Proposition 53K0476

Projet de loi modifiant le Code de la nationalité belge afin de rendre l'acquisition de la nationalité belge neutre du point de vue de l'immigration.

General information ¶

Authors

Open Vld Patrick Dewael, Sabien Lahaye-Battheu, Bart Somers, Carina Van Cauter

Submission date

Oct. 27, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

foreign national legal domicile nationality naturalisation use of languages residence

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo

Abstained from voting

VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) voted to reject.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) voted to reject.
• Julie Fernandez Fernandez (PS | SP) abstained from voting.
• Theo Francken (N-VA) abstained from voting.
• Rachid Madrane (PS | SP) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Oct. 24, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, it is not easy to make the report of our Justice Committee which looked at the problems of amending the Code of Citizenship. Indeed, on the one hand, the texts submitted by the parliamentarians were numerous and, on the other hand, the matter was sensitive. In addition, in addition to our committees, other informal working groups, many, with variable composition, have also worked on the subject.

Between November 2010 and July 2012, our committee met several times. She heard, at first, the presentations of the various colleagues submitting proposals, namely Ms. Van Cauter, Smeyers, Lanjri and Galant and Mr. Galant. by Goyvaerts.

The first debate focused on what text the commission would be based on to begin its work. There was no consensus on this point. Without the need to resort to a formal vote, the chairperson of the committee proposed to adhere to parliamentary jurisprudence and therefore to discuss the first text submitted as the basic proposal. This is how Mrs. Van Cauter’s text served as a starting point for our first discussions, which were fed by a series of written opinions that were requested. You will find in the report the names of the various organizations that have been so. Furthermore, it was necessary to agree on the need or not, at some point, to consult the State Council. I will return to this in the presentation of this text, as it is true that the discussions initiated on the basis of the text of Mrs Van Cauter have enabled each to express, in the general discussion, the point of view of his political group. I will obviously not take them back as part of my oral report; everyone will be able to refer usefully to the written report.

It is important to know that after this exchange of views, and thanks to the work carried out in particular by the majority groups, a comprehensive amendment to the original proposal was submitted. Our committee has decided to submit this amendment to the State Council, which has thus been brought to give its opinion on the text.

As for the discussions, I refer to the written report. However, I think it is useful to return to the content of the text. I hope this will ⁇ prevent some of our colleagues from having to talk about this during their speech.

The comprehensive amendment (No. 151), which served as the basis for our discussions and which sets the framework for this new Code of Citizenship, is articulated around the following major points.

First, since the objective is to make citizenship neutral from the immigration point of view, it will now be necessary to have a main residence in Belgium, on the basis of a legal stay. At the time of its declaration, the foreigner must also be in possession of an unlimited residence permit. In addition, the proceedings will always have to be initiated in Belgium and not abroad.

The second element of this text concerns the simplification of procedures. Today, there are twelve procedures for obtaining Belgian citizenship; they are reduced to four, which will be simpler.

First, there is the declaration of citizenship of the foreigner born in Belgium; in this case, no change occurs compared to the current text.

Then there is the short procedure for declaring citizenship after five years of legal residence, accompanied by social integration and economic participation.

There are two exceptions to this short procedure of declaration of citizenship: first, if the spouse is Belgian, after cohabitation of a minimum of three years in Belgium, or if he has a Belgian child; second, if a foreigner is unable to obtain employment or economic activity due to disability or disability, or if he has reached the retirement age.

Then again, there is a long procedure for declaring citizenship after ten years of legal residence, accompanied by the condition of participating in the life of the host community.

Finally, naturalization is reduced to its primary purpose and remains limited to exceptional cases, i.e. to persons who demonstrate exceptional merits in the fields of science, sport or a cultural or social contribution of interest to the international radiation of our country.

These new procedures are also articulated around the requirement of integration. Foreigners who have legally resided in Belgium for five years must provide proof of their social and economic integration.

The text details the various ways in which this social integration is proven:

a diploma or certificate issued by an educational institution organized, recognised or subsidized by a Community or by the Royal Military School, and which is at least the level of higher secondary education;

have completed at least 400 hours of vocational training, recognized by a competent authority;

- or having completed an integration course provided by the competent authority of its main residence at the time when its integration course begins;

- or have worked in an uninterrupted manner for five years as an employee, statutory or self-employed on the main title.

Knowledge of one of the three national languages must also be established. Proof of this knowledge will always be provided, whether to satisfy the requirements of the law or to benefit from a favour. Social integration itself implies the necessity of proof of knowledge of the language of the main residence.

Belgian citizenship will not be granted when the applicant is at the origin of serious offences or a marriage of complacency. The elements that should allow the Prosecutor’s Office to assess these situations are detailed in the text.

All this is done on the basis of a single procedure which can be concluded by an appeal before the judicial order. There is only one uniform procedure for declarations of nationality. It does not apply to naturalization.

The Prosecutor’s Office, the Office of Foreigners and the State Security should give an opinion within four months. Therefore, deadlines are well planned. These four months begin to run from the moment the file is complete. After this notice period, we are faced with four cases: the prosecutor decides not to issue a negative opinion and citizenship is granted; the prosecutor decides nothing during this period and citizenship is granted; the prosecutor decides nothing because the file has not been transmitted and citizenship is then not granted, since it has not been able to examine whether there are objections; the prosecutor decides to issue a negative opinion and citizenship is not granted.

In all four cases, an appeal is opened before the courts. A registration right is also established.

The general discussion took place from this text. I think each of the speakers at the tribune will come to explain the point of view that is his own.

Mr. Speaker, the committee decided to vote on this comprehensive amendment, which thus replaced the articles in Ms. Van Cauter’s original proposal. At the end of our work, this text was adopted by 12 votes and 4 abstentions.

First of all, I would like to express my condolences to the employees of Ford Genk. I also hope that today will be a moderate debate. I think a lot of those present are dealing with more important matters than the rapid-Belgwet or the nationality legislation.

We received a very clear report from CDH colleague Brotcorne. As quickly as it went to introduce the rapid-Belgwet in 1999-2000, so slowly went the path of suffering to implement them. In 1999, there was a package deal to make Guy Verhofstadt Prime Minister of this country. This included the regularization of more than sixty thousand people at the end of 1999, the fast-Belgwet and the damned Lambermontakord. The Fast-Belg Act was introduced very quickly, has existed for more than twelve years and has ensured that more than 650 000 new Belgians received our nationality without the conditions that are mainstream in other European countries, such as integration, language knowledge, regional language knowledge and economic participation.

In 2007, Jo Vandeurzen came as Minister of Justice with a very elaborate file and bill on the abolition of the rapid-Belggesetz or at least the reform of the nationality legislation. It could not be said so at the time, but it came down. In the end, it never came out.

We negotiated for five years. The N-VA has been with the car for more than one and a half years. Today on the table is the next step for the N-VA, but also for other parties in the different approach, revision and reorientation of the migration policy in this country.

This is happening now after the amendment of the law on family reunification. Yesterday I questioned State Secretary Maggie De Block once again about family reunification. The new, stricter law on family reunification is, despite all criticism, a success. Ms. De Block was able to inform me yesterday in the committee for domestic affairs that there are far fewer applications and far fewer approvals.

Is it just us to do less and less? No, but, among other things, by filling a income threshold, we are convinced that we are now attracting the right people. We can now attract people who can also offer emancipatory opportunities. These people can really build a future in this country. This is the essence of the Family Reunification Act. State Secretary De Block brought the good news yesterday that this new law also works. Thus, we have taken a very good path. Today we hope to do so again, with the present bill.

Hopefully, the fraud of the medical regularisations has also been overthrown by the filter we have built in. Among others, colleague Smeyers has been advocating this for years. Eighty percent of applications for medical regularizations are now immediately rejected. These are results that we, together with other colleagues, can also write on our palmares. I also mention the list of safe asylum countries.

There is now a change, after the unreasonable tax was also addressed. What am I talking about? Yesterday in the committee I also received a very interesting response on this subject from State Secretary De Block. More than a year ago, we adopted a bill that stipulates that no OCMW support can be granted during the first three months. EU citizens such as Roma, Bulgarians, Romanians or Poles, who impose an unreasonable tax on our social security, may be revoked. Yesterday I asked for the latest figures. What is shown now? These are not stories, it is reality: 2,500 families have lost their benefits and their right of residence has been revoked. They were ordered to leave the territory. Therefore, they will no longer receive OCWM support. That number was recorded after a year and a half. This is, for example, about people in Gent. Many people are awake to such things. It is not so much about my congregation, but rather about major cities, of which Ghent is ⁇ the most famous example. It is about a lot of people.

In fact, State Secretary De Block said in her response that it was actually just a marginal screening. Inspections have been carried out, but there is too little staff. For 2013, State Secretary De Block is asking for staff and I hope that she will get that staff. I hope that the other parties will support to give her those additional staff members.

She says, in fact, that if that was really thoroughly checked, it would be a plurality of those 2,500 persons who from one day to the next, in the manner of speaking of the OCMW, can be smashed and against whom it can then be said that their stay has been revoked, that they no longer need to be here since it is only to them that benefit and not at all to work here effectively or to seek employment. This is another step in the right direction, which we have taken together with our colleagues, including Ms. Temmerman. Today is an important day in migration policy. The next step will be approved tomorrow.

I would like to express my thanks to some of my colleagues before going into the substance of the bill.

Mrs Van Cauter, thank you very much for your unwavering commitment to this file. It was not easy. We have not been there for the last six months, but we have been there for a year and a half. We were able to work well together, of course, together with the other colleagues, although it wasn’t easy. Honestly speaking, I think you put here today a historical blunder right from Mr. Verhofstadt of Open Vld, from 1999. I think that is magnificent and absolutely a good thing.

Colleagues Lanjri and Temmerman, I also thank you. We went through this dossier together. You have done that for the last six months, by circumstances, without the N-VA. Most of the work was done, but of course the last plugs weighed the heaviest. The final deal with the PS, with colleague Madrane, you have closed, because we were no longer there. What is on the table can be seen.

There are five positive points and three negative. Let me start with the positive.

First, this is the most important thing, the fast-Belgwet is abolished. I mean the following. The rapid-Belgwet was the naturalization procedure in which no permanent right of residence was required, in which only three years of residence was required, but not even permanent residence, and in which a carousel was set up to be able to become Belgian very quickly. That was almost as unique in the Western world. This is the rapid Belgian law.

The other procedures, such as the declaration of nationality after seven years, exist in all European countries, but it is the naturalization procedure after three years that forms the core of the rapid Belgian Act and which is now abolished. We will vote for them tomorrow.

We have fought a harsh struggle and now want to return to the law as it is constitutionally intended when the House grants citizenship to certain people. The original intention of the constituent in Article 9 was always that it would be about people with exceptional merits for the country, such as scientists, artists, people who are sociocultural merit. Thus, it does not reach 13 000, but 13 or 130 applications per year. The rapid-Belgwet as such is therefore effectively abolished by this bill.

I would like to make an important comment on behalf of our group. For us, dear colleagues, it is also about economic merits. We have long debated the wording of Article 19. It is now very fuzzy. This is about “social merits”. If a wealthy entrepreneur wants to become Belgian and settles in this country, saying that he wants to invest here, that for us is someone who can belong to the club and can be naturalized through the emergency procedure. For us it can. Against Mr. Arnault, to give just one example, or someone who uses fraud to move immediately to Monaco, however, the N-VA says no. If the sole intention is to avoid taxes, the N-VA says very clearly no, but we say that naturalization through the exemption procedure can also be an economic added value; thus not only a sports, scientific, social or cultural added value, but also an economic. To a business leader who says he wants to become Belgian, who wants to invest in this country and who wants to build a future here, who has already proved that he has an economic added value for the fragile economic tissue that Belgium today once again turns out to be, the N-VA says: “Yes, come here, as soon as possible, and see that you are here investing damn money in this country!”

A second positive point is the following. There are more than five, but I will limit myself to five. Finally, only those who actually live here will be able to apply and become Belgian.

In the last ten years, 5,440 people have become Belgians without ever taking a step in Belgium, without knowing our language, without knowing a word of Dutch, French or German. We have given our nationality to 5,440 of those people: “Come to the club, from now on you are Belgian”, with all the consequences of that. Those people have never been here and have never stayed here. Maybe they have visited Brussels or Gent once with a tourist visa. So it remained there. I think this was a step too far. That step will be reversed today. This stops, this is done. Only if one lives in Belgium, if one has a permanent right of residence, if one has a culture here, if one is also socially engaged and effectively integrated, one can still obtain our nationality.

Third, more opportunities are created to take back citizenship. The big problem, dear colleagues, Mrs. Minister, is that it is very difficult to deprive someone of nationality. Mrs. Minister, I say this very specifically because you are, of course, dealing with the case of Mr. Belkacem. You have come to the press very often in the last few months. There must be more tools to deprive someone of their nationality. You have said it yourself several times. You said that we need more tools to be able to deprive citizenship of people who have become Belgian but commit a serious crime or face a conviction. This is now being created on two points. We will also make serious crimes a ground for the removal of nationality, and in addition, the hypocritical marriage will also become a basis for the removal of nationality.

Furthermore, even more importantly, we enter into the request of Attorney General Liégeois of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Antwerp to ease the procedure. Now the criminal judge can suddenly do anything. The criminal judge can do everything at once. He can condemn anyone and also immediately remove his nationality. In the past, two procedures were required. From that second procedure, nothing came into the house at last. They were sentenced but retained their nationality. That is a very good thing and a big step forward. This is something that the N-VA ⁇ stands behind.

The man asks for the word.

Mr. Francken, I hear you talk about the notorious Belkacem, but if I read well the arrangement that is presented today and on which we will vote tomorrow, then you can not exclude that Mr. on the basis of this arrangement?

and no.

You will not solve that. You should not mention that, Mr. Francken.

Indeed, Mr. De Man, I have three points of criticism. I know you are very upset, but I ask you for a little patience. That will be discussed later.

Fourth, everyone understands the logic of this, there are finally citizenship and integration obligations linked to obtaining the Belgian nationality. After five years it is an en-en-story: anyway a permanent residence, social and economic participation and integration. I think we are making a very big step forward, especially because we make the link with economic participation.

Everyone remembers the heroic debates in the Chamber. I was not a member of the Chamber at the time. It was a rough discussion about not mentioning having a job in the naturalization applications. I remember that in the past it was mentioned whether someone was unemployed or not. Then there was no consciousness anymore. This was not allowed, because it was discriminatory. This can be discussed for a long time. That is not my point, but we have now realized that having a job is a real key to obtaining citizenship after five years of residence. I think that we are making a big step forward. It was not an easy political struggle to get it in, but we eventually succeeded. After ten years of stay, it is an or-of-story, because then there is, of course, a longer stay.

Fifth, with this bill, there is a substantial simplification of the number of procedures. The provisions for obtaining citizenship formed a cloak. I think that only a few civil servants have done so. There were 12 or 13 procedures for obtaining Belgian citizenship. It became a very difficult to read law. This is often the case with legislation to which various provisions are subsequently added, in addition to all circulation letters and KBs. In the long run, the law becomes completely unreadable. The Foreigners Act of 1980 is, by the way, in the same bed. From 12 one now goes to 5 procedures, which makes it much easier. However, I think it can be even simpler, because I think there is only one procedure in Germany.

I also have three points of criticism.

First, I am disappointed with the discussion about the language level to be reached. In the present legislation, there is a language level A. I have worked on citizenship for years in a previous life, which makes me know some of those language levels. Language level A refers to a dependent language user. We had ourselves suggested level B1, where it is an independent language user. We believe that anyone applying for Belgian citizenship must still be an independent language user, either Dutch or French. That person, if he or she lives in Flanders, must speak well Dutch so that he or she can manage affairs independently and does not need constant assistance. We consider the text on this subject a missed opportunity. We believe that level B1 is essential, so that the threshold for acquiring citizenship is sufficiently high.

Second, there is no cascade ban in the law. We have discussed this too long. There are many cascades in migration, ⁇ through family reunification. Everyone knows the stories of migrants who marry, divorce and then marry again to get another migrant into the country. In this way, they create a true cascade. A cascade ban on nationality would indeed have been meant. This was also a question from Attorney General Liégeois. A person who marries a partner who subsequently acquires Belgian citizenship, then divorces and then marries again with someone who, in turn, acquires Belgian citizenship after an emergency procedure, goes, in our opinion, a step too far. We are in favour of banning this cascade. That this has not happened now is, in our opinion, a regrettable case and a missed opportunity in the bill.

Our third point of criticism is that we should have taken a step further with regard to the reduction of nationality.

We have submitted amendments in this regard. I will also submit them again. We make it clear that every misconduct or crime must be a potential ground for deprivation of nationality. That is not to say that anyone who is ever convicted must immediately lose his citizenship, but in the law must be entered the possibility that anyone who is convicted for a bad company or crime can lose his citizenship. For Belkacem, for example, there would be a ground to deprive him of Belgian citizenship.

Such a provision is not included in the present bill. Although the legislation now also covers hypocritical marriages and serious crimes, the scope of the text could be even broader.

It was also a question from Mr Liégeois, whom we spoke once or twice in the committee and invited to a hearing. He and several judges gave a very clear vision of how the nationality legislation could be a much better tool than it is now.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, our group will approve the present legislation. I will remember myself personally. For us, the proposal is a big step forward in the right direction. The Fast-Belg Act is effectively abolished by recourse to the original purpose of Article 9 of the Constitution for the naturalization procedure. However, I will abstain, because of the three points of criticism that I have given very clearly.

Finally, my colleagues, I have another call. There is still a lot of work on the shelf. We must not talk. After the vote on the present proposal, we cannot argue that we have now done our work. We have already done a lot of work. We also worked hard. However, there is still a lot of work on the shelf.

Mrs Turtelboom, Mrs De Block, we will continue to do our work in Parliament.

I would like to point out four points on which the N-VA will be permanently committed.

First, stop the regularization of criminals. Enter the instruction note on the subject.

Secondly, finally strive for more active migration and less passive migration.

Third, finally work on a return policy to the Maghreblands. More than 60% of all illegal persons found after committing facts come from Tunisia, Algeria or Morocco.

Finally and most importantly, finally work on a new code, the migration code, and close all those backdoors that make it so lucrative for the migration industry.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, the text presented to us today proposes a major reform of the Code of Citizenship. This document has undergone a long legislative journey because the subject is sensitive. In fact, it concerns the future of men and women since, acquiring the Belgian nationality and citizenship confers rights and duties.

This reform is necessary in order to clarify and streamline the too many procedures that today allow for obtaining citizenship. No one finds himself there, neither the applicants who lose themselves in the meanders of this multitude of procedures, nor the municipal administrations for whom their too many constitutes an impediment in the proper management of the cases. Moreover, this multiplication of procedures no longer ensures – which is important – the legal certainty of the course to be taken in obtaining citizenship. Furthermore, it is also important to amend the law to make the acquisition of citizenship migratory neutral. Furthermore, I would like to recall that this reform concerns only the acquisition of citizenship; it does not in any way affect the procedures for granting citizenship.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, the application for the acquisition of Belgian nationality is not unnecessary, whether for the person who formulates it or the authority who examines it. The Code of Citizenship is one of the most important legal texts of our legislation. For this reason – I have already said this and this has been recalled on the occasion of the excellent report – parliamentary work had to be thorough and contentious. The text presented to us today is therefore the result of extensive committee work and intense negotiations that have lasted more than two years. This text is the fruit of a compromised scholar who reconciles the sensitivities of the various political groups of the majority. That is why we will support it.

But, of course, as in any compromise, there are positive points and others that are less. Among the positive points, the PS Group wishes to highlight the leading thread of the text, namely the establishment of three clear and precise procedures: a five-year procedure, a ten-year procedure and a naturalization procedure.

The short procedure, accessible to the foreigner who has been staying in Belgium for at least five years and not more than seven years as currently, rewards the concrete efforts of integration of the applicant who will be able to prove his knowledge of one of the national languages as well as his social integration – obtaining a diploma, followed by a professional training or a path of integration – and his economic integration.

It is important to clarify that the integration course will be mandatory only for those who have not completed training or who have not obtained a diploma.

Still about this course, I would like to say that my group is of the opinion that this is a very beautiful tool for social emancipation in general and the social emancipation of women in particular. The longer procedure, on the other hand, presupposes integration over the duration, since it provides for ten years of residence in Belgium.

This integration must be demonstrated by the participation of the applicant in the local host community. This must arise from a bunch of indicators, including knowledge of one of the national languages, having completed schooling in Belgium, having completed a professional training, having an implication in the associative life, in the neighborhood life, having school children, etc.

With regard to the new naturalization procedure, this will become exceptional as the majority of traditional applications will be taken into account through the two new declaration procedures.

In general, it is obvious that by clarifying, simplifying and objectivizing the procedures and criteria to be taken into account, the proposed text is beneficial for the legal certainty of the procedure for acquiring citizenship.

After these positive elements, I would like to express a few regrets to my group. They first concern the number of working days required to prove its economic integration, i.e. 468 days (one year and a half) equivalent full-time in the five years preceding the application.

This economic criterion, especially in the current context, poses problems as it does not take into account precarious or part-time workers. There is strong concern that this criterion leads to excluding from the rapid procedure women and young people who occupy too often – and unfortunately this is a reality – this type of employment. However, this criterion is temperate for people married to a Belgian or a Belgian, since they will have to have worked only 234 days instead of 468.

Furthermore, we are also satisfied that this criterion has been, to some extent, moderated since the duration of study and training followed in the five years preceding the application will be deducted from the duration of the required professional activity.

Finally, my group regrets that the principle of regional reciprocity of the integration path has not been taken into account in its entirety.

In short, this is a major reform, a complex reform. It will most ⁇ be the subject of evaluations and, if necessary, adjustments, in particular to ensure the legal certainty of the procedure.

Here, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, are the few elements that my group wanted to highlight in this matter, oh how sensitive and complex!

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we are pleased to be able to propose the amendment to the Code of Belgian Nationality here today and, hopefully, be able to adopt it tomorrow. This proposal is in line with our thinking about how the government in our country should deal with migration and newcomers and how we should promote integration and participation.

For CD&V, nationality is the closing point of integration and participation. The purpose of this change is clear to us: to encourage newcomers to integrate and participate in our society. By allowing people to actively participate in our society, the bond between them and their new homeland grows. This law aims to encourage people to participate in society and rewards those who make such efforts. Those who do it faster will receive an additional reward: a faster acquisition of citizenship. Today it takes seven years, but those who integrate and participate faster in all areas, social and economic, can do so soon after five years.

We want to draw naturalization back to its original purpose: a genuine favor procedure. This is not an automatic right, but a favor. Furthermore, this should again become an exceptional measure. Finally, with this amendment, we also want to broaden the possibilities of deprivation of nationality.

There is no need to argue that our party has always been against the principles of the Rapid-Belggesetz. In the past, we have always criticized this law, myself, but also Jo Vandeurzen and Stefaan De Clerck. With Jo Vandeurzen, I submitted a bill in 2003 to amend the law. Stefaan De Clerck had in the previous legislature prepared a draft for this, which due to the fall of the government has no longer passed. After that, we were happy to be able to continue working on the basis of the proposals that were there, including from Mrs. Van Cauter.

The law as approved by violet has not led to what was expected. It was assumed that the easy way of acquiring nationality would result in people participating faster, both socially and economically.

Unfortunately, the law did not provide any incentive to encourage people to participate or integrate. There was also no incentive to learn the language. Moreover, you didn’t even have to stay in Belgium in order to become Belgian. There were even opportunities for people who had never set foot in Belgium. That is absurd. We have always resisted this.

Between 2000 and 2011, 569 574 people became Belgian. I’m not saying that all those people are poorly integrated or that they didn’t deserve it; I just say that there was no link between obtaining nationality and a certain degree of integration. People who did not make any effort could easily become Belgians once they were here for seven years. Until now, it was almost a formality. The Fast-Belgwet was based on the honest but wrong assumption that newcomers would integrate quickly and well if they obtained nationality quickly and easily.

Today there is an entirely new way of thinking. Integration and participation of newcomers should be promoted. Those who participate and participate must be rewarded. So we turn things around. Anyone who integrates and participates can become Belgian. The faster we do this, the faster we obtain our nationality.

The majority parties have managed to shape this model in a new law. It is an important step for the society we want to build. We want to work together for a common future for newcomers and born Belgians. This, of course, can only be done if people live in community with each other and can talk to each other. Hence the importance of the knowledge of the language of the people between whom one lives. In a society like ours, which is based on solidarity and a social security model, this can only be done if everyone participates in the system of solidarity. Hence the importance of economic participation. That is why we ask people to prove that they have worked. It does not matter whether they have done it as an employee or self-employed, but those who can participate must also do so.

A just society provides guarantees and legal certainty to the people of the rule of law. Therefore, we provide strict procedures that governments must follow, as well as clear definitions.

Thus, it is clear to the applicant which criteria he must meet, and how he can prove that. This de facto means an administrative simplification. An acknowledged diploma or certificate, a citizenship certificate, data held by the social security services for employees and self-employed: these are all means that can serve as proof of economic or political participation. These criteria are much clearer than what was so far the case or what was before the introduction of the fast-Belgwet.

There is also greater clarity about the fact that those who shame their trust and commit serious crimes after obtaining Belgian citizenship can lose that citizenship again.

All these principles have been agreed within the majority. We have put these principles into a new bill. In short, the bill now recognizes four major categories, instead of twelve.

The first major category to whom citizenship can be granted is that of minors. We do not change much in this regard, except for the fact that the persons concerned, of course, must live in Belgium. We assume that those who were born and raised here and who have studied here for a long time do not have to prove their integration again.

The second category to whom citizenship can be granted is that of people who reside here for at least five years — which is a short period — and demonstrate their integration in a double way. They must first prove that they have been staying here for five years, have an indefinite residence permit and have to demonstrate knowledge of one of the three national languages. In addition, they must prove their economic participation by working for at least one and a half years and demonstrate that they are socially integrated through, for example, a citizenship course, a VDAB course, a vocational training or work.

However, we are not hardy. We provide for a number of exceptions, for example for pensioners, disabled persons or disabled persons, who therefore can no longer meet the established criteria. There are also milder criteria for people who are married to a Belgian. They too should be able to quickly become Belgian, because we assume the unity of nationality within the family.

The third major category is the long-term declaration of nationality, i.e. after ten years. For this, the criteria are a little wider. The applicant must still prove that he or she knows at least one of the three national languages and must also prove that he or she participates in community life. This can be demonstrated by all possible legal means.

Now on to naturalization. Currently, naturalization is almost a new gateway, at least a separate procedure. The naturalization will be reduced back to a true exemption procedure. Per ⁇ in the future it will be about a few hundred dossiers, while we are now lagging behind by 40 000 dossiers. Naturalization will again be limited to the real exceptions for people with exceptional merits for the country. For all clarity, it is not just about footballers or other athletes, but also about artists or scientists, people who can do an exceptional service to Belgium, as well as – and I want to expressly mention that – stateless persons.

We also stipulate that, unlike before, the nationality can no longer be applied from abroad, precisely because we stipulate that the applicant must demonstrate a connection with our country.

Serious crimes, terrorism, war crimes, human trafficking, human trafficking, crimes facilitated by the possession of the nationality, as well as hypocritical marriages, are reasons for refusing or possibly losing the nationality.

In June, when we reached an agreement in the committee on this new law, we have already received a lot of praise in the press, and also outside the press. Guy Tegenbos of De Standaard has expressed it as follows: “Historical error corrected.”The historical error called rapid-Belgwet is corrected after thirteen years. With this law, we indeed indicate that integration and participation become the key to nationality. Anyone who integrates can become Belgian. That is the correct order. The conditions that apply now, such as at least five years of residence, knowing the local language, working or studying, are piece by piece just proof that someone here is working on his future. So it’s about people who want to build their future here and who also want to participate in our society. This must be encouraged by all kinds of policy measures, not just by measures such as citizenship and integration. I am also pleased that in the French Community, thus also in Brussels, soon, from 1 January, projects for citizenship courses will be possible. That is a good thing.

However, the other side is equally important. We must ensure that we eliminate discrimination. If we argue that applicants should participate economically, it is also important that we address the discrimination that currently exists on the labour market. For us, this is definitely a priority. We will question the members of the government, in particular the Minister of Labour, on this point in time and standing and encourage them to do further work on it.

In the newspaper we, Members of Parliament, received great praise for this agreement. Therefore, I would like to thank all my colleagues in the majority, Mrs. Van Cauter, Mrs. Temmerman, Mr. Brotcorne, the PS colleagues, Mrs. Galant, and all the opposition colleagues who supported this.

Ladies and gentlemen, it has taken a long time. I have already said that we have already submitted a first proposal more than five years ago. At the beginning of this legislature, in the meantime already more than two years ago, we shrugged hands and said that we were going to bite ourselves in this file until we were out. What is happening now is indeed a big step forward.

Is this the perfection self? Nothing in this world is perfect. Per ⁇ here and there will one day notice an imperfection of this law, but it is a giant step forward. As the press has said, it is the correction of a historical mistake. I would like to thank all colleagues, but ⁇ also all employees for their commitment. I hope that we can take this historic step tomorrow by approving this proposal tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, we are discussing today the tightening of the conditions for the voluntary acquisition of Belgian citizenship. This is an important reform that is ⁇ important to me, as well as to Mr. This ambitious reform will fundamentally change the philosophy of our Code of Citizenship and will give the voluntary acquisition of Belgian citizenship the respect and recognition it deserves.

Wanting to become a citizen of a nation, what does that mean? It is not just a matter of rights and duties, it is the expression of a person’s desire to share the values of the nation to which he wants to belong, to integrate them into his identity, and to make it known to all. It is also the willingness to participate in the socio-economic prosperity of this nation. Acquisition of Belgian citizenship, therefore, is much more than obtaining a legal right of residence in the territory. It means becoming a Belgian citizen and adhering to the human, social, economic and democratic values that our society advocates. This involves rights and duties.

Our policy on citizenship must therefore, to some extent, separate ourselves from the policy of migration and access to territory. The person applying to obtain Belgian citizenship does so by personal choice. It must not do so in order to strengthen an administrative status or to leave a situation of illegality. In other words, this person must not be forced to abandon his nationality of origin in order to obtain a right of residence in Belgium because, to acquire the nationality of a country with which one has neither built nor past, nor project of future, it makes no sense.

Our nationality policy must involve a deep and sincere reflection on the necessary link between the acquisition of a country’s nationality and the national community that founds it. In other words, it is necessary to take into account the willingness to integrate into the country of residence of the person concerned and to grant citizenship following the successful integration.

That is why it was fundamental, that alongside a human reform, just and clear of the regulation of access to the territory, we feed an independent reflection on the acquisition of nationality to make it neutral from the migratory point of view.

In this way, the migration pressure on the latter can disappear, due to lack of interest. The acquisition of nationality becomes the coronation of a positive path of integration into the life of our country, the conclusion of a path of life proper to any candidate for the nationality that deserves respect.

I will not go back in detail on the measures that concrete this reform but I would like to pinpoint the major axes. Citizenship is no longer a pretext for access to the territory. We wanted to restore coherence between the legislation on citizenship and immigration and access to the territory, by specifying the quality and duration of the right of residence, allowing to apply for the citizenship, of unlimited duration at the time of the application (strengthening the durations of five or ten years and taking into account only stays of more than three months), by also specifying in the law the serious personal facts, cause of exclusion from the citizenship, or by directly inducing from a sentence for white marriage the defeat of the citizenship acquired by this false link. This was indispensable to avoid the abuse and other effects of vessels communicating between these two regulations.

The chain to follow is clear and objective and strict conditions are indicated. Citizenship is acquired on the basis of its own course and its own motivation and not by chance of alliances or relatives, even if the latter retain a significant index value of the will to integrate.

These conditions are: knowledge of one of the three national languages; social integration through a diploma, training or integration course that I hope will soon be born in Wallonia and Brussels; economic participation and the value of work as a factor of integration.

The procedure is clarified and uniformized. The expiration of the deadlines is well marked. Avoid incomplete or unfounded files. A registration right is requested to demonstrate the seriousness of the procedure.

Naturalization is again a genuine favor granted by the House of Representatives to persons whose merit honors Belgium. This favour can be opened only if the path of ordinary integration has not resulted in the granting of nationality.

I would also like to emphasize the loss of nationality. In the same logic as the above, this aspect has also been reinforced. The deprivation of citizenship may be ruled by the criminal judge. The personal, socio-economic or cultural integration of a candidate logically bases the granting of citizenship.

Its withdrawal by the criminal judge becomes equally logical when the individual concerned demonstrates a total lack of respect for public order and the Belgian society by committing serious violations of Belgian law, in particular terrorist offences or offences facilitated by the possession of Belgian nationality.

In conclusion, dear colleagues, for the MR, the great merit of this reform is to give a sense to the acquisition of nationality. This results in a stricter framework of the conditions of its grant and in the fact that it is put on its integration. There is no automaticity anymore, which had completely devalued the existing system.

The MR is pleased to have succeeded in convincing the French-speaking partners of the majority to operate a tightening of the conditions of voluntary access to citizenship. It is the fruit of tens of hours of confrontation of principles that I am relieved to see ended in a positive way.

I would also like to emphasize here the involvement of every moment of my colleague Open Vld Carina Van Cauter.

It is therefore with satisfaction of the duty accomplished that I confirm that my group will support this text. I invite you all to do the same.

Mrs. Galant, I have listened very carefully to your speech. You did not say much about the naturalization procedure. Can, according to the MR, someone who has an economic added value, and therefore an exceptional merit in employment and job creation, be naturalized? Everybody knows what cases I’m talking about. Dozens of French have submitted a naturalization application based on the fact that they are investing in this country. Does the MR agree that such a person may resort to the accelerated procedure in order to become Belgian?

Mr Francken, the file you are referring to has been introduced under current legislation. It will be treated like all other cases and there will therefore be no favoritism. Therefore, the question is not raised for the file you are referring to.

For all clarity, we approve that law and it comes into force from 1 January. From 1 January there will therefore be files in which someone under the new law requests an exemption procedure, based on an economic added value. My question is what your point of view is about this. I think this is a very logical question. Mr. Arnault’s file is now there, but the law is not yet applicable. However, if he submits his file again in three months, then the law applies. I ask that because I think there is a problem with the interpretation of Article 19 as we now propose it. Article 19 speaks very broadly about social services, social added value. My question is, therefore, whether that entrepreneur for you is someone with a social added value. Is such a person eligible for the emergency procedure to become Belgian? This is a very simple question, because we will face it in the coming months.

The files will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis from the entry into force of the new legislation. I repeat that the cases presented at present will be processed under the current legislation until 1 January 2013. The question does not arise since the file will be examined according to the criteria in force today.

Colleague Francken, we cannot really escape this debate. We conducted the debate in a serious way.

Anyone who means an economic added value for our country and participates economically there will integrate spontaneously. Nothing prevents him from following the usual procedure and, like any Belgian candidate, from proving that he meets the criteria. If he or she wishes to do so, he or she can acquire Belgian citizenship entirely legally and by ordinary means.

As for the favor of granting the Belgian citizenship, we all agreed that we should retrieve that procedure to what it is today and as it was originally intended.

If I am not mistaken, that was also your point of view. I even think that you cut off the part of our bill and submitted it separately to be approved in the Chamber. So I really do not understand where the problem is.

This has been discussed in the committee. The question is what are the transitional measures. The answer is very clear: any application submitted until 31 December next year – in any case, if the new legislation actually comes into force on 1 January 2013 – will remain subject to current legislation. If the person in this situation considers that it is more interesting for him to introduce a new file after 1 January and thus benefit from the framework of the new procedural rules, he will be able to do so.

There seems to be some uncertainty about my position. Therefore, I am not talking about the usual standard procedure. I am speaking very clearly about Article 19, which is quite bluntly formulated. There was a reason for that, I know. From 1 January 2013, you will be faced with people who do not just have a job, but with people who want to invest in this country, for example a very wealthy Frenchman who says he wants to invest in this country and requests an emergency procedure for naturalization.

Article 19 of the bill, which will be voted tomorrow, refers to someone who has made a special contribution: sports, cultural or scientific, but also in terms of social and social commitment. Does a major entrepreneur or investor in this country fall under this? This is a very logical question, because we will have to answer it in the coming months. That is my question. It is not about the previous files.

Mr Francken, I will try to answer your question in a concrete way. I think the answer is no, because nothing prevents that man or woman from investing here, even if he or she has a different nationality. In the current state of affairs, in the current legislation, he will have to follow the procedure, like everyone who has to follow.

Colleague Francken, you have clearly here the example in the eyes of the wealthy French industrial. I am surprised that your party did not ask this question last year, even before the government was formed, when the criteria were already discussed, together with you. We have indeed followed the vision that it is important that people come here to work and invest. I consider an investor as someone who is independent. Nothing prevents this man from staying here for five years, as we ask for the others.

What we especially do not want to experience is that people here can quickly become Belgian purely because of the tax paradise. This is not the intention, we have not explicitly included this. That man or woman can become Belgian, even in the quick procedure, after five years, but the examples we have put forward – they are also in the text – were: an extraordinary merit on the scientific level, a doctorate title; an extraordinary merit on the sports level, which we have yet to describe; and an extraordinary merit on the socio-cultural level.

Therefore, it was also a matter of extraordinary merit on the socio-cultural level, for example having won the final selection of an international cultural competition or being internationally praised for his merit on the cultural level or for his social and social commitment. That is very clear. We made a very clear choice.

Mr Francken, we also found it not possible that someone who did not live here from abroad became Belgian or that someone who had no connection with Belgium immediately became Belgian. I do not see the problem. Mr Francken, if those people have been living here for years, they can simply become Belgian according to the normal procedure. In our new proposal, they can become Belgian even after 5 years instead of after 7 years. That is already a progress. If they have lived here for years, they can become Belgian like the others after 5 years. I don’t think we should push people forward because one is richer than the other. No, we are not involved in this.

This discussion seems to me a little nonsense. The law will apply from 1 January 2013 for files that will be filed after 1 January and that will no longer be filed in the House.

Mr Vrancken, all files submitted to the House will be analyzed and examined according to the defined criteria, including three years of uninterrupted residence in the territory. All cases, whether rich or not, will be analyzed according to these criteria. If someone wants to introduce a new file after January 1, we will see if, yes or not, he arrives in the Chamber. That is all!

I find it somewhat unpleasant that we are discussing a particular case and that you try to advance your small affairs here, in plenary session, while these are individual and confidential cases. Thousands of files that we need to move forward await us!

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall what was said by my colleagues to my colleague Francken, who has also been a long participant in this discussion that lasted more than two years. As my colleague, Ms. Lanjri, said, it is obviously not the level of fortune or the amount of taxes that determines quality. What is meant by “exceptional merit” is well explained in the text. It is about sports merit, scientific merit, etc. Never, during the 24 months of discussion, this issue has been discussed. It could have been discussed before, but it has never been on the table.

One or the other concrete example makes you want to address this question. Let’s be careful, it is not the level of fortune that will determine the quality of being Belgian! A text was submitted with criteria and procedures. You like it or you don’t like it. One or the other is a problem for some. That’s true, but for the rest, let’s be careful. This text clarifies things but, from our point of view, it will never be the state of fortune of an individual that will allow to be Belgian or not. We will not return to the voting system.

Mr President Mr. Francken is right on one aspect: there is no clear answer to his question. From the new law, how will we deal with the files of investors who wish to become Belgian and then become Monegasque? The Monegasques do not allow the French to avoid tax by fleeing their homes. Therefore, many large entrepreneurs want to go through the Belgian box and then enjoy the tax benefits of Monaco. The new procedure explicitly provides that large investors could be interested in us and could therefore benefit from a quick procedure for these categories. The criteria for merit are not clear. Uncertainty could benefit some of these categories. I have not heard a clear answer to the question. Francken: Does this question bother you?

For the sake of clarity, I agree. If I remember correctly, although it was a long time ago, we once talked about whether the exemption procedure should also be granted on the basis of an economic added value. We once had a discussion about it. However, some things are far away in my memory. Therefore, it may be that the discussion has not been carried out.

You argue that we have never made it too bad, and you wonder why we suddenly want to do it now. We are now faced with the demand. Do not apologize to me, but it is because of the national tax that suddenly a large number of French fled to Belgium and submitted a request to become Belgian. This is a phenomenon that we are now facing.

I have very clearly noted that the majority interprets Article 19 as “social and social commitment” and that therefore it is not about entrepreneurs or about people who have an economic added value.

That was just my question. I have received a clear position from Mrs. Lanjri.

Mr President, Mr Francken, [...] You should not try to sow doubt where there is no one.

Mr. Francken admits that he thought he had ever named the issue. I have read the text very clearly. The case cannot be interpreted. This is clearly stated in the law and in the text of the explanation. It cannot be interpreted. The problem is clearly stated in the text.

Even if it still gives rise to discussion and if you think that the issue is not yet clear, then we are not of the opinion – I hear several members putting up here – that the degree of wealth may be determining whether someone quickly or less quickly becomes Belgian.

I want to stop no one. I will not prevent rich people from becoming Belgian. No, they can easily come to Belgium and come to live here. If they live here and really stay, they can become Belgian. We ask that also to all others, namely that they must not only provide a domicile address here, but that they must actually stay at that address. If they are here for five years, have an indefinite residence permit, have learned the language – we ask the language requirement also to the rich – and have settled, it’s okay. If they are self-sufficient or invest their money here, that is a good thing. However, we will not lower the threshold, because it is about rich people. Let this be clear.

I do not understand the problem, unless migration really serves to evade taxes, which we do not want.

I think we agree on this. If they want to invest, they are more than welcome, but then they must be here for at least five years. You can also invest here as a Frenchman. Nothing stops you from this. After five years, you can become Belgian.

Mr Francken, you also know that we have said that this may be shorter for football players, for example, because for Belgium they must participate in an international competition so that they cannot wait five years. If it concerns ordinary athletes, who have a competition only in seven years, they can just as well follow the ordinary procedure. If there is no time element that justifies a faster procedure, those persons are not privileged. No one has to follow that procedure unless there is a time element and one can provide an exceptional performance for Belgium. Other people are absolutely welcome. We will not drive them away, but they will, like everyone else, have to meet all criteria – citizenship, language, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague Zoé Genot that things are very, very clear. It will not be enough to have a large fortune to become Belgian by naturalization. This is not possible! I ask you to read the text again because the criteria are extremely clear.

You will allow me a small comment. However, it is a pity that Ecolo abandoned the working groups when we discussed this. I would have loved Mr. Jadot be present, because we have told him so often.

In summary, being considered a large fortune will not be a criterion for becoming Belgian by naturalization. We cannot be more clear, Mr. President.

Mr. Madrane has been very clear.

Mrs. Minister, colleagues, like colleague Francken, I feel a little uncommon to discuss here today the Fast-Belg Act and the Nationality Act, while thousands of workers received the message this morning that they are likely to lose their jobs.

I will also have a very serene debate here, although we have been discussing for a while at the direction of Mr. Francken.

Colleagues, in our second plenary session after the summer break, we again propose an important reform, again on the subject of asylum and migration.

We can talk about a trend break. We have seen a strong policy in the last few months, and this is seen in the figures. The number of applications has decreased, we have much fewer problems with the reception and the number of people who return is also increasing.

There has also been a lot of legislative progress over the past few months. We have had the adjustment to the asylum law, we have had the family reunification and now we have the tightening of the nationality law. On family reunification, I will come back later.

The amendment of the law on nationality can rightly and reasonably be called a structural change, especially because one reverses the philosophy of the law, as several colleagues have already pointed out. If we approve the text tomorrow, the Belgian passport will no longer be a means of integration, but will become a confirmation of integration.

Until today, the reasoning was that non-Belgians should quickly become Belgians, because that would help them in integration. As a result, the existing thresholds for housing and work would be reduced and disappeared, with the main threshold being discrimination.

Unfortunately, what do we notice? We see that threshold, the greatest threshold of all, discrimination, remains. Colleagues, I would like to emphasize here that with the amendment of the Nationality Act, discrimination will not disappear, but on the contrary.

In the housing and labour market, the discrimination against non-Belgians and Belgians of foreign origin is very high. I understand that this is another debate. In any case, we must work with all and at all levels to combat this discrimination and eliminate it in the future.

Colleagues, a just community can expect its inhabitants to make an effort to work and integrate, but we can also expect that society will in turn make an effort so that its inhabitants can integrate and work.

There must be a strong action against discriminatory behavior, but the question is whether the rapid-Belgwet, the nationality law, is the right solution for this, and the answer is no. No, we must do so by other means than by the Nationality Act.

The structural reform proposed today sets a number of important conditions for non-Belgians to acquire Belgian citizenship. We must first integrate. The Belgian passport, as I said earlier, is therefore a confirmation of integration. This integration requirement can take different forms and is more demanding depending on the faster acquisition of nationality.

Instead of the current minimum residence period of seven years, we now introduce two terms. Citizenship can be requested after five years of legal residence or after ten years. Both after five years and after ten years, one must prove that one knows one of the three national languages. If you want a Belgian passport after five years, you must also demonstrate that you are socially and economically integrated in addition to the language requirements. In other words, one must demonstrate that one has worked sufficiently long in the previous five years.

The criteria related to education, citizenship and employment are emancipatory. Through these measures, we want to encourage individuals to pursue training, we want to encourage them to speak the language of their surroundings and we want to encourage them to seek work.

Again, it is not enough to change the legislation on the subject, it will also need to make efforts to encourage stakeholders. I would like to refer to what Mr Francken said about the law on family reunification. It has indeed experienced a number of positive effects. The University of Ghent has conducted a study, specifically among the Ghent population. The change in family reunification appears to have occurred in 2008, so long before the law on family reunification was passed. That is to say that other stimuli can also be given and that they may be more important than changing the law. In addition to these issues, we must continue to work at all levels to promote the integration of stakeholders. We must not only make this mandatory through legislation, but we must provide an incentive.

Furthermore, I am very satisfied with the fact that the criteria for obtaining nationality are clear and concrete in the law. This means that applications will no longer be processed and evaluated by politicians, but that there will be a neutral body to do so. Therefore, the Naturalization Committee of this Parliament will no longer deal with the vast majority of applications; the naturalization applications will still constitute a small part of the acquisition of nationality. Only the very exceptional cases will be referred to this committee and that is a good thing.

After all, it is shameful how archaic the naturalization commission is organized. I am not throwing the stone at the officials of this committee, but at ourselves, the politicians. Thro ⁇ the year I was part of that committee, my surprise has grown week after week with regard to how it handles files that ultimately hold people behind! There is almost no legal certainty, the parties concerned do not know when their file will be approved, they depend on three people from the Parliament and then again from a committee. Everything goes very chaotic, in the sense that some deal with their files while others do not, resulting in a huge backwardness at the naturalization commission.

Mr. Speaker, it is urgently time to do something about this and to quickly overcome the backdrop. I would like to encourage the new chairman of this committee to remove this gap as soon as possible.

Per ⁇ we should also think of another organization of the committee. For example, the substitute members can also act, so that you do not have to wait for the effective members to handle the files every time.

I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this law, both the initiator, Mrs Van Cauter, as well as all other members and employees who have drawn and driven this legislation to eventually reach this result.

Finally, I return to the beginning of my speech. Let us engage at all levels for the strengthening of the competences of the people, for the strengthening of training and training. Integration as a condition to become Belgian is one thing, but creating the conditions to be able to integrate, which is much more important to me.

The Code of Belgian Nationality as we know it since the latest fundamental amendment of 1 March 2000, was at least the subject of various comments. We should not be embarrassed about this, the application of the law proved problematic. This was due to the lack of a clear interpretation of certain concepts. The law also provided for insufficient capabilities to combat fraud cases. The presumption of integration was taken as a starting point, while that does not always prove to be correct. There was also a lack of a correct but humane return policy.

In the ten years following the introduction of the law, there have been interpretative laws, and in 2006 there were even two amendments to the law, but every time without fundamental revision of the Code of Belgian Nationality.

My party, which was the foundation of the law, and I do not ignore that responsibility, was also soon the party asking for a fundamental parliamentary debate on this important social theme. What distinguishes citizens from foreigners? To which citizens, and under what conditions, do we grant full membership?

Colleagues, this is the reason why we took an initiative in the form of a bill, which later served as the basis for the present bills. According to the synoptic table, it was even the most extensive bill. It was a basic text. In the meantime, much has been changed, but the strengths of the original text have been retained, in particular that the acquisition of the Belgian nationality must be objective and migration-neutral.

I therefore do not understand that some colleagues look at the Belgian Nationality Code together with the legislation on family reunification and migration in general. This is specifically about the Code of Belgian Citizenship, which is not a migration policy instrument but is actually about granting Belgian citizenship to citizens who legally reside on the territory and who are part of our society, after they have been integrated and participate economically there.

This text was a work of long breath. There was an intense cooperation across party boundaries, with Dutch and French speakers, of course with the majority parties but also for some time with the colleagues of N-VA. It is a pity that they have cut off at a certain point, when the most difficult knots had to be cut through. However, we have persisted. There were sometimes intense discussions, but we always had the ambition and the willingness to come up with solutions. There was mutual respect and we all felt that a good solution was indeed possible.

During the discussions I have often regretted that in the press was pointed to this or that party because it would be difficult to do. Among other things, the PS was pointed out as if it opposed economic participation, while it merely asked what to mean by working days, how to define it exactly and how to ensure that this would be demonstrable and enforceable. I regret that many times the MR group was pointed out as if it would find the language criterion difficult to accept, while it only wanted a text that is in accordance with the Constitution, which means that the use of the language is free and regulated only in administrative and judicial matters. These were relevant and legitimate questions for which we sought solutions that met the consideration and concern of all of us to come up with objective criteria for the acquisition of the Belgian nationality. It also closed a migratory channel.

Colleagues, previous speakers have already discussed the strengths of the law on their own. I would like to do this too. I fully support this text, but I do not want to extend the debate. I will skip this part of my presentation and refer to the report. I have drafted the legislation in the committee, so I refer to my report.

I see that colleague Francken has also returned to his bench. I thank the colleague for the fragrance flowers he gave to the colleagues of the majority and to me at the beginning of this debate. I thought that then the pots would follow, but the smell turned out to be effectively larger than the pots.

For the sake of mutual respect, also for the colleagues from the opposition, I would like to comment on some of the comments you made during the discussions.

Regarding the language criterion, Mr Francken, you know very well that in the original basic text, which was endorsed by your group, there was absolutely no language level defined. The completion of this language level has only occurred later, after the majority parties have reached the final text. This language level is not lower than the level that your own faction requires for the citizenship courses as organized by the Flemish government. I do not see the problem here.

As for the part-procedure naturalizations, I think we have already conducted this debate. I see no reason why anyone who wants to invest in this country, come here to live, integrates and speaks the language would not be able to follow the usual procedure. As far as my group is concerned, it cannot be the intention that we grant Belgian citizenship in the best conditions to thousands of wealthy Arabs who are not integrated, do not speak the language and do not reside on the territory. For such cases, there are other means and choices may need to be made in the migratory channels that we want to legally anchor. However, this has nothing to do with granting Belgian nationality, which requires someone to be a citizen of this country, to be integrated, to speak the language and to participate economically. This also means that that person pays social contributions.

Finally, there is the cascade that you regret and which is possibly the result of the subsequent marriage of a new Belgian with an immigrant tone, a Belgian in development. You know that we effectively considered this during the initial discussion of the bill. I, by the way, submitted an amendment in that sense, but we withdrew this amendment because we also impose on partners, married new Belgians, the same conditions of integration as on unmarried new Belgians. Since one has the certainty that those people are integrated, speak the language and legally reside here on the territory, all conditions are fulfilled to allow them to become fully Belgian. In the case of a marriage, one should not come afterwards to say that those people do not have the same rights. If they have the same duties, they also get the same rights as Belgians by birth. It is therefore only normal that if they marry a non-Belgian that Belgian citizenship can be acquired if the same conditions are met.

I can say the following about the decline of the Belgian nationality. The decay will not be pronounced on any day in the infinity. At a certain point, one is fully Belgian, with all rights and obligations, and one is deemed to comply with the Belgian laws, with all possible consequences if one does not comply with the Belgian laws. In the latter case, the person concerned will be subject to the criminal law and the criminal procedure as any other Belgian.

Finally, I would like to thank all colleagues and also the employees – who we would almost forget – for the many hours and days of intense cooperation and for the constructive attitude, so that we have effectively come to a workpiece that hopefully will be able to withstand the test of social portability.

Mrs. Van Cauter, I would like to put the points on the i.

First, you say that the language level was not initially determined. Furthermore, we should not say anything about this, for the language level of Mr. Bourgeois would be even lower than this. There is, of course, a difference between citizens, newcomers in the first year after their arrival in Belgium, and people who have been in Belgium for five to ten years and who apply for our nationality. The people of the latter group have residence rights. It is not true, if we do not give them nationality, that they have nothing. They have the nationality of their country of origin. We do not give them nationality. If we do not give them nationality, they will not return to their country of origin, because they have a permanent right of residence in Belgium. If citizenship is granted, that is something extra. I think that at least we should dare to put the latter of the language level higher than for a newcomer who is only two months here. Otherwise we are comparing apples with pears, I think personally.

Second, in connection with the cascade, you say that you do not see the problem. Well, I see the problem, because Attorney General Liégeois ⁇ it and asked to address it. The man and his team are daily in practice in Antwerp and Limburg, where they see a lot of fraud with both the right of residence and the nationality legislation. We heard him and you were also present at that hearing. You had submitted an amendment, but you subsequently withdrew it because you no longer see the problem. I must say that I still see the problem very clearly. In fact, it is not about a married partner, but about the situation after a divorce, re-marriage and then re-divorce. That is the cascade. The first marriage is not the case at all, because there is no problem for it.

Third, you say that with people who have acquired our nationality, the married partner should be able to come. Of course, but you know as well as I do that the vast majority of nationality acquisitions in the last twelve years in our country involve people who receive an additional nationality. Those people don’t give up their previous nationality, sometimes because they can’t, and often because they don’t want to. They retain dual citizenship and therefore have two nationalities. The Belgian nationality is therefore something extra above what they already have. No one gives up his nationality.

I asked for the figures from Mrs. Turtelboom. There were 19 people in the last six years. No one takes distance. The Belgian nationality is just a nice extra.

Mr. Francken, at least a language level has been determined. In your proposal, there was no level specified.

As regards the warnings or the report of the College of Prosecutors-General, as translated by Prosecutor-General Liégeois, cases relating to the acquisition of Belgian nationality are assessed on the basis of the old legislation.

Today, citizenship is acquired after three years of residence, legally but not defined. This could be about cumulating precarious titles: three years of residence and a marriage without any language requirement, without any integration requirement and without any economic participation. Fraud is possible in these cases. Those who acquire Belgian citizenship in this way do not meet the criteria as we define them today in order to acquire Belgian citizenship. We have amended the legislation today.

If a person who marries and after his marriage legally resides on the territory, speaks one of the three national languages, participates economically, is socially integrated and, as a result of that social integration, even has knowledge of the language commonly spoken in the state, then separates from the real, there can be no fraud in order to acquire the Belgian nationality, since one has individually met all requirements. He became fully Belgian. At the time of a new marriage, they must not be restricted in their rights, since they have previously fulfilled all obligations in order to acquire the Belgian nationality.

The context has completely changed because we automatically become Belgian, as it exists today as a result of marriage, written out of the law. Today, anyone who marries and becomes Belgian will have to meet all conditions as if he was not married and would want to become Belgian. I do not see the problem here either.

Mr. Speaker, this reform of the law aimed at several objectives, the first two of which are the simplification and the criterionization.

With regard to criterion, we support the fact that the Chamber favour procedure is in progressive extinction mode. Indeed, we have never been ardent advocates of this way of acquiring citizenship through favors; for us, it is important that it is carried out on the basis of rights subject to criteria.

In terms of simplification, I am unfortunately less optimistic than the majority. Various elements leave too large manoeuvrability for civil status officers, which will sometimes leave them perplexed before concrete cases, thus creating risks of application with variable geometry according to municipalities; this is problematic.

But for us, the most ambiguous aspect of the text is its very foundation. Indeed, it is clearly oriented towards a conception of nationality as a gift given to the most deserving. From a logic of law, we move to a logic of merit.

This aspect appears very explicitly in the first category: the passage through a request for favour to the House. It is reserved for elites, described as people showing outstanding merits from a scientific, sports or sociocultural point of view.

Until recently, we were discussing whether or not to give the same advantage to businessmen. As it is a matter of exceptional merit in the socio-cultural field, one of the definitions indicates that it can be a “social and social investment”. This is not very clear and I dare hope that this is not a gateway for the wealthy French who want to go to Monaco!

The second category allows the acquisition of citizenship in five years instead of three years. The procedure is therefore longer, reserved for those who will have the chance to have a job, which lasts long enough and is full-time. This excludes from office all those who must use part-time. But everyone knows the explosion that part-time, interim and fixed-term contracts experience, especially towards women, in this period of crisis.

They will also be affected by those who have not completed their higher secondary studies. Without this diploma, they will have to go through an integration pathway and prove their integration. It is good to ignore the social realities in our schools: many very well-integrated students unfortunately do not finish secondary education.

Third category: those who will have to wait ten years, those who do not have the chance to be able to prove their economic insertion through full-time. These people will wait ten years, but not everyone will be able to access citizenship through this procedure as there is a barrier hard to cross for many precarious people. I’m not talking here about the ability to speak a language, but about the ability to speak, read and write it. For us, excluding illiterates who speak the language perfectly is totally unacceptable. This is, for us, a social discrimination that cannot be confirmed.

The rainbow government wanted to simplify the procedures, making them cheaper.

Mrs. Genot, first of all, I have all respect for your words. However, you argue that entering the language as a criterion is discriminatory, because illiterates will find it difficult.

I don’t know how it is in French-speaking Belgium, but in our language area there are citizenship courses Alfa NT2. These are citizenship courses for illiterate and otherwise literate people, who do not know the Latin script and therefore do not know the alphabet. For example, it could be Chinese or Hindi speakers.

I want to make it very clear that it is not because someone is illiterate or otherwise illiterate that he or she cannot learn the language. Dutch, which is considered a difficult language by many French speakers, is taught in Flanders day by day. Flanders also invest a lot of money. It is, of course, a difficult course, but the participants learn the Dutch language in their own way. Every day, hundreds of teachers do wonderful work in this area to teach the otherwise literate and illiterate people our language.

Second, Mrs. Genot, when I hear your views, I think of myself that the 1990s called and that your fellow supporters want their migration policy back. What you are proposing is very past and is not yet applicable in any European country.

I also found a quote from Mieke Vogels. It is also very regrettable that Eva Brems is not present. It is always the same. She writes great theories and great opinions. However, when the debate is held, it is never in Parliament. Such an attitude is very regrettable. I would have liked to discuss with her. She will probably be apologized, but I only want to point out that she wrote today a very critical piece of opinion on the forthcoming legislation of the majority, which we support. So I would have also wanted to ask her a few things, in particular about the substantial criticism she gives. However, I assume that she is apologized.

I would like to quote a quote from Mrs. Mieke Vogels, who is the grandmother of Groen in Flanders. On November 30, 2004, we read the following: “The OCMW council member Mieke Vogels in Antwerp advocates for a less smooth rapid-Belgwet. She says literally: the rapid-Belggesetz is widely abused in the context of family reunification. Belgium is thus becoming increasingly an attraction pool for those who do not take so tightly with our laws. We must bring the acquisition of citizenship at least at the level of other European countries.”

What she explains is what we do today. Today we finally bring our nationality legislation back to the level of other European countries, especially our neighbors, the Netherlands, Germany and France. We are taking very big steps in this regard.

Ms. Vogels was right in 2004, which you will not hear me admit every day.

I do not know if my colleague is mistaken or confusing.

Madame Genot, you are talking about naturalization. The law states that, for this, the procedure lasts three years. In fact, it is five years. Now, here we speak of the declaration, which goes from seven to five years. There are two procedures: five years and ten years.

So I think you are making a little confusion between naturalization and declaration. It is important to clarify this. Therefore, do not speak of more than a three-year procedure, which was the one in force in the House. In fact, according to jurisprudence, it took five years.

So let’s be clear: naturalization and declaration are two different things.

Colleague Madrane called in his replica not to throw everything on a bunch. There is no question of that. I thought you were better informed.

The naturalization procedure of the so-called Fast-Belgiewet requires a three-year residence, but we all know that in practice it takes much longer because the files remain for years, because the opinions are outdated and so on. I am pleased that we are going to make the favourite measure much more a right. All people who have lived here for five years no longer need to beg or ask for a favor, but can claim that right directly through their municipality, at least if they meet the criteria.

You say that part-time workers are discriminated against. This is clearly not the case. We said that the person concerned must have worked for five and a half years during those five years. In the case of part-time workers, this is a three-year period. For example, for people who work less than half-time, the hours are simply added. Thus, for those who do not reach that criterion after five years, but after five and a half years or after six years, it is not forbidden to apply for nationality as soon as he or she can prove a total of one and a half years of work, whether it is full-time, part-time or part-time work.

You also say that illiterates are discriminated against. Nothing is less true. In the long past, I have taught languages myself, including to illiterate people. They can also learn the language perfectly, though in a different way. Of course, we think that one must be realistic, that one should stimulate people and that one should give them the opportunities that are there. We should not ask the impossible. We do not ask people who have never seen a school from inside to take a written language exam. For these people, there are other ways of teaching. It works and it succeeds. I took the initiative in 1992 in Antwerp. A few years later the Flemish government came up with a decree and a citizenship course that runs throughout Flanders. I am pleased that such a citizenship course will now also come in Wallonia. It is a step forward. It will help people in their professional and social integration.

However, I have made it clear that we must not only say that they should learn the language or become citizens, but that there must also be an effective effort to tackle discrimination. Mrs. Temmerman has said this too. So there is still a lot of work to be done, not only today with the Nationality Act, but equally for the federal government and the co-governments, to address discrimination and effectively ensure training and flow to work.

This is a tightening of the citizenship procedure. Previously, the common mortal could hope, after three years, to acquire Belgian citizenship. It is no longer possible. It will have to wait at least five years and have counted 468 working days. People who work part-time will never be able to meet this condition.

Compared to the language, we, French speakers, also have a whole range of language courses. For some, it’s about learning how to handle French in everyday practice, for others, learning how to read and write it. Unfortunately, these classes are insufficient. Certainly, many people speak very well and manage in daily life without any problems, but they are in the inability to read and write. This is also the case of a number of Belgian tribes who, despite attending our schools for twelve years, are unable to read and write. If you are on the field, you meet those people who ask you to help them read and write their mail.

At the level you have chosen for the exams, level 2, you need to be able to write a short letter or read brief instructions. For us, this exclusion of illiterates, even for the ten-year procedure, is totally unacceptable.

You say that we are aligned with other European countries. Let us be clear! We return to the club of the countries most closed in terms of citizenship that are Austria, Germany, France and Switzerland, the only European countries that set economic conditions to be able to acquire citizenship. I admit that I am not very proud of this, because these countries have often resulted in such laws as part of debates with strong anti-immigration implications.

Let’s go back to a number of elements! First, conditioning access to citizenship to economic participation seems to us to be a way of looking at the problem at the wrong end. Indeed, even the OECD, which is far from being a leftist lobby, advocates facilitating access to citizenship because – all studies show it – benefiting from citizenship makes it easier to access the job market.

The studies conducted in Belgium draw the same conclusions as those of the OECD. A study from the University of Antwerp shows that non-European citizens who have obtained Belgian citizenship are 25 percent more likely to access a stable job.

For two years, all the groups discussed, you know. For my part, as I did in the committee, I will abstain symbolically because a specific element of the text is a problem for me; it is public notoriety. The EP will vote on this text. Madame Genot, in the committee, Ecolo abstained. Now, what are you going to do? Are you abstaining or voting against? I ask you this question because I don’t understand.

The whole Ecolo-Groen group decided to vote against this text, given its content. Ms. Almaci wanted to discuss with the whole group of the joint vote.

Do you remember the Commission’s agenda?

I remember that for two years we have been working on the subject. Eric Jadot is unfortunately not there; I regret it. I noticed during this period – and, in my opinion, I am not the only one – the terrible absence of the Ecolo group in this work. And today you come to teach us the lesson, while for two years – we have been in common business for 541 days – all the groups discussed together! I remember there was a terrifying silence from the Ecolo group. In the committee, the Ecolo group abstained and now you tell me that he will vote against!

Mrs. Genot, you refer to studies that would show that it would be easier to find a job if you are Belgian. That will undoubtedly be the case, but there are just as many studies that show that it is also difficult to find work if one does not speak the language, if one is not integrated, or if one is called X or Y. The causal relationship is not really proven.

As I said earlier, we must primarily go towards integration and stop underestimating individuals. You do this constantly. You say that analphabets cannot do that. Anyone who is illiterate can.

Ms. Lanjri has referred to it and I can also give you examples from the Gentese. They can get those levels and they can integrate. You underestimate them and say they can’t. This is very unfortunate, ⁇ due to the ecologist.

I would like to briefly supplement. I just said that so far about 600,000 people have become Belgian.

I said very explicitly that the law was not an incentive for individuals to integrate, because there were also those who did not integrate. At the same time, I noted that I did not mean that all those 600,000 new Belgians are not integrated.

I know a lot of people who have become Belgian and deserve more than that, who know the language perfectly, who work and so on. That is good. Probably they integrate better because they know the language, work and are active in their neighborhood. In other words, the color of their passport does not play a role at that time. It is above all the fact that one integrates and participates, that one can be part of a society.

We want to stimulate that and whoever tries to make Belgium faster than it is now. Now we have to wait seven years. You should not argue that it only takes three years through the exemption procedure, because you know just as much as I do that three years is pure theory. The files have been waiting for years. Some applicants have been waiting for ten years.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who sees the report will notice that the Ecolo-Groen group has regularly intervened in this case. But I understand that the PS is ⁇ uncomfortable. In addition, it is, in my opinion, very uncomfortable to report the absence of a colleague who was invited by his doctor to rest for two or three weeks. This type of behavior is, in any case, not part of the practices of the members of the Ecolo-Groen group.

The words you have just said are not very correct. In fact, I did not know the situation of the member I was talking about. Like your colleagues, you have been absent several times. I just regretted the ecologist Ecolo-Groen group’s silence over this matter for 541 days. You did not bring either a positive or a negative element in our discussions.

That said, I acknowledge that this is a difficult topic. We fought for two years. We brought what we could. For me, one aspect is problematic. For the rest, I have no state of mind, but I ask you to accept your absence.

Before speaking to Mr. Brotcorne, I would like to say that if I had been informed that the absence of the colleague whose question was justified by a health problem, I would have ⁇ it at the beginning of the session, which would have helped to avoid this incident. Therefore, I invite you, in the future, to warn me when a colleague cannot be present for health reasons.

I would like to remind you of what I said recently in the presentation of my report. It is a little special in that there have been quite formal committee meetings with PV and each other’s opinions, but there have also been many informal meetings in the absence of parliamentary staff and during which we discussed a lot and were able to move things forward. Since these last meetings are not the subject of a report, no one will ever know what some have said or not, no one will have knowledge of the silences, interpretations and interventions of one and another.

I will make a correction. Last week, the file was returned to the committee because amendments were submitted. Per ⁇ no one noticed it, but in the end, after voting on all amendments, a final vote followed. On behalf of my group, I voted against in the committee. I voted against in the committee last week. Before all kinds of intention processes are made here, I advise everyone to read the report of Mr. Brotcorne carefully.

Before this amendment by a last amendment, we had a vote with an abstention on a final text. It is correct to clarify it.

Regardless of all this, however, 541 working days have enabled the conclusion of this text, which was presented by invoking the urgency. But if we had not asked to be able to read the report, the law would have been passed before the holidays. The text was not correct and we did not have the time to discuss it serenely in its final version. I have participated in working groups for years and I can tell you that the result does not always reflect the discussions that presided over the drafting of a text.

The way it was designed justified the abstention with an amendment so that we could continue to reflect. We will still submit amendments today because, contrary to what you say, the clarifications contained in the text contain elements of discrimination. Ms. Genot also cited it. If you tell us that it is not mandatory to have reached this level of language knowledge, I suggest you return to the committee to consider our amendment there. You can make mistakes even after 541 days of work.

Returning to the words of Ms. Temmerman and Lanjri about language learning, I would like to point out that we are strong supporters of it and that we have always advocated an increase in budgets for all actors of literacy. Unfortunately, it is hard to find that people want to acquire Belgian citizenship while they are not yet perfectly comfortable with writing. However, they are fully integrated.

It is ⁇ easier to participate in economic life when you master oral and written. But it is still that current studies show that, at equal degree, having acquired citizenship facilitates insertion. All studies in the world show the same thing. Whether it is the University of Antwerp, the INS or other actors, including the OECD, many organizations form the same conclusion. And yet, I am not a great friend of the OECD! I would like to say the opposite, but it would be completely false.

You say that only the Belgian nationality would be different! Studies show the opposite!

I would like to come back to some more practical issues. The ASBL Objectif which is active and accompanies many families in this quest for the acquisition of citizenship has repeatedly ⁇ to us a series of problems. Unfortunately, it seems that we have not fully answered all of these problems.

Currently, there are already differences in treatment between municipalities and we fear that the way this is formulated will increase these difficulties. The role of the civil state officer has been increased. Previously, he was simply a receiver of the coins. Currently, he has a real job of selection and acceptance of the pieces. For us, it is to give him a very great responsibility, which constitutes a difficulty in case of conflict with this official because the only remedy that will exist will be that with the section of the Administrative Contentials of the State Council. However, this is a rather long and very expensive procedure. We are therefore afraid of difficulties on the ground and we would like to be able to address this issue.

Madame Genot, it will not escape you that the work of the person responsible for receiving requests to the civil status is encoded. In the case of an incomplete request, instead of sending the person back and asking him to return when his file is complete – which happens too often – the civil status officer is required to report the missing piece as well as the place where he may possibly obtain it. We have taken care to make things more human and practical at the level of the civil state.

It seems that the application is very divergent from one municipality to another and it is feared that this will continue. Currently, the details on the titles of the required documents remain relatively blurred. This will be defined in subsequent texts. We hope that this will be very framed to avoid arbitrary as much as possible.

Another element that we regret is that already, at the moment, even though the procedure is "free", it often costs very expensive. In fact, to obtain the documents, you have to pay the various municipal taxes and you quickly get to 90 euros. In this case, a fee of 150 euros was added. Here too, we find ourselves in this logic of dualization and elitism that we find inappropriate in a procedure such as access to nationality.

With regard to another technical problem, we have advanced. There has been a willingness to take into account a number of interruptions of stay that make that, when renewing certain documents, even if the person has an uninterrupted stay on the territory, administrative cuts, which are absolutely not in his responsibility, are found. Despite this, some of these interruptions are not taken into account in the text, which is a bit of a pity.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, you will understand that it is difficult for me as Limburger to conduct this debate today, now that in Genk, a few kilometers drive from my home, almost 5 000 people are losing their jobs. Not to mention, Dow Chemicals, almost in my backyard, is also closing.

Now on to the agenda, as it should be in the parliamentary debate. Let me first say that I will consider this case technically and that the alternatives of Vlaams Belang will be presented by my colleague Filip De Man, respecting the question of the hygiene of the debate and keeping things apart.

I would like to thank the reporter for his report, but I would like to complement it with a political story. The original text of Open Vld was taken as a starting point and it went quite far for us. Both the N-VA and we have submitted amendments to sharpen this text. Then, however, a working group was created in which all parties were seated, N-VA including, except Vlaams Belang. That lasted until the formation of the government-Di Rupo. Apparently, a basic agreement was reached, but it was never really honored. If you look at it afterwards, it was actually occupational therapy. The newly formed majority came with a completely own amendment, of course without Vlaams Belang but also without the N-VA. Everything came suddenly. This should and should be addressed suddenly before the summer vacation. It was ultimately only the Ecolo-Green group that prevented the plenary session from taking place before the summer recession.

For all clarity, the Vlaams Belang has in that last committee meeting for the summer recess against amendment no. 151 voted because it was a weakening of the original text submitted by Open Vld. Therefore, we must fulfill our opposition role. For all clarity, this was neither is a vote against the final text as a whole, only against its weakening that constituted the majority amendment. Again, even as an opposition party, the Flemish Interest will not vote against this final text today, we will abstain. The text goes in the right direction, but it is too little, too late. Not only do we feel obliged to say that as an opposition, we also think so. Nevertheless, it is going in the right direction. One must remain intellectually honest and acknowledge that.

We disagree with what colleague Francken says, we have a different opinion on this. He calls it the abolition of the Fast-Belg Act. Per ⁇ a component of speed is being taken out, but we continue to admit that in fact it is still a flexible Belgian law. In doing so, we leave naturalization aside, but the declaration of nationality and the like can still be granted in mass. Nationalism is still not seen as a favor, but as a right. We do not agree with that reasoning.

Mr. Francken, today this law may be repealed for the second time. Two years ago you said this already following a certain regulation in the naturalization committee. The abolition of a flexible or too lax law in the field of nationality will not come. Not then and not today!

We will not try to position ourselves as if we have helped the majority and are the authors of such a law. Even if our amendments had gone in the same direction as those of the majority, we would not have yet wanted to acquire co-authorship or spiritual co-parenthood. After all, as I said, the original text went in a very good direction, but was subsequently weakened.

I find it therefore funny and bizarre, Mr. Francken, that you act as if you have put that thing in the rows. If I were a strange bird like you, I would not allow myself to steal a cake boy from the nest of a crawl and then say that you have broken up a sperm. In fact, that is what you are doing today. You act as if you have realised that thing and negotiated with it. I see the attitude on the banks of the majority. The CD&V is now gone, but then I kept my colleague Dewael in the eye for a moment, and I thought of the parable of La Fontaine, where you are the fly who thinks that it makes the horses pull the cart. Unfortunately, these negotiations have not produced anything, but I would have liked to see you oppose amendment n. 151 have voted. Again, we have a different opinion on this.

There is concrete criticism of what is ahead. You had three points, Mr. Francken, we have four.

First, too little has been spoken today about the objectivization of the concept of “important facts inherent in the person”. What changes compared to the existing nationality legislation? This concept plays a role in the existing nationality legislation in various procedures for the acquisition of nationality. If there is an obstacle due to serious facts inherent in the person, then this constitutes a reason for the Prosecutor of the King to issue a negative opinion on the declaration of nationality, the declaration of choice of nationality, the declaration made by the foreign spouse of a Belgian or the naturalization application.

(The sound of a gsm resonates)

(A sound of gsm ringtone)

Mr Schoofs, the ringing of your gsm is disturbing.

I apologize, Mr President.

At present, the concrete fulfillment of the concept of “important facts inherent in the person” is entirely left to the parquet. In other words, the interpretation may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Amendment No. 151 proposes an objectification of the concept of “substantial facts” in the sense that – now it comes – in particular the following facts are considered as substantial facts: first, the fact that the applicant is affiliated with a movement or organization which the State Security considers to be dangerous; second, the fact that the identity or the main place of residence cannot be controlled or that the identity cannot be guaranteed; third, the fact that the applicant has been finalised by the court for any form of social or fiscal fraud which has been imposed on the basis of a sanction; fourth, the fact that he is in one of the cases referred to in Articles 23 or 23/1 of the Belgian Code of Nationality.

That fourth point describes the same circumstances which may lead to the expiry of the Belgian nationality, in accordance with that Article. Those circumstances also constitute an obstacle to serious facts inherent in the person, in the context of the acquisition of nationality.

Article 23 deals with fraudulent practices, providing fraudulent information, committing false writing and/or using false or falsified documents in the acquisition of nationality, as well as identity fraud or fraud in obtaining a residence permit.

The reference to Article 23/1 of the Code of the Belgian Nationality implies that there is an obstacle due to serious facts inherent in the person, in the following cases: a false marriage or an irrevocable sentence to a prison of at least five years without delay for a number of limitatively enumerated crimes. These include crimes against the external and internal security of the State, terrorism, nuclear crimes, human trafficking, human trafficking and serious violations of international humanitarian law. In the latter, I think of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Now I come to my point. The list of important facts specific to the person may be supplemented by royal decree. I think this is an internal contradiction. After all, the limiting list of serious facts inherent in the person is fixed by the legislator, but now something can be added to that by royal decree. I can therefore imagine that people who are rejected in that area may go to the Constitutional Court with the argument that one is determined by the King and the other by the legislator. In fact, that is not logical.

Let’s look at what remains possible after this legislative change. Even after that legislative amendment, it will still not be excluded that convicted rapists, pedophiles, murderers, kidnappers, carjackers, homejackers, bank robbers, drug dealers and turndoors criminals obtain Belgian nationality, unfortunately.

Colleague, you say it just yourself: in the law is a list of important facts that make it impossible to obtain the Belgian citizenship. Furthermore, the King will supplement that list of facts by royal decree, so that we do not fall into the scenario we find ourselves today, namely that the concept of “weight facts” is interpreted differently in the various districts.

One may ask whether we should not have overlooked the entire Criminal Code in order to include in the law all facts that could possibly be qualified as a serious fact. I mean not. It seems to me much better to leave that to the King, who can record that at a KB consulted in the Council of Ministers. In this way, it can also be influenced by developments in criminal law and criminal procedure law. That is the choice, which we have made after mature deliberation, especially because we, as legislators, do not have all the data that the parks have. I think especially of the usual way of interpreting the concept of "weightful fact", as is done today by the parquets.

I think that the minister is much better positioned to do that analysis, then after mature deliberation and in consultation with the colleagues to supplement the list.

Colleagues, I think it is better for the legislator to make it clear to everyone and immediately. If it is a limiting list, it must also be truly limiting, because otherwise everything must be left immediately to the minister. That is my opinion as a lawyer, not just as a politician.

I repeat that we may have problems with this. If a person is deprived of his nationality on the basis of a provision of a royal decree, that person may go to the Constitutional Court with the claim that it was not regulated by law, as the legislator should have regulated. We take a legal risk in this regard. I choose one way or the other, but making this a Macedonian seems to me very dangerous. I think we need to make a clear choice. Juridically, we have seen repeatedly that judgments were annulled because a judge had to make a decision based on a royal decree.

Mr. Schoofs, I do not know which version you are criticizing, but in my opinion the reference to the royal decree is no longer in the latest version. You may have written your speech based on a previous version or so, I don’t know. Where is the reference to the Royal Decree in the latest version of the text? It was taken out.

I think it is still in there and according to Mrs. Van Cauter too. Are you looking for it? You can always justify me if I am wrong, but I know that there has been a lot to do about this.

I will show you immediately.

I will go on to the second point, namely the granting of Belgian citizenship to minors foreigners. There has been a lot to be done on this. I would like to remind you of the position of the Flemish Interest, which we have always honored. We say that when a minor acquires Belgian citizenship, that is because his parents become Belgian. There are numerous discussions devoted to this in the committee. The N-VA was also stuck in it at some point, you too, Mr. Francken.

We have no problem with the fact that a minor can become Belgian if he has Belgian parents. However, with the legislation, as it was then, and with the logic, as it is today, we still have to deal with anomalies.

According to the current article 11 of the Code of Belgian Nationality, foreigners of the third generation, born in Belgium from at least one parent also born in Belgium, automatically acquire Belgian nationality at birth, provided that the parent born in Belgium has had his main residence in Belgium for five years during the ten years preceding the birth of the child.

The current Article 11bis grants Belgian citizenship to foreigners of the second generation born in Belgium if the parents or adopters before the child reaches the age of 12 years, make a declaration to grant the child Belgian citizenship.

Therefore, in fact, there is still a cessation between parents with Belgian nationality and children. That is exactly what the Flemish Interest has always wanted to avoid, of course on the basis of a strict nationality legislation, not the current legislation, nor the one which is now put to the vote.

In the case of the second generation, the parents or adopters must have had their main residence in Belgium for the ten years prior to the declaration, and the child since his birth.

The current Article 12 provides for the automatic granting of Belgian nationality to the minor children of new Belgians.

What does the bill now do? This incorporates in Article 11, the third generation, and in Article 11bis, the second generation, the regular acquisition modalities of the ordinary Article 11. In terms of content, this means that the regulation remains almost the same.

The same applies to Article 12 for the minor children of new Belgians, although the proposal expressly stipulates that the child must have his main residence in Belgium. That is normal of course.

The pain points, what remains after the proposed legislative amendment? Foreigners of the third generation still automatically acquire Belgian citizenship while the quasi-automatic granting of Belgian citizenship to foreigners of the second generation on the declaration of the parents, before the child reaches 12 years of age, also remains unchanged.

This is not different if a foreigner of the second or third generation after acquiring the Belgian nationality retains his foreign nationality.

At no time – which is indeed one of the pain points of this new text –, even at the age of majority, foreigners of the second or third generation should make a choice between Belgian and foreign nationality.

Unfortunately, shopping, the double citizenship, will continue to exist. This is one of the pain points we are still facing.

What will then change compared to the existing nationality?

I would like to speak briefly about dual citizenship. It is apparently bon ton to do that happen as if they can choose and shop and distance. That is not true.

In many countries, including Morocco and Turkey, it is the custom that one does not lose the nationality acquired at birth or from his parents. Even if one adopts a new nationality, one cannot lose it.

Pretending that this is a free choice is not correct.

For Moroccans, there is a procedure in which, if one wants to renounce it, one must even write to the king to ask for the favor of losing nationality. This is hardly done or not granted.

Do not make people wise. It is not your own choice. A lot of people of the second or third generation who were born here have not chosen.

It is only if one does not register their children, for example, in the embassy or consulate that one can mouse down there. Otherwise, it is simply not possible.

There are also countries where it is a choice, but for many countries it is not a choice.

For our Belgians abroad, we adopted a bill on this subject a few years ago, because they themselves asked for it. We have ensured that Belgians abroad, if they wish, can retain their nationality when they accept another nationality there. In most countries this is possible, so that is good news for the Belgians who absolutely want to remain Belgian as well when they adopt a new nationality. It all depends on the country where you live. Sometimes the law of the country of which one assumes nationality determines that one may retain the original nationality; sometimes it determines that one will lose it.

Belgium has nothing to say when a country of origin says that one cannot lose nationality. I myself am an example of this. I was born and raised here. I feel Belgian, I feel Flaming, but I have also received the Moroccan nationality. Whether I want it or not, I have it. I can’t ignore them, I can’t say I don’t have them. That was not my choice when I became Belgian. At that time I could not say that I wanted to give up my Moroccan nationality. I want to apply that nuance, because it is too easy to make people believe that it is a nationality jump and that someone with two nationalities is not loyal to the homeland Belgium. That is not true.

Mr. Schoofs, I was wrong. Point e is apparently placed completely behind in Article 2, so you are right, my apologies.

As regards dual citizenship, I do not fully agree with Mrs. Lanjri. Nationality jumping is happening, of course. There is indeed abuse of dual citizenship, especially when it comes to, among other things, inheritance rights and especially when it comes to real estate in Morocco. The problem is, among other things, that from Morocco nothing is transferred to our social security, not even in the case of migration. Those people came here, and they were allowed, for example, to bring their parents or grandparents here if they were in charge, but no one could check whether they had no real estate at home.

The [...]

There is indeed an abuse of dual citizenship through the rapid acquisition of the Belgian citizenship.

Mr Schoofs, in essence. I have read your bill with the viewpoint of Vlaams Belang on dual citizenship. You say that someone who can never lose his nationality by law, for example a Frenchman, can never become Belgian. That is where it comes down. I regret that. That is not our position. I understand that it is your point of view.

That is our point of view, yes.

Mr. President, Mr. Francken, I would like to put the points on the i.

First, I did not declare that there would be no abuses. I have pointed out that there should be a distinction between countries which, regardless of whether their citizens would like to do so themselves, do not allow the loss of nationality, such as France, and other countries where it is possible to renounce nationality. Let us first make this distinction.

Second, Mr Francken, you also know that overseas property and fraud have nothing to do with nationality. I will give you an example.

If people in Morocco or Turkey have property, this must be effectively controlled when applying for social housing. The countries concerned should also cooperate to verify whether the applicants have assets in the country of origin.

For me, nothing depends on nationality. I can give you another example.

Our own Belgians who have an outdoor residence in Marbella or elsewhere in Spain – the Costa Brava or anywhere – are Belgians. Spain shall cooperate in this regard with the transfer of the assets held by the Belgians concerned abroad.

I just want to point out that I am absolutely in favour of fighting abuse. Fraud must be addressed. All countries should be obliged to cooperate by giving up the suspicion that certain nationals possess property in the country. They really need to transmit that. However, such an obligation is independent of nationality.

My daughter, for example, does not have the Moroccan nationality. If she later owns a house in Italy, France or Morocco, she must indicate that house for me in her tax certificate or Belgium must be able to find out that she possesses a house at the time, regardless of her nationality and regardless of the fact that she has only one nationality.

I want to explain that nuance. It is not because someone has the dual nationality that he or she cheats. It is also not because someone has only one nationality that he or she does not cheat.

The Flemish Interest is, for all clarity, also against statelessness. When someone becomes stateless, we are against taking away nationality, let that be clear. All protection due to a national state for a citizen is therefore lost. That is what I wanted to say to you, colleague Francken.

For the rest, Mrs Lanjri, we are indeed in favour of the principle of one nationality. I’m not just talking about fraud. I will send you the address of the local chairman of CD&V in Beringen. He is also the head of the civil service. I will give you some examples of things that this man is facing. I take one here.

You know that in Beringen there were once very many trials carried out, because of the main cloth on the passport photos for the identity cards of Muslims who had acquired the Belgian nationality. One of the ladies who had been the first to start the process came to advertise every day. Eventually she went to court. She also won that process, because she didn’t use the main cloth – you’ve ever used it on the banks, you know? On the passport photo. Well, at some point, that woman had to go urgently to Turkey. What did she then do? You can check it at the Service Population in Beringen. She then picked up her Turkish passport to get an entry visa to Turkey. She was depicted without a headband. I do not even call that abuse. I really call it shopping.

These things are frequently occurring. I don’t shave everyone on the same chest, not even you, Mrs. Lanjri. I do not have to judge about it, but for me you are perfectly integrated, like all the Moroccan people in Beringen. Instead, we have a problem with integration and conflicts in the Turkish community. There come to me at home in Beringen Moroccan people on the floor. These are people who do not shop at all, because they have completely acquired the Flemish identity, but there are a lot of people, especially in the big cities, who shop. I’m not even just about abuse, because Mr. Francken is shooting directly with the cannon. Of course, there are also abuses, but some people just eat from two wallets. This should be avoided.

It is unfortunate, if people who have fully integrated or assimilated themselves still have two nationalities and cannot give up the original one. Then it is up to you, Mrs. Lanjri, and to your party, as a political party, to negotiate with the government with Morocco and to say that our country freezes that matter. As soon as the laws in Morocco and Turkey begin to change, we will move, but not earlier. It is done with being here in Belgium the slave of the whole world.

Then I come to the limitation of the number of nationality procedures and the priority for the declaration of nationality. Nationality as a right. What changes compared to existing nationality legislation? The declaration of nationality, which currently accounts for 40 % of all acquisitions of nationality, will now become the preferred procedure leading to the acquisition of Belgian nationality.

A number of procedures are abolished and/or incorporated into the procedure of declaration of nationality. This applies to the declaration made by the foreign spouse of a Belgian, to the choice of nationality — there are only a few dozen per year — and also to the acquisition of Belgian nationality due to the possession of the State of Belgium.

The declaration of nationality becomes more than the ordinary procedure, or the ordinary procedure so to speak. Indeed, this means the full choice for nationality as a subjective right, the declaration of nationality, rather than a favor, the naturalization.

The Flemish Interest can rest assured that naturalization is now reduced to cases of extraordinary achievements on the scientific, sports or socio-cultural level. This is, in fact, a return to naturalization as then understood in Belgian law, which at that time was still based on the jure sanguinis. In that case, it is really a favor and we can live with it.

You must also have knowledge of one of the three national languages. Agree in those cases, ⁇ , which will be exceptions. However, we want each Community of this country to take its responsibility and say that one must know the language of the Community in which one is established, and that one must at least demonstrate sufficient will to meet this condition.

I come to the fourth and last critical point of my presentation. I leave a few things down, because I ⁇ do not want to take the speech time of colleague De Man.

I just draw your attention to the fact that it is necessary to finish early enough since the Law Street is closed from 19:30.

Let me summarize what remains possible after the proposed legislative amendment. After five years of residence in Belgium, a foreigner can submit a declaration of nationality, the short declaration of nationality.

A foreigner who lives in Flanders can become Belgian if he provides proof of knowledge of French or German. He does not need to know Dutch.

A foreigner can become Belgian unless he lives from the OCMW. In some cases, he must never have worked in Belgium.

Double citizenship is still a fact.

If the King’s Prosecutor does not give an opinion on the declaration of nationality or the application for naturalization within four months, this is always equated with a favourable opinion.

In the case of a declaration of nationality, it shall, in the absence of a negative opinion, be registered by office at the expiry of the four-month period. We have difficulty with that.

The proposed arrangement will tighten the conditions for obtaining Belgian citizenship on a number of points. We do not disregard that. Several aberrations in nationality legislation are removed. In this context, we like to talk about the abolition of the rapid-Belgwet, we think it is a flexible-Belgwet. The proposed changes still lag behind what is common in many other European countries, especially with the strengths of the Citizenship Code, which presents the Flemish Interest. This applies both with regard to the required minimum duration of stay and with regard to the absence of an effective citizenship test.

This bill is not sufficient motive for a prostitution vote. Given the evolution in the minds of almost all political families and the fact that it is a step in the right direction, we do not judge the bill negatively. On the other hand, we want or can not substantially finish the bill with the adagium it’s the duty of the opposition to oppose. Fundamentally, there is still too much eardrum, scar tissue and dead meat at the bone of the nationality legislation to make it a mandatory opposition number. Hopefully I could explain this in my speech and during this debate.

The Flemish Belang has been in this Parliament from the beginning, for twelve years, long before others, consistently and unrelentingly fighting the dragon of the fast-Belgwet. The result triggers in us today a common "exercise", a suck of enlightenment. That is why we do not vote against. We remember ourselves.

I have not had the opportunity to join any working group. So it is hard to blame me for not following the drafting of the text, even though I was in the committee.

As a commission, I have not failed to raise – it’s a bit of a mess at home – a lot of legal inconsistencies. This is probably one of the most obscure texts I have ever been given to consider in parliament, a text that will raise cases of flagrant legal uncertainty. I will give very clear examples of this during the examination of the bill, although I will obviously not take back all the arguments that I have been able to develop in the committee.

Yes, politically, we are in favor of a revision of the procedures for acquiring citizenship. We are, but we would have wanted a less politized and more objective context. The procedure for the acquisition of citizenship should be the subject of a procedure before an independent administrative authority, in any case in the cases of declaration or naturalization – I am not talking about acquisitions of office under full law – with a possibility of appeal before an administrative court, a litigation of full exercise. The advantage of this is to exclude any variation of jurisprudence, as we will inevitably know, from prosecutor to prosecutor or from court to court, depending on the appeals that will be exercised. It would have been simpler to unify the whole procedure before a single administrative authority, with an appeal before a single administrative court, as we do in the dispute of foreigners.

This is not a path that has been chosen. A chaotic layout was made in an attempt to find a political balance, ⁇ among those associated with the negotiation. We are very far from objectivizing the procedures and we will ⁇ have very difficult litigation to manage. It will no longer be the Chamber, essentially for naturalization, which will pronounce itself, but it remains no less that, according to the jurisprudence developed from one jurisdiction to another, one will be oriented towards one or the other municipality to get the chance to arrive before one or the other jurisdiction of the country sooner or later.

Furthermore, we have not questioned, in the procedure of declaration of citizenship, this curious duality, which is ⁇ also the result of a political compromise, the procedure of 5 years and 10 years, which seems to me to be totally useless and ineffective. When in 2000, we eased the conditions for obtaining citizenship, it was because at that time, there was no political agreement on the right to vote for foreign nationals, in Belgium, in municipal elections.

At the time, the political reasoning was to say that in compensation for the right to vote in municipal elections for foreigners, the conditions for obtaining citizenship should be eased, either through the naturalization procedure, mainly, or through the procedure of declaration of citizenship.

In my opinion, it is quite logical to reverse the reasoning now: since the voting right of foreign nationals – provided they meet five years of continuous residence in Belgium – is acquired, the acquisition of citizenship could not run before that same five-year period.

That is why, although it turns the entire economy of the bill, we will submit an amendment proposing a single procedure starting from seven years of continuous residence. Five years of continuous residence allows voting in municipal elections; to obtain citizenship through the declaration procedure, it makes sense to wait a longer period. This seems to me to require obvious consistency and legal logic.

Another general note: a naturalization procedure is ⁇ ined in front of the House. Certainly, there is ⁇ a ‘soupape’ procedure, let us say, a procedure that allows in exceptional circumstances to grant citizenship.

In this case, it is necessary to be frank: we want to retain this faculty and leave the procedure fairly broad, without these totally ridiculous criteria provided in the bill proposal – I will detail them –, and grant a fairly broad discretion, understood that it would be possible to obtain the prior opinion of a ministerial authority or an administrative authority in order to mark the choices of the Commission of Naturalizations of the Chamber.

By the way, I have long remained a member of the House Naturalization Committee and I would like to reiterate how it is in honor of the members of this committee, from wherever they come, to have worked generally with extreme rigour. Let us stop the wrong trials addressed to some.

Nevertheless, given the conditions set for granting naturalization, this is truly 'on-measure' and we have well understood the ones we want to target.

A distinction for scientific merits concerns only one case: the doctorate; without it, no possibility will be offered while some people have a remarkable scientific career without being a doctorate holder and yet internationally recognised.

On the other hand, for exceptional merits in the sport field, it will even be possible for a federation to estimate added values for Belgium as part of the eliminatory or final phases of a European championship, a world championship or the Olympic Games.

Far from me the idea of preventing good athletes from bringing a supplement to our national teams, but, honestly, why then not recognize a facility of acquiring citizenship by naturalization to brilliant people in the scientific field, even not holders of a doctorate? This is a lack of seriousness and I find it very random.

On the other hand, the socio-cultural domain may present references as inaccurate as ‘to claim merits on the cultural level or because of its social investment and internationally recognized’. According to what criteria? It is not mentioned! This is quite unfair depending on the course. In any case, bad luck for scientists to acquire a citizenship in Belgium. This is not how they can be recognized in their titles and merits!

I come to the heart of the debate: the procedure for declaring citizenship. Yes, this procedure should be revised. But it seems to me that the task is overly complicated, both in the conditions and in the procedure to be followed. First in the conditions, since five assumptions are presented.

One thing is seriously missing. It was also lacking in the naturalization acquisition procedure: I consider that when you have been sentenced to a prison sentence, you cannot acquire Belgian citizenship. This is, I think, an elementary condition of respect for the rule of law in our country. Condemned to a firm prison sentence, this means that you have committed acts of particular gravity. When one knows how much in Belgium, one is not very quickly sentenced to a firm prison sentence, in any case not for the first facts, even sometimes of a certain gravity, I cannot understand that one does not specify – I am making an amendment for this purpose – that when one has been sentenced to a firm prison sentence, one does not acquire citizenship in Belgium. This is a minimum to respect the rule of law in Belgium!

There are demands that I find redundant. Yes, of course, mastering one of the national languages is one of the conditions for social success in our country. We have never said the opposite. By the way, I’ve heard contradictory versions from the authors about whether it’s one of the national languages, regardless of the place of residence, or whether it’s the language of the region of the place of residence. I am afraid that we will move towards very different jurisprudence depending on the place where we will be established.

Here are redundant examples when social integration criteria are all related to the mastery of one of the national languages.

- Or, you are the holder of a diploma or certificate issued by an educational institution organized, recognized and subsidized by a Community, not to mention the Royal Military School. Honestly, do you follow a teaching without having the mastery of the language? Are you going to the end of your higher secondary education without having the mastery of the language? No, of course !

You have completed 400 hours of professional training recognized by a competent authority. Can you take a 400-hour professional training without having the mastery of the language?

You have taken an integration course provided by the competent authority of your main residence at the time you begin your integration course. Are you following an integration path other than to go towards the mastery of one of the national languages?

So I don’t know what the requirement of the proficiency of the national language will bring in relation to the criteria of social integration and I fear that this will be judged as an additional requirement even stronger than the proof of the proficiency of one of the national languages in terms of the criteria of the requirement of social integration. I am also afraid, at this level, of very different interpretations of prosecutor to prosecutor or of judicial authority to judicial authority.

I add that, in my opinion, this text contains a scandalous monstruosity. Thus, if, during the declaration procedure, the person concerned changes his place of residence, he must restart the proof of social integration procedure according to the integration path he must follow. This is like telling people that no matter what their efforts are, they will never be helped in the steps they accomplish. This is not correct. Citizenship is still a federal competence. Therefore, there is no need to undergo procedural changes, depending on the place of residence, as long as the place of residence is changed. This exemption requirement seems to me exorbitant.

And then, there is the long procedure provided for in article 12, the future article 15 of the Code, which is indeed subject to many complications and weights, or even risks of invalidity of procedures. This implies an overload of work for future municipal authorities. The municipal administrations will have a great pleasure in managing all these files, especially since they have not simplified their task! Previously, we received the file, we served as a mailbox, we transmitted, and that was all. Nothing was checked.

Today, civil state officers are given personal responsibilities. I draw your attention here to the fact that there are more and more litigation – those who manage the municipalities know it – brought up by citizenship applicants or as part of the proceedings before the Office of Foreigners that directly question the municipal authorities. Although we are not the decision-making administrative authorities, today, in many cases, the applicants defunct, especially before the Office of Foreigners, question the direct responsibility of the municipal authorities. In case of disputes, the municipalities will be called to the cause. This will result in costs and expenses for municipalities who will have to defend themselves in these procedures for declaring citizenship.

At least we could have shared the tasks. That the procedure for declaring citizenship must pass through the municipalities is good! But in this case, it would have been necessary to provide that the entire naturalization procedure goes only through the services of the House, which have a little time to handle the naturalization files that will be fewer. This is not the case since it has been retained the possibility to address the municipalities to request naturalization.

But then, in this long procedure, I find some inconsistencies. We discussed this in the committee, but I did not get a response. It is thus said that it is the responsibility of the civil status officer to verify the completeness of the file – very inaccurate words on the legal level. To assist him, it is indicated that a deliberate decree in the Council of Ministers will determine the documents whose absence in the declaration makes the request not exhaustive. A little further, we are told that another royal decree deliberated in the Council of Ministers will decide the number of supporting documents to be added to the application. I do not know whether these two texts will coincide, but what if a royal decree indicates which documents are required to file the application and another specifies which documents are the absence of which makes the said application unacceptable by the civil status officer? This will be the source of many difficult interpretations.

And then, that’s not all, it is not specified in what time you must have paid the registration, mortgage and mortgage fees. Is it at the time of filing the application? It is simply stated, a little further in the text, that the late payment of the registration fee cannot, however, be regularized. But it is unknown from when it is late, since the deadline within which it must be paid is not fixed. The text could have said that it was at the time of the application introduction, but it does not. So that is the artistic fuzzy on this issue. This means that interpretations will likely differ from one municipality to another and that the tolerance of municipal administrations to a request for declaration will also vary. In short, differences are announced!

Then there is a problem of consistency. In that article 12, paragraph 2, paragraph 8, it is mentioned that “the civil status officer shall forward for notice a copy of the entire file to the King’s Attorney of the court of first instance of the jurisdiction at the latest within five working days – which is little! - of the issuance of the receipt" and that "the Prosecutor of the King accuses the receipt of the receipt without delay". without delay! When you know what the prosecutor's services and their overload are, it is obvious that the deadlines will vary greatly from one prosecutor's office to another! We are therefore moving toward infinite procedural variations, fueled by controversial subjects.

The continuation of reading the article no longer makes sense. It is said: “If, in violation of paragraph 2, paragraph 8 – which I have just read to you – the statement referred to in paragraph 1 is communicated late in the course of the last month of the deadline – I do not know what the deadline is anymore – the deadline is officially extended by one month from the date of communication of the file to the Prosecutor of the King.” We do not know what deadline we are talking about.

This is even more serious in the context of the introduction of appeals before the court of first instance. It is well stated in which cases “the interested party” – one could at least say “the applicant” – can bring an appeal before the court. I apologize for being a bit technical but it is said in particular "that he can appeal even if his declaration has been registered by office and mentioned in accordance with article 22 (paragraph 4, the last sentence of paragraph 3)". I regret having to be as technical in this tribune, in the plenary session, but this is a great inconsistency. He has no interest in appealing because his declaration has been registered by office! There was no negative opinion or the deadline has expired. Therefore, I do not see why the person concerned would appeal in this case. Mystery and Rubber Ball!

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that there are incoherent texts. There is simply a lack of legislative and coordination of paragraphs and paragraphs according to articles. So you will come back with a proposal for amendment in the coming weeks or months. This is not the shadow of a doubt!

Here is another example of inconsistency. The opinion of the Attorney General before the Court of Appeal is provided, but the opinion before the Court of First Instance is not provided. Certainly, he has given his opinion in advance, in particular on whether the conditions are met, but the opinion is not provided for in the context of the appeal procedure. The King’s Prosecutor will therefore no longer be in the court of first instance to say why he eventually issued a negative opinion that justified the appeal. This will be included in the file, but it will not come before the court. On the other hand, if one goes up to the degree of appeal, the Attorney General must be heard.

Mr. Speaker, I could continue this way indefinitely and give you many more examples of inconsistencies, inaccuracies and prove to you the legally unsatisfactory character of this text. I am not saying that there was no desire to improve some aspects. However, this text is among those that have raised, in recent years, the biggest legal controversy. I cannot therefore agree with a text of such inaccuracies, such inconsistencies and such legal uncertainty.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, since it is often said that we like to break down a lot but not always formulate constructive proposals, I would like to briefly explain what the Flemish Interest has put on paper in this regard. We have submitted a bill on citizenship in the House, which, of course, differs sharply – that will not surprise anyone in the Chamber – from the proposal of the majority.

Before I go into this, I would like to first and above all to establish that most parties here today admit that the rapid-Belgwet was a mistake or a mistake. The terminology changes from party to party. The PS does not get it over the lips to say that it was a mistake, but she is still going to join in an adjustment.

I find it not enough to admit that one was wrong; one should in fact offer his apologies. As has been said here a few times, it has been made around and around the 600 000 nouveaux Belges. I’m not just calling them new Belgians. After all, relatively viewed, there are more who choose the French language role. We have given these 600,000 people here all the rights that we as nationals normally enjoy. We all know the consequences for social security and for the greenhouses of local OCMWs. In many large and small cities, for example in Vilvoorde, these greenhouses are really looted. Therefore, they have made a lot of new Belgian support trailers. I would honestly not want to give food to all those who live from the support of those 600,000. They are ⁇ many. This can also be said loudly here. It is not about a few thousand or tens of thousands of people; it is about hundreds of thousands.

That being said, I will overlook some of the most interesting differences in the bill on citizenship of the Flemish Interest.

First and foremost, there is the declaration of the expiration of the Belgian nationality. This has already been discussed here. It is quite normal that this will happen when using fake documents, in the case of fraud in obtaining a residence permit and in the case of a fake marriage. However, our cluster breaks – it cannot be said enough – if only in a limited number of crimes the right to become Belgian cannot be exercised. These are ⁇ rare cases, namely state security, terrorism and nuclear crimes – not really a daily report in the newspaper –, human trafficking and human trafficking.

The Flemish Belang has stated in its proposal on the Citizenship Code that a applicant in Belgium or in another Member State of the European Union must never have been sentenced to an effective prison sentence of more than three months.

Mr. Maingain goes further on this subject, as I have heard him explain later. For the first time, we are on the same wavelength.

The problem is that, when the arrangement will be approved tomorrow, as Mr. Schoofs noted, even rapists, pedophiles and murderers can become nouveau Belge or new Belgian. In fact, this is a real shame.

A second point on which we differ strongly is the following.

There is such a thing as the acquisition of nationality. For the third generation, citizenship is automatically acquired. The second generation must first make a statement.

The Flemish Belang, however, in its bill proposes that the automatic granting of the Belgian nationality at birth to foreigners of the third generation as well as the almost automatic grant – it does not differ much with the aforementioned grant – to the second generation on the declaration of the parents, simply be abolished. Belgian nationality is granted on the basis of birth in Belgium only in order to avoid statelessness. The jus sanguinis is thus restored in honor.

I would like to point out another point of difference, in particular with regard to the declaration of nationality.

In our Code of Citizenship we provide for a single procedure. Citizenship, therefore, is not obtained in twelve, thirty, or even in four ways. It is obtained only in one way, in particular through the naturalization procedure, as it has been in force for a century and a half. We would like to see all other forms of acquisition abolished.

The role of the House of Representatives in this naturalisation procedure is limited in our proposal to the formal and solemn ratification of the granting of citizenship. The research in substance, substantially, is assigned to a naturalization service, possibly as part of the Foreign Affairs Service. The naturalization service obtains the advice of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the DVZ and the State Security, and can only decide if one has all the necessary advice. The approved naturalization requests are then transmitted by that naturalization service to the House of Representatives for ratification.

A foreigner can become a Belgian citizen only if he unconditionally gives up his original nationality. If he can’t, then he remains Turk, then he remains Moroccan, so simple is that. The Flemish Belang thus says in so many words that citizenship must be exclusive. One can change citizenship in certain cases, but one can only be a citizen of one country, of one nation. It is simply undeniably logical and normal that one can only be loyal to one particular country.

The rejection of dual or multiple citizenship is motivated by the belief that dual citizenship or dual citizenship leads to a lasting engagement with the country of origin. In certain cases, that involvement with another, non-European country with a completely different culture – you understand where I want to go – can even lead to a potential threat to our national security, with a ⁇ a little more leftist or progressive argument: it is, by the way, also a kind of brake on the integration of the new Belgians.

For the Flemish Interest, the acquisition of citizenship must be the expression of the will of the person concerned to permanently link his fate with that of our community and must also – we say this already 10 to 15 years – be the crown of a successful integration. Integration, therefore, must lead to naturalization and not vice versa, as is now the case.

Foreigners who wish to obtain this citizenship must, of course, also take a citizenship test. It is only after the presentation of a certificate in question that one can obtain the naturalization. What is the citizenship test about? That test consists of a written and an oral part, which, of course, first and foremost proves the proficiency of the language of the language area in which the person concerned has his domicile. As a candidate, you must explain why you want to become a Belgian citizen. In a verbal section, one must be polished to the knowledge of the Mr or Mrs regarding some basic principles of our society, some legal principles. One should not be a master in law, but one must know and respect a number of norms of our civilization, our culture, our society.

Since Belgium is a federal state and the integration into the Belgian society takes place primarily through the integration into the community of the area where the person concerned resides, one must also have a little knowledge of the region where one is going to live. One must be able to prove some knowledge of history, what the culture of that community looks like, and have a basic knowledge of the state structure. You can note that all this is very difficult and the illiterate of Mrs. Genot will not have any chance, but that they will do so. We do not need thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of trailers from distant countries.

Finally, the Belgian candidate must have reached the age of 25 years. He must be able to provide for his needs and those of his family members. In addition, he must not have any tax debts.

On your invitation, I will keep this. It seems that the Law Street will be closed within foreseeable time.

I will come shortly to my conclusion. The prostitution of some, whether or not belonging to the majority, is, of course, exaggerated. When we compare Belgium with a number of other members of the European Union, democratic countries, they appear in some cases to be somewhat stricter than what one wants to approve here tomorrow. In our eyes, the above-mentioned text is too short. Colleague Schoofs has already explained this.

Due to the shortcomings of this proposal and the many shortcomings in the legislation on asylum, family reunification, visas and let’s mention, the suggestion effect of Belgian legislation remains and there will soon be about 1 million non-European foreigners. Some find that electoral strategically of course good, but our party finds it a healing path.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, etc. This is proof that this dossier is very sensitive: on the human level because it concerns people who place a hope in obtaining a nationality, on the ideological level given the differences between political parties and on the national level because, in our country, nothing is ever simple because of the differences in defence design in the north and south of the country.

The fact, Mr. Jambon, of having reached an agreement, which is a political consensus within this Parliament, is all in the advantage of the Parliament and the parliamentarians who have devoted hours and hours of work to it. Should I recall that, during the very constitution of the government, no agreement could be reached on this matter and that 'hot potato' was returned to parliament? Today, we are able to propose a formula that takes into account each other’s opinions and contains acceptable solutions.

Why was it necessary to change the Code of Citizenship? Because the current legislation on this subject was outdated and deviated from its primary objective.

Should I remind our colleague Galant that it was at the time of the rainbow government that this legislation was modified and that since 2000, requests have flowed? We realized that the choice of many applicants was more dictated by issues of opportunity than by a real affinity with Belgium. In short, we came to Belgium because it was easier to obtain citizenship there than elsewhere.

This is not the right way for a state, even democratic, to grant its citizenship.

If one asks to obtain a citizenship in a country, in this case Belgium, it is because one loves that country and wants to share its fundamental values.

We had a very clear specification of charges, which was included in the government agreement. It was necessary to make the acquisition of nationality neutral in terms of immigration. In the course of our work, we have added, and it is equally important, clearer procedures based on integration. I have no difficulty with this.

We have clarified the procedures by simplifying and detailing them. We move from twelve to four procedures. From complexity and arbitrariness, today we move, however our colleague Maingain says, to clear, precise rules, which can end in case of contestation before the courts, which was not the case before. We are practically not changing anything in the attribution of nationality.

As for the acquisition, there are two five- and ten-year procedures, with modified criteria and, you should not be afraid to say, reinforced. I think that was the will of a majority of the members. Among these criteria, I will cite legal residence in Belgium, the obligation to submit applications from Belgium, knowledge of one of the national languages. In this regard, it was sometimes necessary to recall that we were still in the context of acquiring and granting Belgian citizenship and not a sub-nationality. Even though the knowledge of languages is important, the knowledge of one of the national languages remains primary. I will also mention economic, cultural and social integration.

The deadlines are clear and precise. After four months, you will be able to know whether or not you are allowed to obtain citizenship. We also thought about situations such as marriage, Belgian child, disability, part-time. We tried to deal with all the problems in the most consensual way possible.

In the end, I see no difficulty in making naturalization the exception today. Today, it could have been said that this became the natural way while it is the most arbitrary way, the one for which there are the least precise criteria both in terms of the admissibility of the demand and in time.

We also addressed the problems of default, ensuring that it is always a magistrate who decides, in the case of serious crime or white marriage, but keeping an eye on the situation of stateless persons, fulfilling, at this level, our international obligations.

Finally, Belgium, in preparing to adopt this new legislation, is only entering into the sense of European legislation on the matter. From the French-speaking side, what we will probably vote tomorrow, is a very clear call for that, very quickly, a real path of integration be set up, which can find its place in the framework of the acquisition of this nationality.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank, first and foremost, all the Members of Parliament who have worked hard over the last weeks and months, almost years, on this law, which aims at tightening and is an important adaptation of the nationality legislation. My administration has, of course, tried to support that with legal analysis or explanation, where that could and was necessary.

I know that after this bill has been approved, we also have some work with some KBs to implement it. I undertake to have 7 KB ready by 1 January 2013 – we are today on 24 October, so we will have to work very hard – which will enable this bill to come into force when the discussion and voting are fully completed.

It is a KB to supplement the list of important facts. This is a KB with a list of countries automatically accepting that it is impossible to obtain a birth certificate. It is a KB that will determine which documents or residence permits are considered as legal residence, as envisaged by the law. For this purpose, we will work closely with the services of the Secretary of State responsible for Asylum and Migration.

It is also a KB establishing the form that determines when a file can be considered complete by the civil status. It is a KB that determines which evidence documents should be attached to the declaration of nationality. It is also a KB concerning the application forms for naturalization legislation. Finally, there is a KB that determines which evidence documents should be attached to the application for naturalization.

I hope that this whole package will enable us to implement the very important law that is presented here for adoption and for which I would like to once again cordially congratulate all Members of Parliament.