Proposition 54K1901

Projet de loi insérant une condition générale de séjour dans la loi du 15 décembre 1980 sur l'accès au territoire, le séjour, l'établissement et l'éloignement des étrangers.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

June 16, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

foreign national integration of migrants residence permit rights of aliens

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

Vooruit LE PS | SP DéFI VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) 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 ¶

Nov. 23, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, I have already had the opportunity to express my group’s support for this bill, during the committees during which this proposal was discussed. The Reform Movement has always regarded integration as a priority. Integration is an obligation. This is not an option, it is not an obligation. Federated entities conduct different policies with different outcomes. In fact, Flanders launched the Inburgering in 2004, while Wallonia started in 2016, while in the Brussels Region, we are still waiting for the first texts, which should be implemented in 2017.

While the urgency is evident, I myself had also filed texts calling for the establishment of reception paths, as they already existed in Flanders; it was more than a decade ago, a legislative initiative left unfollowed.

The integration project must be carried out by the federated entities. But the federal authority must give the tone and express the will that integration is ensured for all first arrivals on our territory. I hope this will give a positive impetus in that regard.

Our country is often pointed to the finger, whether it be by international bodies, such as the European Union, the OECD, Eurostat or Belgian bodies, such as the National Bank or the King Baudouin Foundation, for its lack of integration policy. The employment rate of third-country nationals remains extremely low in our country, as almost one in two people only have a job, far from the European average. Systematically, in recent years, all indicators of employment of foreign nationals have plunged into the red. A number of discussions, discussions and working groups were organised. But what is the constatation? Do we see better? Is integration harmonious? Are foreigners more likely to find work? The answer is no, absolutely not. Proficiency in the language and knowledge of norms and values are essential for emancipation and finding employment in the host country.

All studies show the urgency of action. On June 2, an OECD study once again estimated that Belgium was not sufficiently integrating its migrants into the labour market and that it started with education.

According to the OECD, if Belgium does not improve this integration, it risks not being able to sustain its growth. It is important to remember that our fundamental values, which are freedom to think, believe or not believe, and equality between men and women, are not negotiable. Anyone who wants to settle permanently in the country must accept them.

The bill we are discussing today is therefore a clear message sent to the first arrivals. Yes, Belgium is a land of welcome, but the rules there must be known and respected by everyone. I can only welcome the initiative taken in this case by the federal government to promote integration and knowledge of the values that govern our society.

The project we are discussing today has two axes. First, it introduces a declaration of the first arrivals. It then requires foreigners to provide evidence that they are making efforts to integrate.

Not all first arrivals are covered by this bill. A number of categories of foreigners are exempt from this obligation, as Belgium is bound by rules of international law, such as those of the European Court of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention.

However, in order for first arrivals to get directly acquainted with the basic standards and values of our society, a copy of the declaration will be submitted to them. Those who are not affected by this project will receive it also for their information, and this against an accusation of receipt.

I would like to challenge what was stated by some colleagues during the discussions in the committee. The scope of the bill would be minimal. I would like to remind you that it concerns foreigners who enter the Belgian territory through family reunification, which accounts for almost 50% of the visas issued.

Recall that this bill is consistent with European law and takes into account the observations made in the various opinions of the State Council, according to which it is not up to the federal legislature to unilaterally define these fundamental standards and values. A cooperation agreement will therefore be established between the federal state and the federal entities.

This is not the first time that Parliament so strongly associates evidence of integration with a residence permit. Since 2012, integration conditions have been at the heart of the discussion on the reform of the Citizenship Code. They allow those who are fully integrated to obtain citizenship within only five years.

The bill we are reviewing today continues the work undertaken on the importance of the integration of first arrivals, which is why my group will support this project.

I would also like to draw your attention to the existence of this type of declaration on values in other countries of the European Union such as France, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries.

Mrs Schepmans, you have developed a fairly clear explanation on what integration policies are, as you think, should be carried out at the level where the integration competence is exercised, namely the Communities. You talked about employment, which, in your view, constitutes a sine qua non condition for integration, as well as knowledge of the language of the Region in which the foreigner lives – which is de facto also a community competence.

The only reason why, today, the federal government and, in particular, the Secretary of State in charge of Migration legislate on the declaration is that there is a federal jurisdiction that is that of the right of residence. By the way, it is the way through which the Secretary of State presents to us its bill you are going to vote on.

A huge problem arises. As you acknowledge, the declaration can only be effective if the federal state and the federal entities – seven ministers, as stated by the Secretary of State in commission – agree on it. It is undeniable that one cannot legislate by withdrawing the right of residence to persons who would not be integrated according to the criteria defined by the law, without at least having previously consulted the federal entities which are in the first place and mainly concerned by the integration competence. Now a cooperation agreement may be negotiated, but the federated entities will have a knife under the throat that is the law you are going to vote for. This is unacceptable, because it is not a way to implement a living and effective integration policy, since the main stakeholders, namely the federated entities, are still not around the table to carry out the policies and goals that are, in your mouth, quite praiseworthy. The method is ineffective.

Madame Schepmans, I listened to you with great attention. You provide us with an inventory of the motives of the bill you are advocating. However, I would like to know what you are going to undertake – you, your majority and the government – in the field of employment discrimination.

We must be able to be consistent. You can ask a number of things from people: commitments, attachments to principles, values. of course . But we must also be able to guarantee to all these people that they can be protected by the state against all forms of discrimination. Today, what is specifically on the table of the government and parliament, to fight against discrimination in employment, against discrimination in employment? This is also what we would like to hear from you.

Thank you for any possible answers you would like to give us.

The Secretary of State expressed this in the committee: he made it clear that obviously this cooperation agreement between the federal state and the federal entities was important and that the federal state just wants the federal entities to sit around the table with the federal state to move forward on this agreement. We have every interest in making sure that there is a shared will both by the federal and by the federated entities and between federated entities as well. As I have pointed out, it can be regrettable that the policies are different from one Region to another while there is still a great proximity.

A first arrival may move from one Region to another, depending on the possibilities that would be given to him or the requirements that would be asked to him. For me, therefore, it is essential that this cooperation agreement finds its place. I rely on the federal government. As such, the project that is defended today constitutes a strong and clear sign of this will of the federal to go forward, to demand that everyone participate, that all persons participate but also that the federal entities take their responsibilities in relation to this major issue of participation in our country, regardless of the Region in which we reside.

In terms of discrimination, texts have been adopted concerning the fight against discrimination, in particular in employment. I recognize that these proposals and these texts are not sufficient. You can legislate against discrimination, of course, but this must also be done in a general way through training or awareness of all partners, whether entrepreneurs, trade union organizations, administrations. The fight against discrimination, especially in employment, must be a daily concern for employers in order to engage young people.

But positive measures must also be taken and both the Regions and the federal can take these measures to combat discrimination.

This bill finally establishes a link between, on the one hand, the desire to stay in Belgium and the need to participate in the host society. I therefore consider, as far as I am concerned, that immigration and integration need to be linked even more, which has been too forgotten for decades.

First, the present bill introduces the obligation for newcomers to sign a newcomer declaration. A cooperation agreement must be negotiated with the regions. Second, an integration requirement applies, which in some circumstances also affects the right of residence.

We assume that everyone here in the hemisphere understands the importance of good integration. We see that in ourselves too. In the past we have already insisted on this in Parliament and in certain laws we have, by the way, inscribed this in certain laws. The element of integration is, for example, in the law on nationality.

Again, as in the committee, I would like to expressly point out that, although everyone recognizes the importance of integration and we must encourage newcomers to work on it from their arrival, the lack of integration is only one element in a global dossier for the withdrawal of the residence permit. In the law and also in the memorandum of explanation, it is clearly stated that the non-execution of integration efforts will be taken into account in the assessment of a possible withdrawal of the stay. The word “along” in that sense is really very important. It is also stated in the law: in article 3, § 3, paragraph 2, we have inserted the word “also”. In short, a global assessment is needed.

If a woman has entered the country through family reunification, but no longer appears to live together with her partner or appeals to the OCMW because of a shortage of own income or own means of subsistence, then these are already today reasons for the possible withdrawal of a residence permit. In addition, if the person concerned makes little or too little effort towards integration, the latter can effectively serve as an argument to revoke the residence permit. By itself, the fact that integration is not proceeding properly may never be sufficient to withdraw the residence permit. This would also be contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This has been agreed in the government and this is also explicitly included in the memo of explanation. If I repeat this today, as in the committee, it is because we all must share the same interpretation, an interpretation which, again, is expressly contained in the memory of explanation.

In any case, our group strongly supports helping newcomers on their path to integration. We must also ask the regions to work on this. It is a shared responsibility of both the newcomer, who must seek work, go to work and learn the language, and of the government, which must, among other things, ensure that there is a sufficiently large supply of language lessons and which must prevent the formation of waiting lists, as in some cities.

It is therefore good that the text contains a list of evidence of integration. These are just a few examples; it is not an exhaustive list, because one wants to effectively give the person concerned every possible means to prove that he or she has worked on integration. For us, integration progresses gradually. It starts on the day you arrive here and it is a process of years. It is not from day one that one speaks the language, it is not from day one that one has immediate work. So that is also important.

It is also important that in the design, when checking the conditions of integration, it will be taken into account whether the circumstances actually allow integration. If a newcomer argues that he could not start language lessons immediately because there was no offer, then this should also be taken into account.

In the committee, I have advocated for good monitoring and evaluation of the scheme. For example, after a year of application of the scheme, we can look at the evaluation and the figures in which cases, for example, a residence permit has not been renewed. Then we can also see if there is any need for an adjustment.

Finally, among other things, recognised refugees are exempted from this, because we are obliged to do so. This is also logical: a recognised refugee cannot, in essence, be returned to his country of origin, where he fears for his life, whether it is war, for the subsidiary protected, or for refugees; that does not matter.

Our group will approve the present draft, but we will continue to ensure that it is properly applied by the Foreign Affairs Service, as also explained in the memorandum of explanation. I hope, Mr. Secretary of State, that you will also pay attention to this.

Finally, there is a link between immigration and integration. In many countries this is evident. Many citizens also find that evidence self. We have to fight for this for years. We have been advocating for this for years. It is of great importance to make the link between the right of residence and integration. It is the only correct way to get newcomers to take the step towards their integration much faster. That rapid integration benefits everyone, not only those who are already here, but especially the newcomers. That is clear.

The newcomer declaration will apply to all family reunificators and to persons who are here in the context of labour migration. It is a very good initiative, in which foreigners will be able and should be acquainted with our Western values and standards immediately upon their application.

I cannot repeat enough that our party, the N-VA, has been in favour of it for years. Mr. Secretary of State, you and I wrote a book with the then still applicable title Belgium, land without borders. Now we might choose a different title. In this book we have also written extensively about it. I would also like to quote from another book, The Land of Arrival. “The migration we are now experiencing has not made our societies more open in many ways. As a result of the traditional views of many migrants, old questions about the position of women have suddenly emerged, and freedom of expression has again become controversial. Suddenly we are talking again about blasphemy and about faith abstinence. Even if it is sometimes about opinions that we know from our own history, it is still no progress to repeat the emancipation that we had to go through fifty years ago." It is a standard work on family reunification and the associated challenges related to integration and citizenship. Even the Left Netherlands has realized that the link is necessary and crucial.

In the Netherlands, the newcomer declaration has recently been introduced, which is there known as the participation declaration. France has introduced such a declaration many years ago. In many countries, the newcomer declaration has already been introduced. In many countries it is a proof. We finally implement them today.

The Newcomer Declaration is definitely a good thing to link the federal migration policy and integration policy, which is a competence of the counties. I cannot emphasize this enough.

The standards and values set out in the Newcomer Declaration are those set out in, among other things, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Constitution and our anti-discrimination legislation. These are very obvious to those who regard Western norms and values as their own and live according to them every day. We want newcomers to also embrace these standards and values. For this, they will have to engage. It is obvious that the newcomers endorse them.

What should be applauded to the bill is the fact that it is not a one-time effort. It is not a piece of paper, under which a single signature is placed in order to obtain a permanent right of residence. No, we will ask the stranger for a continuous effort, not a single effort. During the temporary stay there will be a discretionary check of the integration efforts by the Secretary of State or the Foreign Affairs Service.

Secretary of State, Congratulations! You and I pulled the car together. Together with the current majority parties, we were able to tighten the law on family reunification in 2011. The declaration of newcomers or the willingness to integrate we were not able to enter in that legislative amendment. We felt sorry at the time, but we were already happy that we could take a step in the right direction. We were in a different political constellation. I am very proud of our party, I am very proud of our group and I am especially very proud of you, that we will be able to introduce that newcomer declaration in our Belgian legislation from today.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, it is not me who will congratulate you, Mrs. Smeyers. Please know from the beginning that my group and I will abstain from this project.

Let me give a preliminary comment about Mr. Francken and his methods: "Wie niet integreert, moet terug"; any part of a tweet that further announces a change of the law.

Dear colleagues, I would like to recall here before you all that Mr. Francken had committed, at the beginning of the legislature, to present us with a code for foreigners and their right of residence. Instead, a law amendment is presented to us every week with, every time, a not very sympathetic comment on strangers. The latter are presented as potential scammers, as people who do not participate in our values.

Mr. Francken, today you continue to adopt the Francken method while you are not the only competent. In addition, you have no competence in matters of integration since it is the Communities that are competent in this matter. We voted for the reforms that gave these communities more responsibility.

Mrs Schepmans, you said that Mr Francken was sending a signal to the Regions and Communities. It is to die of laughter! He has not yet held a meeting with the Communities and Regions. No one meeting was held. It is not competent in terms of integration and it would give a signal for the Regions to move a little. It is to die of laughter!

In reality, we are facing a text that proposes the obligation for foreigners to sign an integration declaration. It is not about Europeans or political refugees. Only those who come to us as part of family reunification are concerned, namely those falling under 9bis and 9ter. We are talking about 20 thousand people. But it remains, despite all, about twenty thousand situations.

Furthermore, this declaration, this proof of integration becomes a prerequisite for the residence permit, for the renewal of the residence permit. This goes beyond understanding. There is an obligation of result for the overseas, but there is no obligation of means for the public authorities. You don’t give an extra euro to the Regions and Communities. You do not check whether the latter will be able to provide the services required, but you ask for the obligation of results for foreigners.

This does not hold the road! You ask people to meet a number of conditions that you don’t even have control over yourself. You have no control over language courses, from participating in citizenship courses, to integration courses. I find this really quite surprising.

I find it paradoxical that you highlighted the insufficiencies of the Regions, especially of the Walloon and Brussels Regions, in relation to the integration policies of foreign persons. What have we done in all these years? We sat together in the Brussels Regional Parliament, in the French Community. What did you do when you were in power? This is a sign of failure! Show this willingness to move forward, to engage the Regions to go further. This is done in other European countries. Why should Belgium be left behind because some Regions do not take their responsibilities? I say it is time!

Madame Schepmans, especially you, you are lucky. Your predecessor had created a reception office for foreigners. Today, when you go to the neighborhoods...

This is a true example of success! Take Molenbeek as an example of integration as does Mr. Kir ... that time wasted! It was not because we opened an office that we managed to integrate into Molenbeek! On the contrary, the whole population is demanding to participate, but it must be given the means. The responsibility lies not with the municipality but with the region and the communities!

You should not pack up like this. I heard you, you shouted, I heard invectives, but you can also listen. I know that being many in the majority, you can pass with laws, but you can also listen to the minority in this parliament and the opposition.

I would like to answer you, Mrs. Schepmans. Don’t make my mouth now. If you consider that in Molenbeek it is a failure and you stand on the side of Mr. Francken and Jambon, thank you for the people of Brussels and Molenbeek. (Brouhaha) by

I have not finished. Can we talk?

First is Mr. Kir.

I will also raise my voice. Who gave the example? It is Mr. Moureaux and you inherit it. You go to the neighborhoods and you are proud of this service that you boast. Come today to say that the Brussels Region has not taken any initiative and that it is failing with integration! You should review your copy. Go back to your neighborhood and talk to people. I would have preferred to hear a mayor talk about discrimination, as did Mr. Laaouej, also talk about the contribution of immigration to our country. All academic reports indicate the added value of immigrants. I was with you in the committee. University reports on political refugees. What would Flanders do without these political refugees to pick up apples and pears? The Flemish people no longer want to work in these areas. Fortunately, we have immigration. To present this as a failure is a statement in which I cannot register.

Mr. Kir, I propose that Mrs. Schepmans intervene.

I am extremely shocked by the remarks made by Mr. Kir who accuses me of considering that integration is necessarily a failure, especially in my municipality. I have never held such words. You know it properly! I truly regret the amalgamation you are making, like your predecessors, when you talk about difficulties, when you dare to say that they exist and that policies need to be developed to just allow the greatest number of people to be trained and to be able to participate.

That is why I have highlighted, in my speech, the issue of employment which I find essential. These people want a job and they are motivated to have it. I, what I tell you, is that we must implement policies to allow them to have this job. This is done at the level of education. This is done at the level of training. These are competencies that depend on regions and communities. We are very concerned. So, all down to Molenbeek!

It was you who did it. It is nevertheless incredible!

I never mentioned the name of Molenbeek in my speech. It is you, obsessively, who bring everything back to Molenbeek. On the contrary, I want to go beyond this. I think I speak with knowledge of cause. I was sufficiently involved in community life to be able to speak with knowledge of cause. I do not make any amalgamation, no ostracism. On the contrary, if I ask for support from the Regions and Communities, it is for us to go further.

You tell me that in its time, a office was created to allow people to learn French. Similarly, Bond has been doing so for years for Dutch speakers, with a lot of efficiency and with results that we would also like to get from the Brussels Region as part of a support. So it is not with all the millions that Molenbeek has received for the integration policies from the Region, it is not because we created an office, that we managed to solve this problem at Molenbeek.

I find that the shortcuts you make here, in this assembly, are not correct. We have known each other for long enough. We know too much about the issues of the Brussels Region to reduce this bill to a difficulty or to municipalities like mine or like yours! You, you consider that Saint-Josse is the very example of success. Congratulations to you, Mr. I work every day to get better at Molenbeek and I’m proud of it!

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague that she is right: we must stop making shortcuts. To assimilate continually the failure of integration into the PS, is also to make a shortcut. And you do not stop, in this majority, doing it. This is profoundly unfair!

Whether in Molenbeek or in the other municipalities of the Brussels-Capital Region or in the other municipalities of Flanders and Wallonia, which are proud to welcome a large number of populations of immigrant origin, the problem is the same. Before arriving in Brussels, I lived in Liège, where we met a large number of people of foreign origin from another immigration. The problem was already the same.

Who does not agree to say that it is an absolute necessity to invest in the integration of populations of immigrant origin? Who does not see that, in the Communities and Regions, we have done an immense job? And who opposed it? The Mr ! When we had to multiply positive discrimination programs for the benefit of our schools, when we wanted to work against facial discrimination, against discrimination in employment, we did not always have the support of the MR! When we wanted to fight the discrimination in housing that still today is the victim of the populations of immigrant origin, it is very often in your group that we found the biggest opponents.

So when you make such statements, try to see the reality and try to support regional and community governments, which prioritize the integration of immigrant origin populations, which are a real wealth for our country!

I always find the same technique: I am one of the bad guys, because of my political group. This is a shortcut that I have known for years. Yesterday we celebrated the 170th anniversary of the Liberal Party at the Brussels City Hall. Liberals have always been at the forefront of responsibility and emancipation. And I would like to remind you that the liberals have been in opposition in Wallonia and Brussels for many years.

So it is not they who have prevented you from making emancipatory policies for people of foreign origin!

I have not quoted you once. But if you want me to quote at the Brussels level personalities of your party who set the powder fire in our neighborhoods, I can do it! Do you want me to talk about someone like Mr. Destexhe? Do you want it? Do you want me to quote one by one those who set fire in our neighborhoods? The problem is not there! Stop thinking that everything revolves around you. I simply say that we must respect the integration programs that have been fed, in particular by the Socialist Party, which was at the heart of investments for the benefit of these populations.

The controversy is no longer interesting. I emphasize that it was absolutely not me who took the Socialist Party or Mr. Kir or you. It was Mr. Kir who appointed me in his speech.

But finally! No, I answered you, as you said.

I didn’t talk about you.

In half words, you did it.

...I only talked about the project and the need to provide further efforts to ensure that foreigners have a job, because this seems to us to be the priority of integration. I have only highlighted this need in the framework of this bill. I did not go further.

These frontal attacks against me, because I went up to the tribune, I do not understand them! The debate needs to be broadened, it has to take the height!

We are not victims, we are big enough. We had a discussion of ideas and I put my finger on a reality. Through this law, Mr. Francken gives himself the possibility to add an additional condition for the stay. At this point, there has been no consultation with the Flemish, Walloon and Brussels Regions. This is unacceptable, since those who have the responsibility for integration are in other governments. Before connecting language with them, the fact of coming up with this bill is to give yourself the opportunity to take sanctions against foreigners without having the opportunity to check their level of integration.

Just recently, I put my finger on the question of the means. Why Why ? Because there is a question of means. Not all budgets are drawn. In our country there is a lack of budgets in many areas. It would therefore be interesting, in the context of this discussion, to respond to the request of the State Council. The State Council says: "The federal state cannot determine either the content of this declaration of soil integration, nor its evaluation." You have the responsibility today, as soon as possible, to meet with the federated entities and to arrive at a work that is concerted. Sit around the table as quickly as possible to write this statement together!

But, without waiting to meet the federated entities, you provided us with a draft integration declaration. Like others, I was able to read, in the press, the reaction of CIRÉ, the Association for the Rights of Foreigners, the League of Human Rights. Everyone is worried; everyone asks questions. I will give reading of a passage of what I was able to collate here and there on the content of the arrival declaration. First arrivals are pointing their fingers, especially on issues such as gender equality or even terrorism. It’s a bit like, before we started, we started by the principle that strangers are likely to cheat.

Remember that, in the preparatory work of the law, the declaration says: "... constitutes first and foremost a message of welcome to the attention of the foreigner". There is something to ask questions. So, in the beginning, all this is done for a good integration of foreigners and, in the end, we come up with elements that question. There is a negative approach to foreigners.

Madame Smeyers, you have taken the word. You have advanced the files with Mr. Francken. You extended the residence exam to five years at the level of family reunification. I question this very regularly. It is now not easy for many families to get out of it, because of this constraint. But, as if that was not enough, you think that this measure will help solve the problem. And, like Mr. Francken, you often cite Holland. The Netherlands did so within the framework of the European Directive, but the Netherlands remained within the framework of the European Directive!

This European Directive sets out, in a restrictive manner, the conditions that may be required by Member States in the context of family reunification.

These criteria must be precise, limited, marked. They must aim to facilitate the integration of the family members of the third-country national and not to sanction them, according to the simple formula you used, Mr Francken.

A comparison is made with the Netherlands, but this country takes a careful approach to the good integration of foreigners arriving on their territory.

My group obviously cannot follow this proposal.

Can you already give me an answer about the scheduled meetings with the Communities to draft this declaration of integration together and to make sure that there can be a reference to how the level of integration of foreigners can be assessed.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, the present bill is about the introduction of a general residence requirement. There is, on the one hand, the signature of a declaration in which the foreigner must express the will not only to understand our rights, duties and values but also to act according to them. On the other hand, he signs that he will deliver integration efforts. This must demonstrate integration willingness.

We cannot oppose this on our own, because we want newcomers to be able to function in our country and to incorporate their rights and also their duties into our society. I just don’t know exactly how that will look in practice.

I will give an example. A refugee comes from Syria. He speaks a certain language, but not Dutch. He will have to sign a newcomer declaration addressing the values in our country. Then one will have to explicit this very strongly, if one wants newcomers not to simply sign something.

It is also a signature with the knife on the throat. They flee from a certain country. They come here and they want you to sign an integration commitment.

I know you will shake no now, but you have not heard my next sentence yet. The message that is sent to the outside world is: everyone who arrives here will have to sign it.

What is the reality now? The obligation does not apply to asylum seekers. It does not apply to foreigners with refugee status. It does not apply to foreigners enjoying the status of subsidiary protection. It does not apply to stateless people. It does not apply to minors. It does not apply to students. It does not apply to EU citizens and family members.

Of course, you are now wondering who is left. Well, these are family reunificators and labour migrants. But labour migrants fall under the jurisdiction of the regions. They can only obtain a residence permit if they also have a labor contract here. In my opinion, this means that they understand something about our country, even if it is only for security reasons. So who remains there? A maximum of twenty thousand people per year will have to sign the newcomer declaration.

I have talked several times about integration. Mrs. Smeyers, you just said by chance that the declaration of newcomers already exists in so many countries, but it is called the declaration of participation. We can always discuss semantics, but I think that is an essential difference. There is a difference between a newcomer statement, with a very one-sided focus, and a participation statement, a term that includes reciprocity. For all clarity: I also want newcomers to integrate here. However, this is not one-way traffic, on different levels, as is the case here, and which is very disturbing to me.

The newcomer must really make an effort here. I hope the newcomers take responsibility. From my experience in this regard – that is the advantage of my old age – I can say that most newcomers are indeed willing to make an effort to integrate here, even if it is only to secure the future of their children. However, you pretend that this is only the responsibility of the newcomers. It is also the responsibility of our society and our institutions to help newcomers realize integration. Integration is also the responsibility of the states. However, I do not hear anything about this. I almost fall from my seat, because a Flemish-oriented party, which believes that Flanders always do better, here at the federal level completely ignores Flanders.

I have not checked it myself, but someone has just said that no meeting has yet taken place.

I believe that the counties should be brought together much more, also under the impulse of Mr. Francken, so that discussions such as these are no longer needed. It must be evidence that, following the influx of a large number of refugees who want to build a new life in our country, the states develop a well-thought policy on this subject, involving a large number of partners, including the employers, who should make efforts to integrate refugees, institutions such as VDAB and Actiris, who should actively cooperate, and the actors in the field of education and housing.

But what will we get now? I may go ahead to another discussion, but the new perspective of Secretary Francken’s policy note, which we have yet to discuss, is that the burden of proof of integration is placed entirely on the foreigner. The foreigner must prove that he is integrated here or that he has made the necessary efforts to integrate here. That is a certain vision, Mr. Secretary of State, and you will, of course, repeat that we are not here in the municipal council of Antwerp; I would also like to focus on Brussels, if that allows for a better discussion. But if you demand that from the newcomers, where will they go? They will move to the places where instruments are offered to integrate. They will have to prove that they have made efforts. If you live in a village where there are no language lessons, you can’t get into it.

What are you organizing? You are just making sure that newcomers move to the big cities. That may be your choice and you may have good reasons for it. I only tell you that your N-VA colleagues, the chairman of your party and the OCMW chairman in Antwerp at the head, do not want those foreigners to come to Antwerp, while there are the instruments to integrate.

Nothing is done, nothing, to the house mafia that is currently busy and earns a lot of money. Why Why ? Because your colleague, your N-VA colleague at the Flemish level, closes around housing pockets and ears. That is the problem.

Mrs. De Coninck, I will give a general answer after all the arguments. If you target me so personally, with the same discussion over and over again, then it is indeed the Antwerp City Council. That is your right, you say what you want. I can only say that what you say is reasonably drawn to the hair. You say that I am organizing the trip to the big cities. I don’t know why I would organize it. Language classes are organized in many cities and many municipalities. In my municipality, language lessons are also organized by the OCMW, now that we have an asylum center there. This is not a big city. With 14,000 inhabitants, it is not a big city. That is a first point.

I think what you say is not correct at all. The Flemish citizenship policy is organized in such a way that for language lessons there must be enough people in the classroom so that they are profitable. That this then happens in a larger structure such as a city, a city centre or a city centre is obvious. That there are language classes in Antwerp is also good, I think. I don’t think you have anything against it.

I also remember that there are no waiting lists for language lessons. I also find that very important. If you start with the Flemish policy – we can talk about it for hours, because you know that I also know it quite well – then I also find it important to tell the entire story, also with the asylum crisis. Ms. Demir is here and she is the chairman of the Agency for Integration and Citizenship in Flanders. Even during the asylum crisis, due to the good cooperation, there were no waiting lists on citizenship and on language lessons in Dutch. There was no waiting list, even though we welcomed 45,000 people here last year.

Second, if you say that as a Flemish-national secretary of state I completely ignore Flanders, then that is, of course, not correct. I would not understand why we should ignore Flanders. A cooperation agreement will be signed. I look forward to the approval of the texts here in Parliament. Bilateral contacts have already been established with the Cabinet of Mr. Vervoort. On 8 December there will be a bilateral meeting with the German-speaking Community and in mid-December there will be a meeting with all partners at the table to discuss the text for the first time. That is, of course, after it has been approved in Parliament. I suppose you do not blame me for that.

What you say is far from the truth. Let me make one comparison. If I am not mistaken, you abstained from the committee. I do not know what your vote will be in the plenary session. We will see that tomorrow. What is now introduced here, however, is something that has been applied for years, even when the SPA was in the government, within the framework of the regularization articles.

Anyone who submits an application for regularization 9bis on the basis of a long stay receives a temporary status of one year. He will also have to prove after one year – that’s been so for years and that’s nothing new at all, at the time of the PS it was so – that he has made integration efforts. He will have to prove this entirely himself by submitting language certificates, a NT2 certificate, a certificate of a citizenship course, a certificate of his participation in certain social activities, a certificate of following a training, as now stipulated in the present draft law. This has existed for years. That has been applied for years to thousands and thousands of people who are regulated annually in our country, by your governments idem dito. What we are now doing is extending that system to family reunificators. We put it explicitly in the law and we make it as much as possible. I see, frankly, the problem is not.

We have always worked with the sp.a in the time that we were together in the Flemish government – I was then Deputy Cabinet Chief Inburgering – on that emancipatory project. We have always worked on a story where citizenship is a story of rights and duties, where the citizen, the newcomer, must commit to become a member of the club and follow language lessons to be a member. Was it in the big city that he had to follow language lessons? This is not the case in Flemish-Brabant. The vast majority of language lessons in Vlaams-Brabant are not organized in a major city. Not everything is Antwerp, of course.

I do not agree with you at all. I do not see the problem directly. You abstained, probably because you are in the opposition. What we are presenting is an extension of something that has been applied for years, at the federal level with the regularizations and the conditions associated with it, and at the Flemish level, jointly carried out by the N-VA, Open Vld, CD&V and sp.a under Patrick Dewael as Prime Minister. Now it is put into practice by a link with the federal residence legislation, which for years is a question of the vast majority of the Flemish public opinion, of very many people in our country on both sides of the language border.

I do not see the problem. If you always start with Antwerp, then do it. You know that a lot of effort has been made. I can only repeat that even in Antwerp, where the influx is very high, there are no waiting lists for language lessons or citizenship courses, nor in Gent.

I think you should look at the whole picture, rather than just emphasizing the bad over and over again. What is presented here, in my opinion, has been asked in the Flemish Parliament for years by a lot of parties. I personally do not see what the problem could be.

Excuse me, Mrs. De Coninck, but when I hear the name Antwerp, I can not otherwise let my opinion be heard for a moment and send a number of updates. I heard this explanation yesterday, and especially the part about the domestic mafia. We are here with a paradox. By implementing in the past a policy that continuously ensures that vulnerable ghettos are created, at some point a problem arises in the housing market.

Today we take a clear position. We must ensure that solutions are provided so that opportunities are created for these people. The concentration should not be permanently fed. All specialists agree that our cities are currently doing more than they can actually do. We do it with all pleasure.

There is a historical group that we already serve today and which we try to take care of as best we can.

But today you are confusing two things. In relation to Gent, Antwerp does more of its best, with all the pleasure in the meantime. When it comes to the housing market, there must be solutions.

One can act incredibly hard and strictly, and make the houses free by throwing the inhabitants out, but then one also knows that the inhabitant who has and loves it is punished. Therefore, solutions must be found.

This means that we must strive for affordable living. These are initiatives that we are currently taking in the city to ensure that the opportunities really come and that people are not continuing to get into an environment where they do not reach. Thus, they fall back in a kind of home situation where they do not speak Dutch or come into contact with others, even though their children have gone to school and have learned Dutch themselves.

That is precisely the problem of the concentration that has formed in the cities and which we must step by step help counter. That is the policy we are conducting. If we do this properly together with different cities, we can get out and effectively give a clear chance. That is not an opportunity by choice of words or by saying that we are going to give opportunities; no, we just do it.

Mr. Speaker, if Gent is named after Antwerp, I also feel called to intervene and ⁇ , Mr. Van de Velde, if you argue that Gent would do less than Antwerp. We never said in Gent that we would not take care of the accommodation of the approved refugees. This was done in Antwerp. We have never said that it is enough and that we will not continue to work on integration. We never said that in Gent. You say that in Antwerp. I wonder where you get it when you say you do a lot more in Antwerp. Relatively, I am sure that there is much more happening in Gent than in Antwerp.

Mr. Secretary of State, I will address you first and then to Mr. Van de Velde.

You always tend to be extreme in discussions. I have never said – you can see it throughout my personal history – that there should be no integration, that there should be no trajectories, that there should be no reciprocity. On the contrary, as one of the first politicians in Flanders, I pledged for reciprocity, for rights and duties, for activation.

As for the newcomer statement, I’m not against it, but I think a “participation statement” might have been a much better word, as Ms. Smeyers has said, but that’s a separate discussion.

I think you are doing too little positive now, especially at the federal level and especially with the recent developments on migration. They are primarily sending negative signals. There are no waiting lists in Antwerp, which is good. That proves my statement that many people will come to Antwerp, because there are no waiting lists for citizenship courses and language lessons. In many other municipalities there is no offer. In addition, integration is not just language and citizenship. It is also primarily about housing. A roof above the head is very important. Second is food, and third is work. Then there is school and healthcare. This is an interplay of these conditions.

I argue that your policies will ensure that the big cities will be taxed heavier than the medium-sized and small municipalities.

Mr Van de Velde, I am very pleased with the good news that it is said in Antwerp that the migrants will be welcomed, welcomed and accommodated affordably in an ideal environment with all pleasure. That is incredibly good news. I suppose you are then on the same line to realize that.

My third point, DVZ will be both a judge and a party. Who will check whether people are well integrated? Who will control the integration efforts?

I still hear the former secretary of state say in a Seventh Day broadcast: “I will not behave like a Roman emperor.”

When I hear this story now, it actually comes down to the fact that you, Mr. Secretary of State, indeed become a Roman emperor who will decide on the future of people. We saw this very clearly in other documents last week.

Mrs. De Coninck, with all respect, but what you say now goes a long way. You say that by adopting this bill, I become a judge and a party, at least my administration, because those files do not come to my office.

Sometimes yes.

Very exceptionally, 99.9% of the files do not end up on my desk. It is my administration that deals with it.

You say “judge and party”, but why did I never hear you in the past, during the previous legislature, when you were a minister, about the same system that has been applied for the 9bis procedure for years and days, when proving the obligation of integration on the basis of a number of criteria that are tested by DVZ, which is a judge and party? After all, on the one hand, DVZ obliges the illegal persons who are regulated to demonstrate the conditions of integration, on the other hand, DVZ assesses and decides on whether or not to extend the stay. Why have I never heard of you?

We have said something about that.

Yet not . You complain that by what is introduced, we become judge and party. You do not think it can. But it has been so for years. I have never heard the sp.a. faction and its spokesmen in the past in the committee, where I was often present when I was in the opposition, complain about it and now you come here to me suddenly play the lesson and say that it is a shame that DVZ is a judge and party. I understand nothing anymore.

You are talking about discretionary power. Well, discretionary power has been embedded in our foreign law since 1980. If I am not mistaken, one of the authors was Mr. Louis Tobback. You have to ask him why he wrote that in the law. You just have to ask all the predecessors, including Mr Dewael, why the discretionary power is registered and embedded in the Foreigners Act. In Belgium, as well as in all European countries, there is always a discretionary power for some files, which belongs to the administration and the relevant secretary of state or minister. This is precisely because it is better not to include certain conditions fully defined in the Foreign Law.

That’s just because it’s better not to include certain conditions in the Foreigners Act, because they work migration-driven and cause abuse and fraud. There has always been a discretionary power in the past. This is always exercised in a ⁇ conscientious manner by my administration. For that, I put my hand in the fire, Mrs. De Coninck. If you have evidence of the contrary, put them on the table. You are always welcome in my office. Tell me if you were judged incorrectly. You have to prove that.

However, as long as I haven’t seen that and you’re talking about judge and party here, I think you’re going ⁇ short through the curve. It has always been so. I also believe that it is necessary to maintain a certain margin of discretionary power in the Foreign Law and our Foreign Policy. If not, I see the whole mistake.

Mr. Secretary of State, I tell you that this is not stated in this bill. When you say that we as socialists in the past have not said anything about regularisations, I remember very well the discussion of former mayor Janssens about the mayor’s opinion on the files. I am very sure that Mayor Janssens has reviewed all those files – and there were 9 000 for Antwerp – in order to reach his opinion. In the end, this has led to the necessary discussions. We have said something about this in the past.

The discourse is quite often that the Socialists have done nothing right. But if you do well, you always come up with the argument that the socialists have done the same before. Maybe next time you can say that we apparently didn’t do it so badly?

Let me come to the integration and the newcomer declaration. Integration is a competence of the states. I have already said that you have not yet made any agreements on this subject. When I hear the discourse, the values used are primarily based on enlightenment. Lighting is suddenly very important. Everyone knows that the three values, freedom, equality and brotherhood, form a balance and that it is precisely the search for a balance between these three values that is sought in the West.

I only have the impression that this has not yet been discussed with the provinces, that it is not known how to test it, and that the emphasis is primarily on freedom and eventually equality, while there is no mutual brotherhood.

In this regard, by the way, I do not know within which competence the federal level will take initiatives. If the N-VA wants to take the initiative at the federal policy level, as a member of the majority, it has that right, but you will understand that I find this very surprising.

Finally, we will again abstain in the vote. For all clarity, we are not against integration and do not want to give the signal that integration would not be important. We just want to emphasize that integration is a mutual relationship: we demand efforts from those who want to integrate here, but we must also commit ourselves, as a society, to create the instruments, the leverages, so that newcomers can integrate in a decent way. We must not limit ourselves to giving the concerned a paper to sign with the message that one must only draw his plan to land somewhere.

Mrs. De Coninck, I listened to your speech. State Secretary Theo Francken has already pointed out the Agency for Integration and Citizenship. I want to clarify a few things. You subsequently listed a number of important lighting values, including equality. That is our task, the task of policy makers. At the Flemish level, we do this every day again.

We have experienced a huge refugee crisis. Theo Francken has it as the best managed. In Flanders, integration and citizenship are mandatory, and that is good too. I see it as a form of emancipation. I think you and your party also consider emancipation important. I advise all colleagues here for the courses given in the integration lessons, too.

I have done this for a long time.

You may have already done that, but we are now dealing with a new type of newcomers arriving here. I now speak out of experience. These are newcomers who do not always understand certain principles, such as equality between men and women.

This is undoubtedly an important principle for all of us. MO teachers do their best every day in the courses to explain everything hand-and-tand to the refugees who have arrived since August last year. This principle is not always clear to the newcomers. I therefore find it no more than normal for the Federal Secretary of State to ask for such a declaration to be signed upon arrival. This is not a shame, Mrs. De Coninck. It is normal and will facilitate the work of the MO instructors at the Flemish level, because at this time newcomers are faced with this principle for the first time, when they enroll in the integration classes, where they are shown the documentary “Femme de la rue”; that is not evident to the newcomers.

So it is not a shame, but it is quite normal for newcomers to be asked to sign a newcomer declaration. We should have done this for a long time and I am grateful for that, Mr. Secretary of State.

Mr. De Coninck, we had a good discussion in the committee. You requested a second opinion from the State Council because you considered the adjustments insufficient. Then that advice came. We have made a long journey to get where we are now.

However, I found your argument not intellectually ⁇ honest. I would have said that it is always the fault of the socialists. I did not say that in the committee either. I often refer to the Flemish policy, when the socialists and the N-VA were together in the government. I refer to it often, because I have never had the courage to acknowledge it. Your President knows this very well.

You want to abstain from the vote, because you think something must come from two sides. Not only can obligations be imposed on newcomers, such as by asking them to sign the declaration and by the obligation of integration, with even the possible threat of withdrawal of the right of residence. It is not just something. The fine for non-compliance with the citizenship course ranges from 50 to 5 000 euros. You have to pay that penalty. If you do not attend the class, you will be fined 150 euros first, then 300 euros. However, it works a little more motivating if one knows that the right of residence can be revoked. This is a much heavier sanction.

You say that this is actually not fair, because I ask too much of those newcomers and there too little opposition. There must be a balance between, on the one hand, asking and obliging things and, on the other hand, giving rights and helping people to emancipate. I can’t follow you anymore, Mrs. De Coninck. The Flemish government’s budget for 2016 on citizenship and integration has never been so high. Never before has the Flemish taxpayer paid more for citizenship and integration courses, for language lessons in Dutch as a second language, for investment in housing in order to address the asylum crisis in an optimal way.

You say you will abstain because the required efforts are there, but we give too little. That is simply not true. More than 40 million euros were allocated for integration and citizenship. Just ask it. Enormous efforts have been made, both by the Flemish government and by the Flemish municipalities and city governments, to lead integration into good courses and to properly cope with the asylum crisis. Thus, what you provide as motivation for your abstinence is manifestly incorrect.

You can do quite dramatically.

I am pleased with what Mrs. Demir has discovered. I had discovered it a long time ago. As OCMW chairman, we had clients with whom we concluded integration contracts: we would integrate them into the labour market. You no longer have to explain this to me.

Your explanation, however, proves that many people do not know many things because they have not grown up in our society and that they do not understand at all what they sign when they have to sign something. You can submit them for signature at any time. If that means that they can stay here, then they will sign. I try to explain that.

Yes, Mr. Secretary of State, that is a very important paper under which they must put their signature. If they don’t, they can’t stay here. Are you happy now? You have invented something big here.

There is another difference, Mrs. Demir, between explaining something – that can be in words or with a drawing – and inside understanding what that explanation means regarding the equality of man and woman, the recognition of homosexuality, but also about discrimination. We must also ensure that we tell those people that there should be no discrimination. I think we will also have to make it clear to many people in Belgium that there should be no discrimination, even in terms of jobs. I know that some people think that this is all relative, but so there are many things relative. So more broad.

around the budget. One cannot suspect the Itinera study circle of being a superleft organization, or they should have changed direction. I have heard them say that, with what we are now experiencing, we will have to squeeze not one, but at least two teeth to integrate the group of people coming from abroad here.

For all clarity, Mr. Secretary of State, your super-important document, ⁇ not a vodje paper, should be signed only by the family reunificators and not by that other large group, for which it should actually be much more important. thank you .

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mr. Secretary of State, I have already heard this afternoon congratulations from Mrs. Smeyers to you, I have heard presentations from Mrs. Demir, full of praise, and from the MR, also full of praise. You came to the press with your newcomer statement that would be a milestone in our policy.

Can I ask you what we will approve here tomorrow? What will happen after the vote tomorrow? Will we then have the newcomer declaration, which will require all newcomers to sign a commitment to integration?

The answer to this question is no. Mrs. Smeyers, Mrs. Demir and interested parties, the newcomer declaration does not exist and will not exist after the vote tomorrow, for the simple reason that it has been removed because there has not yet been any consultation with the Communities and the Regions on what values and norms newcomers should actually respect.

Should all newcomers sign such a declaration? Of course not. It is a group. Asylum seekers are not required to sign the newcomer declaration, nor two-thirds of family reunificators. This is stated in the report of your own words, Mr. Secretary of State; I have this report.

We are talking about an empty box. Actually, I feel sorry for that. I find it interesting to transmit our standards and values to the people who live, work and live in our country. In the House, work is underway to amend the preamble of the Constitution. I think this is a useful initiative. Our group leader, Kristof Calvo, has launched the idea of a citizenship declaration and also that is useful in my opinion. Not everything is in the law, so it is useful to do for a piece of education about the norms and values that bind our society. This must apply to all residents, not only to the newcomers, nor to a fraction of the newcomers, which the bill actually deals with.

Mr. Secretary of State, in summary, first, your newcomer declaration does not exist. Second, if it had already existed, it would be about just 25 000 people.

Mr. Secretary of State, do you want to replicate?

Mr. De Vriendt, I do not know if you listened properly at the committee meeting.

You say that the newcomer declaration does not yet exist and that is correct. A legal framework is now being created. Then, a cooperation agreement on the text is needed. Consultation on that cooperation agreement is scheduled for mid-December and we will do everything we can to reach a cooperation agreement. To this end, I rely on the goodwill of all parties around the table. It also concerns parties that are in the opposition here, but at other levels of government in the majority. We will come to a text and the newcomer declaration comes into effect as soon as the text is poured into a cooperation agreement. That will take some time, but I am confident that we will get out of it and we will be able to present a text. At the committee meeting, the members of the PS abstained from voting. The greatest criticism or the greatest question was to consult, to come together. That discussion is planned.

There are still some legal questions there, but that consultation will come and we will also prepare that text. You say it is an empty box. That is not correct. The text will come out and you can surely count on me within a year.

Second, if you say it’s an empty box because it’s about no one, then that’s not true either. It is about family reunificators and about everyone who requests a regularization. Family reunification is the largest gateway to Belgium. still still . The vast majority of people who arrive in Belgium still come through family reunification.

You say it’s about 20,000 people. Approximately half of them will have to sign. If you say there should be more, for me, everyone should have signed it. If you really think that I am very pleased to exempt people from that signature, then you do not know me well yet.

I wanted to force everyone to sign. Only there are rules of international law, which makes the State Council say that such a thing cannot be imposed on asylum seekers. Mr. De Vriendt, if you want to teach me a wise lesson here by saying that Mr. Calvo has launched a proposal, imposing it on everyone, then I tell you: if I cannot impose it on asylum seekers, then Mr. Calvo and De Vriendt and the people of Green cannot impose it on asylum seekers either.

Then you will not be able to do so, because the State Council will give the same advice, that it cannot be imposed on Europeans, asylum seekers and recognised refugees. It will be exactly the same. It will not be able to be imposed on people from Turkey under the Association Agreement between the European Union and Turkey.

Of course I would rather not have exempted them, I would rather have included everyone in it, but all those legal arguments for having to exempt those people apply equally to your proposal and to all the other proposals made here.

It cannot be imposed. This is not possible under international law. So if you make a proposal, you should not come to me here to play the lesson and say that it is an empty box.

It is not an empty box. The majority of people who arrive in Belgium will still have to sign it and the others will definitely get it by registered shipment. If you say that in your proposal it is everyone, then that is not true. You make people wise.

Mr. Secretary of State, the first point I would like to make is a principled agreement with the fact that we should do pedagogics about our standards and values.

What I accuse is that you have made your newcomer statement in the media a big show, while it is an empty box, because you have nothing in your hands today. You depend on the regions to determine what those standards and values are.

It is an empty box. You didn’t want to make an empty box, that’s true. If we look at the preliminary draft law, you would like to decide with the federal government on what standards and values it should actually be. You have asked the Parliament to give you a mandate, and then by royal decree to become federal. The State Council has flown you back and given a page-long opinion that has been devastating for this bill. You could not help but crawl back, which means that you said in the committee – which actually confirms that it is an empty box and that you have nothing in your hands – that we indeed still need to consult with the regions in order to come to the set of norms and values.

Your bill, Mr Francken, was submitted on 16 June 2016. In the committee you said, “We will schedule the consultation committee on 6 July.” We are five months away and you still have nothing, absolutely nothing, in your hands. I only say this to you, Mr. Francken, because you have undermined your effort to start talking about our standards and values in consultation with newcomers – in our case in consultation with everyone. You made a piece of it. This bill is an empty box, and I seriously wonder how it is possible for the other majority parties to participate in such a show policy. I go on, because there is a second hole. If you want to come in, no problem.

Mr. De Vriendt, you can say ten times that it is an empty box, which is apparently well-rounded in your speech, but..

Speak it against. Speak against it. Give them arguments.

I’m just saying it’s not an empty box. You shouldn’t say that I realize it’s an empty box...

No, you just said that you are still dependent on the implementation by the regions. So you still have no approval of the regions, so it is an empty box.

If I can, Mr. President?

Mr Francken has the word.

I agree with you when you say that the State Council had comments on the newcomer declaration. Indeed, the State Council has said that it is not up to the federal government, or rather to the federal legislature, to define the framework for the text to be signed. I agree with that. I had expected that. So I was not surprised when the State Council opinion came in. We expected it, but we tried. The State Council made it clear that this could not be done because it is a competence that must be regulated in a cooperation agreement with the provinces.

What did we then do? We have made sure that we have kept this apart and we have split the bill into two pieces. On the one hand, there is the story of the newcomer declaration, for which a cooperation agreement should be drawn up in the coming months. We are fully engaged in this. I admit that this was not scheduled in July. There are a number of practical, but also political reasons. I will do my best in the coming months to reach this agreement. There have already been several bilateral contacts. I can repeat this ten times. We will ensure that an agreement is also reached with the German-speaking Community, and with the gentlemen Vervoort and Magnette. You can ask me a question about this in a year, then we will make an evaluation and then you will see that this is not an empty box at all.

Secondly, and much more importantly, the second loop contains the link between the right of residence and the integration obligation. The second box is not an empty box. It is about a lot of people. It is also a huge step forward. The law states that this applies on the day of publication in the Belgian Staatsblad. So this is something for the coming weeks or months. From then on, that article will also be applied to evaluate the stay on the basis of the integration obligation. If you make an evaluation about this in a year, I will be happy to come to the Chamber to put the data on the table. You will notice that it is not an empty box at all. You even say now that I would have said that this is an empty box, quod non. You make a piece of it.

You are already moving to the second leak of the bill, because of course you realize that I have a point regarding the newcomer declaration and the first leak of your bill. In your place, I might try to do that.

I would like to close to the first section of your bill, the newcomer declaration. The five months following the submission of the bill were not only not enough to reach a consensus with the regions, it has not even been discussed yet. So there is no newcomer statement at all after the adoption of this bill tomorrow.

Moreover, not everyone needs to sign. More newcomers will not have to sign the newcomer declaration. Asylum-seekers – 2015 and 2016 were record years, so this is about much more than 25 000 people; family members of recognised refugees; EU citizens and their families and parents of unaccompanied minor foreigners. Those who will have to sign are newcomers from the 9bis or 9ter procedure and family reunificators from outside the European Union. That is only a third of the total number of family reunificators.

All newcomers who do not have to sign will receive a copy of the newcomer declaration for information.

Mr. Secretary of State, the newcomer declaration makes no difference in any way. I find it disturbing that you have sold such a show and that you have so undermined the very useful discussion about our standards and values. It was pure symbolic politics.

I come to the second part of your bill, the right of residence. This is actually more substantial. The right of residence of the same group of newcomers may be terminated by the Secretary of State if the newcomers have demonstrated insufficient efforts to integrate. On page 40 of the bundle there is more explanation on this.

We need to look at how you will check whether the integration of the foreigner has been successful or not. Integration may be assessed on the basis of the following criteria: having completed a citizenship course; having or not having a job; a diploma, certificate or proof of enrollment in an educational institution; having completed a vocational training acknowledged by the competent authority; knowledge of the language of the place of enrollment; any criminal history and whether or not active participation in the life of the association.

Based on one or more of these criteria, you, as Secretary of State, may decide to withdraw the right of residence. It is the same category of foreigners, namely the 20 000 to 25 000 newcomers concerned by your newcomer declaration. It is not about all the others. Those others are not at risk of losing their right of residence.

Mr. Secretary of State, you impose a ⁇ severe sanction, based on an unclear set of criteria. Why is it not enough for you to apply the sanctions that already exist in the regions? Regions can now impose sanctions on foreigners who do not integrate adequately. These sanctions exist, but the Flemish government rarely imposes those existing sanctions. Have you been in contact with your Flemish colleagues? There are already sanctions for newcomers who do not integrate adequately. I will go over it with you.

In Flanders there has been a citizenship decree since 2004. Mieke Vogels was at the time the pioneer of compulsory citizenship in Flanders. That decree was amended in 2013. Currently, in Flanders, financial fines of 5 000 euros are possible, which is no less. Sanctions may also be imposed in the areas of living wages, unemployment benefits and social housing. However, it seems that Flanders rarely imposes such sanctions.

I would say: shoemaker, stay with your reading. Citizenship is a regional competence. Your party has been in the Flemish government for more than ten years. If there is a problem in terms of integration, then that is also the responsibility of your party. You must ensure that legal sanctions are also applied. If there is a manifest unwillingness to integrate, sanctions are possible. However, you do here more than a small creature on top. That is disproportionate. You want to remove the right of residence of the persons concerned. That goes too far for us.

Sanctions can also be imposed in other regions. There are also sanctions in Wallonia, including financial. There is an order in Brussels. It will be approved soon. The German-speaking community is for the time being missing. No integration process has yet been developed. There are sanctions in the regions. Your main argument to introduce sanction options here for foreigners who do not have the will to integrate, therefore, fails. These sanctions already exist, but they are rarely applied.

Now that we are talking about citizenship, I want to ask you a question, Mr. Secretary of State. What if the regions do not conduct a good citizenship policy? Will you or the Foreign Affairs Service still sanction the individual foreigner because he shows insufficient willingness to integrate, when in the region insufficient resources are made available, insufficient language courses, insufficient housing policy? What will you do then? This is not obvious.

I would like to ask you what your ambition is with the bill. If it is your ambition to get as many of the 25 000 newcomers out of our country as possible, then you will be able to do so.

I wonder if the colleagues of the other majority parties are actually aware of this. When it comes to encouraging newcomers to integration, those opportunities already exist at the regional level. There are even sanctions. Not only is housing policy, integration and language regional competences for Flanders, there are even sanctions already. Why do you need this bill, my colleagues?

Mr. De Vriendt, it was not my intention to interrupt you, but I would like to point out the irony of your argument. You subsequently listed the number of newcomers to whom the draft law does not apply, while in the committee you have so hammered on it – you have not submitted the amendment, but if I am not mistaken, you have supported it – that we should explicitly include the exhaustive list of newcomers to whom the newcomer declaration would not apply, although it is already explicitly stated in the general explanation.

It is also not illogical that it does not apply to certain newcomers. The exemption arises from a number of rules of international law to which we are bound, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the Geneva Convention.

The application group therefore, as you rightly note, consists of a good twenty-five thousand newcomers per year. That is not mine. In the past, with the old law on family reunification, there were many more newcomers. Since the congestion it is about twenty thousand people, with the labour migrants in addition a good twenty-five thousand. Now you ask the Secretary of State if it is intended to keep them out as much as possible, to sanction them as much as possible, because we would hope – dare you suggest – that they would not pass the citizenship test. I think it is perverse that you dare to suggest that. I find that, in fact, right now, they are still kept far too far out of society, by the policies that have been carried out in the past years and by not sufficiently encouraging newcomers to integrate, despite all the efforts that the government, with Flanders as the leader, has made in terms of, for example, language lessons. Ms. Demir has already said that there are no waiting lists. Despite all the efforts made by the government, we must note that newcomers are still too often kept out of society.

This is the so-called tolerant, warm and social policy that has been carried out in recent years. I dare doubt whether the integration, the inclusion, has succeeded effectively. We all need to dare to see that together – you are conducting constructive opposition and for that I appreciate you – we must dare to see it. Now we are gradually taking steps toward a more successful integration. That will take time. What comes ahead is the first step. I hope you want to take this step with us.

Mrs. Smeyers, I do not understand your explanation. The draft law does not strengthen the integration policy. The only thing it imposes is a sanction if the limited group of newcomers in the bill does not want to integrate. The draft law gives full power to the Secretary of State to judge. This does not strengthen the integration policy.

If you want to strengthen the integration policy, I would recommend that you contact the N-VA ministers in the Flemish government, where the N-VA has been in power for more than ten years and thus had all the leverage in hand to draw out a strong integration policy, but it simply did not. In order to strengthen the integration policy, you must be in Flanders and not here, at the federal level. You just want to impose a heavy, ruthless sanction, while in Flanders, by the way, sanctions already exist. You want to put the full authority over that sanctions regime in the hands of the Secretary of State. This is the subject of this bill.

The bill contains another element. The newcomer declaration, which is an empty box, because its content depends on the regions, which must determine the standards and values in question, refers only to a minority of the newcomers who arrive annually in our country, namely twenty- to twenty-five thousand.

Colleagues, the bill is partly lost time and partly dangerous, because a very heavy sanctions regime is installed, which is completely unnecessary and is entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State. In the committee we abstained, but in the plenary vote we will vote against.

Mr. Secretary of State, we have had many talks with experts and we wanted to give you the advantage of the doubt. This advantage no longer applies. It is not a good bill and we do not understand that your majority colleagues will support it. In our opinion, only a no vote is in place, unless, of course, the spirits here in the hemisphere would mature and you would decide to take that bill out of the agenda.

I find your statement very paradoxical. You say, on the one hand, that the design is an empty box, which hits nothing or no one. On the other hand, you find the design dangerous. If it is an empty box, how can it be dangerous? I don’t understand that, you have to explain it to me. How can something be dangerous if it is an empty box? An empty box is by definition harmless.

If it hits nothing or no one, how can it be dangerous?

I will explain it to you later.

Furthermore, Mr. De Vriendt, you stand out in a ⁇ hypocritical attitude. In the committee you demanded that the recognized refugees be explicitly exempted. Here you say that there are too many exemptions, that it hits nothing or no one, and that it is an empty box.

Green calls for more exemptions, please. Here in the plenary session you say that too many newcomers are exempt from the obligation and that the text is an empty box. Please tell me, please! I do not know what I hear.

You ask: what if there is no or insufficient citizenship supply? I have said this in the committee and I would like to repeat this here. If a newcomer needs to demonstrate his integration efforts after a year and can prove that, for example, there was an insufficient supply of language classes in Dutch, French or German, depending on where he has established himself, this will be taken into account. That element will play. One cannot blame the stranger for wanting to register, but he could not follow any language because there was no place. But, again, there is no waiting list at the moment.

Suppose there are waiting lists again. Then this will be taken into account in the evaluation and then the right of residence of the person concerned will be extended. It is obvious that one cannot blame the individual foreigner if he wants to enroll, but he cannot follow the lesson because the government is failing.

The nuance you make verbally here that there should be a sufficient supply of citizenship courses and language courses and that you will not sanction in the event, is not in your bill. Your bill states that you will decide on the abolition of the right of residence based on a number of criteria and therefore the expulsion of newcomers, which is not obvious. What you say here is not in your design. It is not just about language courses, Mr. Secretary of State. It also concerns the housing policy, in which Flanders lack, and the citizenship policy in general, in which Flanders total lack.

It is also about this. That one small nuance, which you now make verbal here, is not in your bill.

I would like to explain it again, because you obviously did not listen properly. Your newcomer declaration is an empty box, but the second part of your bill, the sanction regime you want to impose, in particular the withdrawal of the right of residence when the limited group of foreigners does not adequately integrate, which is dangerous.

You submit to this House a draft law that consists of two parts. The first part is an empty box, in the media blown up to and with, but actually it contains little. That is a pity, because we could still have a useful debate about norms and values.

The second part of the bill you submit to the House is dangerous. It is a sanction regime for a small group of newcomers, which involves the abolition of the right of residence, while at the Flemish level there already exists a sanction regime, which the Flemish government, of which your party has been a part for ten years, does not apply in practice. What are we voting for, colleagues?

I would like to ask the majority members who are still present here to ask the Secretary of State to take the bill out of the agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I will talk about my bank, because I do not have much to add to Mr. De Vriendt’s remarks.

First of all, I will look at the ideal world. We make politics, we propose a project and meaning. The ideal world with this project would have been that you had drafted, with your colleagues of the federal entities, a cooperation agreement in which the French, Flemish and German-speaking federal entities would have agreed on a minimum basis of values, to ensure that, parallel to the exercise of the competence Integration of federal entities, comes, eventually, for the heaviest cases, where there is manifestly extreme non-integration, a federal sanction of exclusion from the territory.

You would have negotiated for long months with your French, Flemish and German-speaking colleagues and you would have reached this foundation of common values. You would have signed this cooperation agreement and then you would have proposed here, on our banks, a bill that took back the basis of values on which the federated entities, which are mainly competent in matters of integration, agreed. And there would be a system of coordinated values and sanctions between the federated entities, of which Mr. De Vriendt spoke, and the federal power. The federal power would offer, in the range of sanctions, the heaviest punishment for the most extreme and the most severe cases of non-integration.

This is the ideal world. It is hard to see that you did not work by following this method. You work on two points. The first is a statement. First arrivals sign a declaration of integration, under which they indicate that they understand the core values and standards and that they will act in accordance with them.

Due to the remarks of the State Council, you have had to remove it from your bill, as it will have to be the subject of consultations with the federal entities. These, as you said, will start in December. But, on March 31, 2016, on Twitter, you widely share a draft statement that is not the one that will be finalised and that is not from the consultation with the federal entities. Your goal is not efficiency, but symbolism. You mean that you’re doing something about integration when it’s not within your competence, and you’re proposing on Twitter, on March 31, a project list of values to respect.

These values are stigmatizing for first arrivals. In fact, they are made to pass as being a priori machist if they are men, or more or less linked to terrorism as foreigners.

As Mr. Kir said, this is contrary to the passage of your bill which indicates that this statement is primarily a message of welcome to foreigners. Your draft charter as edited on Twitter on March 31 proves the opposite: it is not a message of welcome, but a message of stigma.

Beyond the integration declaration, different criteria are defined in section 3 of your bill. They aim to provide the capacity of the Foreign Office to be able to verify the efforts provided by the foreigner in terms of integration. As we said in the committee, the Office’s discretionary margins are ⁇ large. For example, we know that today, the job market is very tense for all citizens and, in particular, for people of foreign origin - who are themselves victims of discrimination. Will this body take this into account when determining whether the foreigner has made sufficient efforts in terms of integration?

Then, your project, De Vriendt noted, is dangerous, not because it would be an empty box, but precisely because it grants the Office that power to check whether a foreigner is integrated according to criteria that are fixed, I recall, by Article 3. These integration measures may be interpreted restrictively. They are specified. As you have repeated recently, the majority of the public to which this law will apply is made up of persons benefiting from family reunification. I would like to point out that the European Directive 2003/86 addresses this issue. In this regard, a case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union states that Article 7 of that directive strictly limits the discretion of governments in applying the right of access to the territory. However, through the aforementioned article, you add conditions of residence such as having to work, to master the language or to participate in associative life. In my opinion, your bill violates European law and will likely give rise to an appeal before the Constitutional Court, beyond the problems of conflict of competence, in this case the non-compliance with European law.

I said it, and all colleagues have repeated it, this will apply to a number of people, essentially those who benefit from family reunification, among them, a huge majority of women. I would have liked to know if, you, who wrote this bill, and your services have conducted a study on the impact that this can have on women. It is often single men who move, come to us and then bring their family, especially their wife or spouse. How will these restrictive measures on the right of residence impact women? Have you measured the percentage of women that this may affect beyond the absolute number?

To conclude my speech, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote a white paper that was edited by a researcher from the Free University of Brussels today in La Libre Belgique: "In order for integration to occur, two parts are needed: it is impossible to enter a room with closed doors. The basic principles of migrants’ integration policy in the European Union do not say anything else: integration is a dynamic, two-way process of mutual compromise between all immigrants and residents of the Member States. Integration only with threats and sanctions is a scam.”

Your bill, Mr. Secretary of State, is not aimed at integration. It is a strict sanctions plan. We will vote against this bill.

Mr. Secretary of State, I heard today that this bill is a milestone in foreign policy, that this bill also means a reversal in foreign policy because of the simple fact that for the first time indeed a declaration with a number of conditions is linked to the residence permit. This is new, I cannot deny it. It was in your program and you realized it.

We can discuss the points and the commas. Maybe let’s do it first. It has been said here several times, only a limited proportion of newcomers will sign them. Not Turkish citizens, not asylum seekers, not family reunificators. There are discussions about sanctions. Is it sufficient or not? The sanction is rather vague and you seem to be given a great authority to issue the sanction or not. The fact that compliance as such is not really linked to very very clear conditions may also lead to a faulty sanction, which we will have to wait for.

There is also the discussion about the text of the newcomer declaration. If there will be one technical problem in the coming months, ⁇ even in the coming years, then that is, of course, finding a consensus. You strive – what I understand, I would do – for a declaration of newcomers that is not asymmetrical, which will be equal in the various Communities. If that is not the case, then that newcomer declaration is, of course, written to death in advance. After all, at the slightest dispute, the newcomer will eventually be granted justice before the court if he would ever be rejected on the basis of that newcomer declaration, by you or your administration, because of the simple fact that there are two separate declarations in the same country, which will automatically lead to a suspension of your possible non-delivery of the residence permit on the basis of non-compliance with the newcomer declaration.

I have not accused you in the committee – let us be gentle today – but I have pointed out that it may be your intention to make this whole story, which is of course politically symbolic, ⁇ for your party, leads to the fact that there are community differences between the Communities, which, unfortunately, may not make it possible to produce a unisonly equal-minded declaration of newcomers, with the result that the whole story dies a silent death. I will not conduct any intention processes on this, and we will see what will come out of it.

Apart from the debate about the sanctioning, apart from the story about the text of the newcomer declaration, apart from the debates that can be held about who signs it, there is still at least one topic that I would like to briefly touch as an introduction. That is the fact that the whole story, of course, has no retroactive force. This is only about newcomers. I know, we have roughly 120 000 foreigners entering our country every year, about half of whom are non-EU foreigners. I think less than half of them will eventually have to sign that newcomer declaration. But what about all those who are already here? There are a lot of problem cases. Recent facts of radicalization and the like have proved this too clearly.

But, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, what is much more essential to me than this detailed criticism to which we have been limited at this time is the essential debate: do we need a declaration of newcomers? That is the essence of the debate. My answer is: No, we do not need it. We don’t need a newcomer statement, we don’t need newcomers anymore. That should be the essential starting point. We must go for an immigration stop. We need to push this forward instead of a newcomer statement. A declaration of a newcomer means that one submits to the circumstances, it means that one submits to the immigration invasion, it means that one submits to the permanent influx of foreigners into our country.

I say, full is full. I say: enough is enough. I say that the borders must be closed and that we must ensure that there are no new foreigners, no newcomers coming to our country.

This should be the starting point of our immigration policy. Now we say that we will have everyone who comes, at least a limited part of it, to sign a declaration.

I have heard Mrs. De Coninck and I can give her right for once, une fois n’est pas coutume. I fear that everyone will sign that declaration, as long as they already know what they are signing, even if it is just because they want to stay here, because they intend to be present in our country anyway for as long as possible. Of course, there is the shoe.

Therefore, I think that we should stick to another string, especially the string of the immigration barrier and not the string of the attempt to integrate an increasing number of foreigners. After all, this is the problem why they do not integrate: because there are simply too many and because there are more and more.

Why should one still integrate in neighborhoods where now more than 60 to 70 percent of Muslims and non-European foreigners are present? It is our indigenous population that integrates into the foreign community. It is the Flamings, the Whales and the Brussels who integrate into the Islamic communities rather than vice versa.

Per ⁇ , instead of a newcomer declaration, we should make a “oldcomer declaration” not only for the immigrants residing here but also for the scarce remaining indigenous people in the neighborhoods concerned to protect their rights in these perverted and islamized, multiculturalized neighborhoods.

Finally, one last comment, Mr. Secretary of State. In your bill, in the conditions and in the integration criteria you are pushing forward, I miss one word, the problem of a lot of misery in the field of migration, multiculturalism and immigration problem, a five-letter word: Islam. Why is the fundamental problem not mentioned by name in this newcomer statement? Do you not dare? Do you not like it? Or can you not? I do not believe the latter. You can be sure. You do not like it. You want it, but you don’t like it from your coalition partners, while you know very well that the shoe is wringing there.

As long as we do not dare to talk about this problem, about Islam as such, in the Newcomer Declaration and do not push this forward as one of the integration criteria, it will never succeed. Then I fear that this newcomer statement will prove to be an empty box.

What should happen when it comes to Islam? That is simple. We must boldly write down in that newcomer statement that as a Muslim one must agree to remove all passages in the Qur’an that oppose the separation of church and state, all passages in the Qur’an that compromise or question the equality of male and female, all passages in the Qur’an that contain hostility towards unbelievers, dissenters, dissenters and women. We must write in the newcomer declaration and in the conditions of integration that those who want a residence permit here must reject the Sharia. We must include in the integration criteria that all passages in the Quran that violate freedom of expression, freedom of religion and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be rejected. In fact, we must tear half of the Qur’an out of that cursed book. If we do not do so, if we do not compel the Muslims who come here in tight drums to do so, then this newcomer declaration is a measure for nothing.

I fully agree with my good colleague and friend from the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, who rightly states that the whole problem of integration and multiculturalism is ultimately bound in the problem of Islam. If we do not address, curtail and restrict Islam, we will never be able to incorporate, not integrate, but assimilate in our European society the innumerable newcomers that are already there and who are still joining them.

Islam and Europe will not and will never be able to come together, will not and will never be compatible, because Islam and Europe are opposed to each other, because they have always been, and because, despite the naive who envy and oppose it, they will always remain in the future.

Therefore, Mr. Secretary of State, I would like to urge you once again not to wipe this problem under the mat and not to pretend that there is no dirt in the air. Don’t do, almost triumphantly, as if it’s all inside now, as if that newcomer statement will make the big difference for the future. On the contrary.

I want, despite my sharp criticism and my politically incorrect analysis, to be gentle. I announce to you that we will abstain, because every small step forward and every small struggle of the Alien Law is better than no struggle, better than stopping or easing, as we have unfortunately experienced too often in the past.

Our criticism is too fundamental to endorse this. It goes beyond the detailed comments I have heard here. The main note is that the debate about Islam is not being held, that the conditions for integration are not linked to the big problem by excellence, in particular the totalitarian, intolerant and sectarian Islam.

To this I add that the option you take is not ours. Your point of view is not ours. We should not go for more immigration and for more newcomers, but for less, less and less: fewer immigrants, fewer newcomers and fewer immigrants. This can only be achieved through an immigration stop. Then we will no longer need a newcomer declaration because we will also no longer have newcomers. I thank you for your attention.

I no longer registered any speakers. The word is to the Government, Mr. Secretary of State.

I have already given many answers. Mr. Kir, I understand that your group’s abstinence is justified by the fact that it is necessary to have a negotiation with the federal entities. We have already conducted consultations and we will have them again in the coming weeks after the vote that will take place tomorrow in the plenary session.

We have the will to make this project a success and to have a concrete result for the integration of the first arrivals. Could your group contribute at the wallon level and at the community level? Absolutely of course! And I am sure that we will lead to a text that will suit all groups. We must respect the way the institutions work in Belgium and the state reforms, which are not always very clear, but it is so. It is certain that the Communities are competent in this area of integration.

Mrs. De Coninck, I think I have responded to a lot of comments. Also for Green, Mr. De Vriendt, I think I also answered the questions.

Mr. Hellings, what percentage are women? I do not have the numbers. My employees are asking for it at the Office, but I do not have them yet. I’m almost sure that most represent men but we’ll check. I will give you the answer before the vote in the plenary session tomorrow evening.

Secondly, you say that this is discrimination or stigma and that NGOs will surely bring an appeal. I do not think I have submitted a bill that the NGOs have not appealed against. I am very accustomed to it. For all my proposals, all my bills, groups systematically bring appeals, either to the Council of State, to the Constitutional Court, or after Europe. This is the democratic state, the rule of law; therefore, no worries!

I only find, Mr. Hellings, that it is not obvious for the organizations, which are always the first to introduce appeals..., that since my mandate, even before the family reunification of 2011, and for all the laws that followed, never, never...

There has never been a suspension or destruction of the essence of our bills or bills. You say that there will surely be an appeal against: that the NGOs then do their thing. That is their right. If they want to exhaust their democratic right, they must first do so. However, I can conclude that until today, no bill or bill we have submitted here has been suspended or destroyed by the Constitutional Court. None of none. I am very proud of this, so I will repeat it three times. Every proposal we have submitted here in this House of Representatives has passed the legal test. Every proposal, every proposal.

Who am I to blame NGOs? If they want to appeal, they will do so. I have not yet submitted a draft law against which they have not appealed. So I would be surprised if they would not appeal against this, since they always do.

This is a big step forward. It is also a principled step. Of course, they will appeal against this. Let’s go, just do it. I wish them a lot of success. We will defend ourselves very well. We’ve been doing that well in the last few weeks, I think. We have had such a case recently.

Mr. Dewinter, you are dancing on two legs. You say that we don’t really need all of this because we need an immigration stop, but in addition you say that that newcomer statement is not good, that we need to adjust it, that there is nothing possible about Islam and so on. I also read that your party chairman, your good friend Tom Van Greken, has launched that there should be an immigration stop. A immigration stop. I thought that European far-right nowadays focused primarily on Islam, that it was a little down from it to target all migrants. Now they return to the principle of turning everything into one soup, all migrants. I personally find this a bit strange. I must say that I cannot imagine anything about it. No immigrants are allowed. I assume it is a non-European immigration barrier. I assume that it is not about French or Dutch, I assume that it is a non-European stop. I also assume that it is an immigration stop that focuses on certain countries. After all, I do not see what would be wrong with an American business leader who comes to work in the port of Antwerp in the context of labour migration. I suppose you are not talking about that. A total immigration halt for ten years is simply absurd. If you say that there should be an asylum stop or a family reunification stop, something you launched during our debate at a debate club in Antwerp, then that is legal nonsense.

You cannot get down there. If one wants it, then one does not get it completely around. We are bound by a number of European, Belgian and international legal rules, including the right to a family life. That is good too. There are, of course, certain rights for people who are on the flight, and that is good too. An immigration stop, that’s talk, that’s the people just making something wise. This is completely impossible in practice. But well, that will probably sound good with some part of the rear run, in order to further jute them.

If you say that there needs to be a solution to the unbroken asylum chaos of the last eighteen months, then I agree with you. You talk about it, I do something about it. I am working with it day and night. We have concluded a EU-Turkey chain agreement to reduce the number of deaths in the Aegean Sea to almost zero. The chaotic influx through the Balkan route, through Austria and further into Western Europe has been stopped. We are working hard on a solution for the Libyan route. This is now the biggest influx. Every day people die. More than 11,000 people have drowned. This is a shame for Europe. For this, a solution needs to be found urgently. That solution, if it depends on me, lies in North Africa. A better reception in the region, more comfort in the refugee camps there, resettlement eventually, certain quotas, not only for the strongest who now make the boat crossing, also select on the weakest, the most vulnerable: that is what needs to be done.

If you mean that with an immigration stop, because everything is thrown on one piece and that is of course not desirable, and I even think that you do not agree about it, but it may sound good... So if it is about an asylum chaosstop, a stop to the asylum chaos of the last one and a half year: we are working hard on that. I will give you a page that will also come. A structural solution to the influx through Libya will be reached in the coming weeks. I also note that Mrs Merkel’s CDU will vote on the Australian approach at her congress this weekend. Alleszins from my party and from the government – you know – has been said very clearly that we must stop the asylum chaos. Resettlement, accommodation in the region, no more drowning deaths in the Mediterranean. This must now be prioritized. If you mean that, I can tell you: you talk about it, we work on it. That is the difference between you and me.

You say that there really does not have to be a newcomer statement, but if it does, then you claim that it is now inherently an empty box and that that newcomer statement is also about almost no one. Again, I absolutely disagree with this. It is about the majority of family reunificators and family reunification is still the largest gateway. We will impose on everyone as much as possible what we can and can impose under international law. What we cannot do, will simply not go. You can agree with it or not and then you have clearly expressed your point of view. However, I have to adhere to the rules of law, because otherwise – you suggest – the NGOs might still get the same at the Constitutional Court, and I do not support them. So I adhere to the legal rules.

Mr. Dewinter, you argue that the newcomer statement is too blurred and does not come to the essence, because it must be about the five-letter word, Islam, it must be about Sharia. I can only say that the declaration of newcomers that I present to the states is ⁇ clear. We do not target a single faith; we absolutely do not want to do so. It is about the fact that young girls should be able to wear the clothes they want. It is about equality between men and women, about the separation between church and state, about respect for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Mr. Dewinter, you know that the statement was drafted with Professor Vermeersch, who is an eminence greise in our country on European, international and universal human rights. Professor Vermeersch knows perfectly what and what it is about defining the basic principles and basic pillars on which our democracy and our freedom are based. That is stated in that text. It is about a number of ⁇ painful things, which everyone is disturbed by. It is true that these things also occur in certain religious communities, in certain conservative interpretations of their faith. However, if you say that you can’t agree with the text if it is not explicitly possible for Islam to be visited, then you just have to vote against. Of course, we will not do that; there is no such thing. However, we will discuss the bad and evil wipes of some interpretations of Islam, and that is written black on white in the Newcomer Declaration. You know that well enough. It is about apostasy, about wearing clothes that one wishes, about the equality between man and woman. This is absolutely not a measure for nothing, it will definitely make a difference.

With all critics, I make an appointment over a year in the Chamber Committee. I will then present my results with great pleasure, as I do every time.

Mr. President, I would like to thank Mr. Francken for his very comprehensive answers.

However, I would like to speak about the necessary openness to federal entities. It is essential to have an agreement with the Communities if you want to avoid a recourse from associations. In this regard, you indicated that you have a firm will to reach an agreement. Therefore, an open mindset should be adopted in order to move forward. Both on the integration level and on how you intend to manage the integration criteria – since you make it a condition, with the declaration of integration, obtaining and renewing the right of residence – it will be necessary to find the right modus vivendi so that your administration has objective information before making a decision. It would be a shame not to do so, especially for families. In this regard, I thank Mr. Hellings for speaking about them, as they often include vulnerable people. It is important to find solutions suitable for each situation.

Mr Francken, you will need to demonstrate an open and constructive mindset with the Regions in order to reach an agreement. I wish it to you.