law will also be outlawed by bilateral treaties.

I believe that politics is the art of the feasible and that this is currently the most feasible. Therefore, I will support this law, just like – I hope – this whole Parliament.