Proposition de loi modifiant la loi du 15 décembre 1980 sur l'accès au territoire, le séjour, l'établissement et l'éloignement des étrangers, en ce qui concerne les étrangers gravement malades.
General information ¶
- Authors
- PS | SP Nawal Ben Hamou, Willy Demeyer, Emir Kir, Éric Thiébaut
- Submission date
- June 9, 2016
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Rejected
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- administrative procedure appeal to an administrative authority foreign national international humanitarian law appeal admission of aliens rights of aliens
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA MR PP VB
- Voted to reject
- Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP PVDA | PTB
Party dissidents ¶
- Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
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 ¶
March 15, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
Emir Kir PS | SP ⚙
Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, about fifteen days ago, the Internal Affairs Committee put an end to a two-year work on the situation of seriously ill foreigners and introducing a residence application on the basis of their medical situation.
At the beginning of this proposal, there is in particular a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights which found that Belgium did not organize an effective appeal against negative decisions for this category of applicants.
Widespread hearings and the contribution of the Federal Ombudsman have expanded its scope and measured the extent of the problems posed by current procedures. Not only are the remedies not effective, but the doctors of the Office cannot carry out their mission in compliance with medical ethics. Applicants do not have access to the necessary expertise and their file is processed only from an administrative point of view. The actual access to health care in their home country is assessed too succinctly.
So many weaknesses in the level of legislation and denial of rights that we wish to remedy with this proposal with the contribution, in particular, of the groups cdH and Ecolo that I welcome here, proposal which of dilatory manoeuvres in negative opinions of the Secretary of State was finally rejected by the majority, in commission.
If my group has requested to re-insert it on the agenda of this plenary session, Mr. Speaker, it is because there is also a government text regarding urgent medical assistance carried by MR. With this text that we have already discussed, the masks fall.
I think it is important to return to the debate about medical regulation. The majority is campaigning against the health of people in migration situation. One could have believed that at this beginning of the twenty-first century, the concern of making the world benefit from the advances of medicine, of giving real access to care could have been the pride and concern of any advanced government. The concern of humanity in reality. This is obviously not the case with the government.
I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, because we must not believe that the sick people, who are decomposed in the circumstances I have described, disappear in nature. When not only we refuse to recognize the situation of the sick, but above the market, barriers are set up between him and the care, as does Mr. Ducarme, we can only hope that this rejection of any form of solidarity does not turn, tomorrow, into a public health problem.
That is why we invite you, dear colleagues of the majority, to review your judgment on this proposal and to approve here what your representatives in committees have rejected, out of concern for solidarity, humanity, respect for access to rights for all and all, and if these principles leave you marble, out of caution.