Proposition 54K2215

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 15 décembre 1980 sur l'accès au territoire, le séjour, l'établissement et l'éloignement des étrangers afin de renforcer la protection de l'ordre public et de la sécurité nationale.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Dec. 12, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

administrative procedure foreign national public order public safety rights of the defence removal rights of aliens

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

DéFI VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.
• Stefaan Van Hecke (Groen) 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 ¶

Feb. 9, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Nawal Ben Hamou, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, colleagues, I just heard colleague Rob Van de Velde declare that for the first time in a long time we will vote on a bill that is efficient, result-oriented and cost-efficient and contains a lot of legal certainty.

I think I can apply the same intro for a large piece, for at least 75% - myself filling in what you then delete - to the prevailing bill. It is intended to implement a much more coherent, transparent and efficient removal policy. That is the purpose of the bill we are talking about today.

We all know that the Foreign Affairs Act of 1980 is an unreadable whole. I believe that everyone who follows this law will agree with it. There are questions about the application of the Foreign Affairs Act, who are the competent services, what rules exactly apply to which specified case, and so on.

This lack of legibility leads to legal uncertainty. Therefore, there is a need for clarity and this is provided in this draft law. In addition to legal certainty, there are several other very important changes.

For us, the main adjustment is that lawfully residing criminal foreigners will now also be able to be repatriated. Procedures will be accelerated and longer entry bans may apply. We are talking here about examples we know from the past, such as Salah Abdeslam and other Syrian fighters.

It will also be possible to link an entry ban to a stay of more than 20 years. This is a fundamental break with the government of 2005, which made it impossible to withdraw the residence of persons born here or who entered Belgium before the age of 12 years.

The extension of the immunity for repatriation, the extension of that category of foreigners was not entered into the law until 2005.

Thanks to this bill, thanks to this government, we can now take the necessary measures more easily and more quickly against those who threaten our public order or our national security. This, colleagues, fully fits in the fight against terrorism and radicalization, which is rightly a priority of this government.

The committee has already shown that some groups in this hemisphere are very skeptical of these measures. For them, I would like to emphasize once again that these measures are taken in compliance with the fundamental rights of the data subject. When it comes to threats to national security or public order, it can only be that everyone agrees that there must be prompt action by all bodies, including the administration, in this case the Foreign Affairs Service. The procedural rules will be simplified and made more efficient to address them.

I give a few examples. The Ministerial Decree is replaced by the order to leave the territory, an instrument already existing. The royal order for expulsion is completely abolished. The order to leave the territory will thus become a simpler and more flexible instrument. Therefore, the intervention of the King will never again be needed for an expulsion. As mentioned earlier, it is also possible to grant an entry ban for 20 years or more, for example, in the event of a possible removal of foreign Syrian fighters or serious criminals. The intervention of the Committee on Foreigners, the non-binding opinion which was, however, a delaying factor in the decision-making process, is abolished. This procedure was intended to provide prior and, as mentioned, non-binding advice when making a removal decision.

Very important, not only more removals after a conviction are possible. From now on, reasons of public order or national security may be sufficient for removal. Of course, these must be demonstrable and overwhelming reasons of threat to public order or national security. Then the Secretary of State, the Foreign Affairs Service can make a decision on removal, while a foreigner should have already damaged public order.

Furthermore, the draft law also clearly specifies who, for example, has the authority to enable the decision to refuse entry and the decision to revoke or cancel visas.

Mr. Secretary of State, it stands like a pillar above water that the general principles of good administration include the right to legal certainty. This means, among other things, that the citizen must be able to rely on the public services – the Foreign Affairs Service – and must and will be able to rely on them to observe the rules and follow a stable policy that the citizen cannot see otherwise and that is unquestionable. Thanks to this bill, you strengthen the legal certainty exactly where necessary in the law. You have the support of the N-VA group.

Mr. Secretary of State, we are in the plenary session to discuss your bill concerning the removal of the territory for foreigners who would put our country in danger. Whenever measures have been taken to fight violent radicalism and terrorism, I would like to say here that the PS group has supported them. But here, Mr. Francken, you are completely next to the plate. You base your project on the idea that, thanks to this measure, the Belgian population and society will be better protected from foreigners who pose problems.

First, I would like to make a first observation. You are in charge of Asylum and Migration, while in this country we have a Minister of Interior and a Minister of Justice. Then your government decided to set up a commission on terrorism, and we supported this initiative. Instead of submitting this project under the signature of Mr. Jambon, in the Terro commission, you, who do not have the first competence in the fight against insecurity, come with a file. This is not ideal for the coherence of the MR/N-VA government. When one wants to be consistent and credible, one must work transversally. Here, some members sit in the Justice Committee, others, in the Interior Committee. They would have been interested in expressing their views on these issues.

What I will say soon will also interest you, especially on the classified documents of the State Security.

As I said, you base your project on the need to protect the Belgian society. Who could be against? We all agree. But in the way you want to ⁇ this goal, you are next to the plate. Basically, you tell us that you are going to remove people who pose problems to public order, national security, and against whom we have serious clues, or even evidence. You know, Mr. Francken, the only way to neutralize individuals who pose problems is to arrest them, to put them in prison and to have them condemned. And you, what are you doing? You act like the Netherlands, the neighboring country that has been criticized. These people will come here. You will send them elsewhere.

But they will continue to create problems for others and for us. When the imam arrived at Dison, it was not something pleasant. Still, you do the same thing: you practice the hot potato policy, you don’t neutralize those who pose problems, you just want to keep them away. I do not think this is a significant and effective measure in the fight against terrorism.

What also makes us trouble, Mr. Francken, in your project is that you want to concentrate all the powers in your hands and those of your administration, the Office of Foreigners. While the Foreigners Advisory Commission enjoys real experience in the field, you remove the prior notice that it could give you. And then, you want to decide, at the level of the Office of Foreigners, on the removal of a whole series of people.

We will again ask the questions that have been asked in the Committee on Internal Affairs. Your answers were not sufficient. On the basis of what criteria will a person be considered to pose a danger to public order and national security? What is a fraud that would endanger national security or public order? What is a Dangerousness Indicator? And even though there are evidence and indications of danger, is our country not equipped with a procedure that allows people to be prosecuted? Is it not the role of justice to carry out the arrest, imprisonment and condemnation of people? I find it difficult to follow the logic proposed by the government.

I will stop — I will ⁇ interest the members of the Justice Committee — on the use of classified information from the State Security. I asked in the Committee on Internal Affairs. I asked on what basis the Foreign Office will be able to dispose of this information and process it. And you have said, or suggested, that maybe legal proceedings should be organized with closed doors. In what country are we? Is this the way you see justice in our country? Will we incriminate people on the basis of information that comes from the State Security and would incriminated individuals not have the opportunity to have access to that information? It is not serious!

It is unbearable! You want to have, at the level of the Office of Foreigners, information from the State Security, elaborate administrative records on persons who, they, will never be able to know why they would be the subject of an administrative decision of removal from the territory. What a strange conception of justice! It is really unbearable!

My group agrees with the opinion of the Human Rights League and CIRÉ. Behind all this, instead of taking measures to fight terrorism, having concrete actions to fight violent radicalism, what do we do? It seems to be fighting, but in reality it is suggested that foreigners are causing problems in our country. It is the arbitrary that settles in our society. It cannot be accepted. Your project creates amalgam among foreigners and violates human rights.

For all these reasons, the PS group will vote against both bills.

Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, our country has been living under threats and terrorist acts for two years now. We are in the top three of the countries with the most citizens present in the fighting in Syria. And we find that it is not possible to easily expel someone like Salah Abdeslam. If today our legislation does not allow easy expulsion, it must be adapted to allow it. That is what you do!

Mr Pivin, Mr Hellings would like to intervene.

Mr. Pivin, you say that we are not even able to dismiss Salah Abdeslam. I would like to remind you that although he is French and resides in Molenbeek, Salah Abdeslam committed his attack in Paris. The fact of returning him to France would not have reduced his danger to commit these attacks in France. I think your argument does not hold.

of which act. I illustrate the statement by explaining that there is now the possibility of expelling someone like Salah Abdeslam. I am not speaking specifically about him. This comparison serves to explain a simplification of procedures. This is exactly what it is about here.

Mr. Kir, you have the word.

Mr. Pivin, what a strange conception you have of the fight against terrorism! Do you think that by dismissing someone, you will neutralize him? I would like to hear your opinion, as well as that of the government and the majority. When someone poses a problem, they send it back and it’s over: the problem is solved! Say, friends, don’t you think other measures should be taken? For example, give the means of action to justice, encourage it to act. However, you did the opposite at the beginning of the legislature, since you removed it. Today, through these arrangements, which are so many crafts, you give the people the feeling that you are protecting them.

Mr. Mayor of Koekelberg, I know that you are very attached to security. Honestly, do you really think that this measure will eradicate terrorism? People are sent back, and the problems are solved?

In any case, I think...

Mr. Pivin, the government also asks for the word.

Mr. President, Mr. Kir, the measures taken today are measures to combat terrorism.

You say that repatriation is not a solution. I no longer understand anything! In fact, I have received more than ten letters from the mayor PS de Dison and parliamentarians. The Prime Minister was arrested here in the plenary session, a year ago, by members of your group to know when the Imam of Dison would be expelled.

PS Mayor of Dison, Mr. Ylieff, sends me a communication every two or three weeks. According to him, Mr. Francken does nothing! The Imam of Dison remains here. The people of Dison are tired of it. He must be repatriated. This is the truth! You have two faces! I cannot agree with you.

What are we doing to fight terrorism? This bill allows action against Syrian fighters currently in Syria. It should be noted that there are about 400 Syrian fighters departing from Belgium to Syria to fight alongside Daesh.

When I was a member of the opposition, I repeatedly asked Ms. Milquet to tell me how many of these fighters did not have Belgian nationality but had a permanent or long-term residence permit. After having questioned her a dozen times, she replied to me in the Interior Committee that about 40 Syrian fighters, who had left Belgium to join Syria, did not have the Belgian nationality but rather a residence permit.

At that time, I asked the question of what the government intended to do to sanction them? In fact, it was possible to withdraw the residence cards of those who had come to Belgium after twelve years.

Mr. Kir, unlike the previous government that has done nothing, I have, so far, already removed 17 residence cards.

You ask me what the other 23 are. I cannot take away their residence card. Mr. Bonte, who is present here, knows the matter very well. I can’t because these people came before the age of twelve to Belgium or were born in Belgium. With this bill, they will be able to withdraw their residence card and they will no longer be able to return to Europe. This is fighting terrorism, concretely and not virtually! But your group voted against, Mr. Kir!

Mr Francken, I listen to you with a lot of calm. It makes no use to take you as you do. You do not solve the problem. You know it very well. Maybe that’s why you get angry.

If someone is a danger to our country, we prove it, let him be arrested, imprisoned and condemned. This is justice in a country. But you, what are you doing? You return the problem to the side, but it will come back!

I am the mayor. When I discuss with the experts in the fight against terrorism, what do they say to us, Mr. Pivin? When you lose someone’s trace, it’s the worst of things for our services. The worst thing is to lose someone’s footprint. Do not think that by radiating someone, you have solved the problem of terrorism. This is the big difference between you and us.

We believe that in a rule of law, when you have the facts established, when you have the evidence, you act. But here, that’s not what you do. You come up with this law and then you do a little arbitrary, you throw the reproach a little on everyone. This is unacceptable! You do not solve the problems of returns. You give a seeming solution to the problem and the problems will come back.

I keep what I said. We must give justice the means so that it can act against all those who are a danger in our country. For the rest, I do not think it is up to the Foreign Office to be the administration that receives the classified documents of the State Security.

Mr. Kir, should the judiciary have the possibility to pronounce a sentence? of course ! It is clear! This is the priority for justice.

But there are two things.

First, Syrian fighters are currently in Syria. They are not here. They are in Syria. We have the possibility to withdraw residence cards, which I have already done 17 times. When we do this, they cannot come back. In the other 23 cases, we cannot do so because they were born in Belgium or arrived there before the age of 12. We want to remove the cards to prevent them from returning. Justice is something else.

Secondly, in the cases of terrorists sentenced to a serious sentence in Belgium, who have served their sentence and who are legally staying in Belgium, we say, our group and our government say very clearly that it is necessary to withdraw the residence card and expel them. This is possible for people arriving in Belgium after the age of 12, but not for a person arriving younger. For us, this should always be possible. But it must be proportional. The CCE will take the decisions in these cases.

Justice is yes. But what do we do after they have purged their punishment? This is always the subject of discussion between you and us. It is a double punishment for you. That’s why it was banned in 2005. It is a double punishment for you. For me, for our government, this is not a double punishment. Deportation and repatriation are administrative measures.

This measure is necessary to combat terrorism and serious crime. I have mentioned many cases. In my general response, I will mention many others, which are very striking.

Mr Francken, what you say here has nothing to do with the text you submitted. This has nothing to do with. Do you realize what you just said here? This will be included in the accounts. You say, “If someone has been convicted.” I say the same thing. Your text does not say that. Sorry, but this is called a lie. You are lying. You are lying. You tell us, "I will only make this decision of removal if there is a condemnation." But that's not that, the text! We have been asking you for weeks what are the “serious indicators” that someone poses a problem for national security. Answer to me! What are serious signs?

You say I am lying. For my part, I’ve always been told to be careful before accusing someone of lying in a parliament.

Accusing someone of lying ... I have always learned to pay attention to it in a political debate. I leave these words entirely for you.

I have answered this question several times in the committee.

I have responded several times in the committee. De facto, it will be people who have served a sentence in a Belgian prison, you know very well.

I gave several examples.

In the committee, I have given a lot of different examples of people that fall under the proposed bill.

We are talking about 50 serious criminals and 20 people related to terrorism, terrorists or Syrian fighters. For me, it is the same thing.

It will be the CCE that decides.

At present, it is already possible for anyone over the age of twelve. This possibility existed before 2005. In this case, these are concrete cases of serious criminals for whom it is possible to withdraw the residence card. This is what is proposed here.

Mr. Kir, the last speech.

and no! It must be stopped. We are at the heart of the debate. Mr. Francken cannot escape. He is there, he is stuck. And he tells anything! Mr. President, you have heard it! These are not answers! They say they are serious criminals. So let us note it in the law, let things be clear! I ask him to tell me what a serious indication is. He says it is a condemnation. Enough of this! Let’s stop the words! It is false!

Let us be calm and listen to each other.

This is not a new discussion, because this debate is going on in every European country.

In many European countries, what we introduce today has been possible for years.

The Court of Justice has interpreted the concepts of public order and national security – when there is an acute and serious threat to public order and national security – in the field of migration and asylum. Therefore, they are absolutely not blank concepts that we can fill at our own discretion.

According to the case-law of the European Court of Justice, the concept of public order as it aims to justify a deviation from a principle “as well as the distortion of the social order that occurs with each violation of the law, presupposes that there is a real, current and sufficiently serious threat affecting a fundamental interest of society.” Thus, there are very clear conditions that the Council for Foreign Disputes will review if an effective move to the withdrawal of a card would be made.

The Court has also had to interpret the concept of national security several times in jurisprudence. We are not on an island here. What we are discussing now is an evolution that has been going on for years in many European countries and there is a lot of jurisprudence about it. You should not insinuate that this is a blank concept, because that is absolutely not true. National security refers to domestic and foreign security and it includes in particular “the impairment of the functioning of institutions and essential public services, as well as the survival of the population, the risk of a serious disturbance of the external relations or of the peaceful coexistence of the peoples, as well as the impairment of military interests.”

Therefore, there is indeed jurisprudence that interprets the concepts used in the present draft law. These terms were already in the law before 2005 and are now being amended. De facto, in the jurisprudence it will be very serious facts, because otherwise the RVV will suspend and destroy any decision to revoke a residence card stante pede. I think that is very balanced.

Mr. Secretary of State, you have cited a case-law. You read it so quickly that it was very difficult for us to understand you.

Do you remember what you said when I asked you the following question? Are convictions for forgery and use of forgery, forgery of documents, theft at the stall, marriage of complacency or a violation of the road code capable of justifying expulsion for reasons of public order? This is the question I asked you. It is on page 34 of the report. And you answered: "The examples of infringement that Mr. Hellings cited may justify an expulsion, everything will depend on the context."

Of course, you rely on the cases, specified by Mr. Pivin, Abdeslam and the Imam of Dison to justify the taking of such strong and indiscriminate measures. And when I ask you the question of concrete cases which are crimes, but which are not of the same nature or of the same amplitude as a terrorist act or that the fact of poisoning the spirit of young people, it is different. These are your words! These are not my own, nor the interpretation of Mr. Kir.

That is indeed a very good example, Mr. Hellings. That is the difference between you and us, which is absolutely correct. If it is proven to us that someone has entered into a false marriage and has been convicted for it, it will be returned. That is true. We do that. This happens monthly.

It is very clear. This is happening even now when a false marriage is established. This is nothing new. I do not even need this bill. If it is effectively established and ruled by a Belgian court, the residence shall be revoked anyway.

This is about a traffic penalty. No, a traffic fine will not lead to the loss of the right of residence for a long-term resident. Driving too fast will not lead to the loss of residence for a long-term resident, unless someone has to go to jail for that, because it has already happened 20 or 30 times. There are, of course, people who already have hundreds of unpaid fines.

In very special cases, this will be possible, but for a regular traffic fine, forget it, a long-term resident will, of course, never be returned. There will always be a balance. The proportionality test is explicitly included, with a number of conditions and with guarantees for the nationals that are the subject of the investigation. That is completely OK. This is in accordance with European justice. However, you are now making such a point of it.

The draft was first approved by the government in June. The text was supposed to be destroyed by the State Council, but the State Council did not make any fundamental remarks. No one commentary. The text is fully in line with Belgian law, European law, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Belgian Constitution.

You’re making a mess here, you’re causing commotion, about things you definitely want to misinterpret. That is not correct.

What else can I say, Mr. President? But from here, I understand your loneliness better.

It is not tolerable to have allowed the Imam of Dison to stay on Belgian territory for so long, without being able to react. You have been right in pointing out that many steps have been taken. Whether it’s this imam or people like Abdeslam or fighters in Syria, these examples illustrate the need to adapt legislation. They say “adjust”, not “replace”. I fully agree with the comments that say we have courts and possibilities for conviction. Add a tool to existing tools. We do not replace one tool with another, we add one in the problem of fighting terrorism. I say nothing more.

Let us not confuse the gender by taking examples. Mr. Secretary of State referred to the Imam of Dison about whom I questioned him. Indeed, the mayor of Dison was impatient, after multiple and repeated advertising effects taking place over many months. We were going to see what we were going to see! On the ground, we could see nothing at all. The only nuance, Mr. Pivin, is that, despite appearances, the Imam of Dison was of Dutch nationality. This explains the difficulties encountered.

Regardless of the origin of the difficulties, if you now have solutions to solve them, you must be the takeover and not accentuate the problems. This is why, Mr. Secretary of State, our group supports this project, considering, as you say, that it is a balanced response to a problem of access to and residence on the Belgian territory.

For us, this text clarifies and rationalizes. It allows to remove the suspensive effect of full law of appeals brought against decisions of the State taken for the public order, national security or for serious and imperative reasons, and this is an advance.

This has been emphasized many times during the discussions: all this is done in respect of the status of a foreign citizen, and in respect of our laws. The State Council has confirmed this. Compliance with European rules is also ensured.

It is a text that also provides, you will never say enough, that cases will be analyzed case by case and not blindly, nor generally. It is also a guarantee of democratic functioning that the case-by-case examination of each situation.

It is a project that strengthens the capacity of the state authority to act, while guaranteeing the fundamental freedoms of everyone. If the prior opinion of the Foreigners Advisory Commission is no longer required, Mr Kir recalled, the balance will nevertheless be ⁇ ined by the right to be heard, by the guarantee of the principle of proportionality, by the necessary motivation and by the strict observance of legislation, including European legislation.

You also want to clarify the role...

Mr. Pivin, you say that the strict balance will be respected by the transmission of a whole series of documents, etc. Will individuals have access to classified documents from the State Security in order to defend themselves?

I think the Secretary of State is better than me to answer this question. A classification requires a qualification, you know as I do.

People will not be on the same level of equality.

I believe that the State will always be at the heart of ⁇ ining the balance of the rights of defence, the rights and duties of everyone. But if documents are classified and you are not authorized to view or use them, I do not see a reason why they should be communicated to you.

With regard to classified documents, we have already discussed it several times in the committee, and I have been very clear.

It is important that the Foreign Affairs Service can use intelligence documents that give indications of terrorism, for example. Only, of course, it is equally important that the lawyer of the person concerned, of the accused, also gets access to it, as much as the Service of Foreign Affairs. That means that a lot of these documents will be declassified. At the moment, there is actually no procedure in Belgium that regulates this in a correct, good way. There is no such procedure and it is not within my competence. There is therefore no procedure for sharing such documents before the court, with the judge and the two lawyers involved, for example.

What has already happened, for example, in the dossier of the Imam of Dison? If reports come from the intelligence service, then they must be public, declassified. Otherwise, they cannot be used.

Mr. Francken answered one question. I would like to thank Eric Massin for returning to this point.

Regarding the principle of equality before the law, you explain to us that documents will be declassified. You have just been asked why you did not seek the opinion of the Committee R and why this case was not dealt with in the Terrorism Commission. Do you not see that you are rushing? This issue is not mature. In fact, you have no guarantee of a fair treatment of the file relating to the person that will be the subject of an administrative decision. You say it yourself: “We should.” It’s not about “duty”; it’s about facts. That is why we intervened vigorously today. This bill poses a problem of arbitrariness. Mr. Francken, take it away! Legal certainty must be taken into account.

This is the solution suggested by the PS to improve security: withdraw the project!

That is common sense!

It is magnificent!

What do you prefer? A coherent legislation.

I prefer to improve security.

Wait 30 seconds. A legislation that is coherent, which does not suffer discussion or potential cancellation before the Constitutional Court or a legislation so banal that it will introduce a violation of the principle of equality of citizens before the law and that, tomorrow, it may be cancelled? Is this what you prefer? If this is your choice, please apologize, but the public opinion will give you wrong.

I do not have the same reading as you and I do not consider in any way that this legislation is banal. Your starting point is not mine.

In any case, I remember from your interventions that expelling someone who threatens our security is not a solution, but that withdrawing the project would be one of them. So let’s throw out the project rather than the problem. It is very good!

We know each other quite well. You are not used to speaking by interposed slogan. There is a shortage of nuance. We never said that. We just pointed out that if there is evidence ...

You talk about nuance, but when you treat the Secretary of State as a liar, I wonder.

Go go go go! If you take it this way. I see that you are the assistant of Mr. Francken. We will not forget to remind you.

We must stop using these caricatures, Mr. Pivin. I denounce such words.

What I said earlier is that the file creates problems. The questions I asked Mr. Francken are still waiting for answers. I will speak again soon.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude as I look forward to the honorable speakers to take the floor again to criticize what is constructive in the steps undertaken by this government.

I will conclude by referring to a substantial improvement: the reduction in the number of orders to leave the territory. But I have also said it – and here we will agree, Mr. Kir – even if there is only one, it must be executed. It matters both the effectiveness of the measurement and the credibility of our institutions. In any case, we applaud the administrative simplification that constitutes the reduction of this somewhat absurd number of orders to leave the territory.

Dear colleagues, if it is a text that ultimately targets a small number of people, at the moment – which we should rejoice because we are talking about about seventy people, including twenty terrorists abroad – it is not less that it strengthens the arsenal of protection of our fellow citizens, of our national security, of our values. That is why the President will vote in favour.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, I will begin with a quote. It is especially unfortunate that almost no one is present here from Open Vld. “What I want is to live in a society in which every human being is free, as long as he or she does not harm others, where one can fully enjoy the rights and freedoms provided by the law, where one commits as a citizen to our society, where one helps fellow people in need, where one is discriminated against or treated disrespectfully. In such a society, in such a country, I want to live. It is, for all clarity, about a rhetorical question from Ms. Rutten, chairman of the Open Vld, in an opinion piece in Knack.

My answer to that question is, for all clarity, also yes. I would have liked to ask the Open Vld group for the answer, but there is almost no one present, except you, Mrs. So I suspect that you will also answer yes?

It seems that they have not listened.

I return to my argument with the following question, which is not a rhetorical question. Does everyone who is born and raised in Belgium make up a full part of our society, with all the duties and, of course, also the rights involved?

Today, two bills are being discussed, which allow the Secretary of State responsible for Migration and his administration to allow persons who have lived legally in Belgium all their lives to expel the country on the basis of indications that the foreigner is a threat to public order or national security.

For all clarity, a conviction for criminal offences is no longer needed. The presumption is sufficient for the administration. That actually means that the existing legislation is not sufficient to act and that new laws are needed for the Secretary of State and his administration, the DVZ, to give them sufficient freedom to act and act when people do not normally. The guarantees that the inhabitants of our country currently enjoy prevent the competent authorities from acting efficiently if someone in our country does not normally.

Mrs De Coninck, Secretary of State Francken, asks for the word.

Mrs. De Coninck, if you so-called cite, it is important that you correctly cite. “Instructions of...” No, no, no. For someone who is born and raised here – because that is what you are talking about – someone who has been in Belgium for more than 10 years, I can hope, a long-term resident established, there must be serious reasons of public order or national security that is in danger, and not “instructions of”. You need to quote. There is increased protection against removal, so on the basis of mere suspicions or clues one can never withdraw the stay. What you say is manifestly wrong. It is not just about clues. Only a very heavy criminal path will justify that. The proportionality test is demonstrated in the draft law.

I will give a few concrete examples that I have not invented. It is a Moroccan man who entered Belgium before the age of 12. He has two convictions for a total of seven years in prison, including for violent theft or threats by two or more persons at night with weapons and a member of a terrorist association with the intent to commit terrorist attacks. This is a concrete case. We believe that his residence may be revoked. Where is your limit if someone wants to join the club?

I will answer if I can speak.

You give a quote. The quote is about who we want as a member of our community. That is about it. That is the essence.

I will give another example. It is about a Moroccan man, born in Belgium, with two convictions for a total of six years and four months of imprisonment for, among other things, beats and injuries, aggression and participation in activities of a terrorist group.

For example, it is also a Thai man, who entered Belgium at the age of six, with four convictions for a total of seven years and three months of imprisonment for, among other things, rape of adult persons, rape with physical torture and hostage holding, drug deeds, theft with violence and threats.

An Angolan man who had entered Belgium at the age of 10 was sentenced to three convictions, for a total of six years and six months, for various thefts with violence and threats.

A Congolese man who had entered Belgium at the age of 11 was sentenced to 17 convictions – together equivalent to 31 years in prison – for rape of vulnerable persons with weapons, with aggravating circumstances, using one or more persons, and for various thefts with violent threats, extortion and drug facts.

The residence of those persons cannot be revoked at the moment. You made it impossible! You say, “They should be with us, who are a member of our club.” I have a different opinion on this. If you get 31 years in prison, you don’t want to be a member of our club at all. I can give 70 examples. I want to list them all. That is no problem. These are people who are either born here or who entered Belgium before the age of 12. There is an impossibility clause in the law. It was registered by you in 2005. We absolutely want them out again. That is the essence of the story.

and no. Mr. Secretary of State, with all permission, you answer next to the question. In the draft law, it is stated: “reasons for disturbance of public order”. In the committee meetings, no one has questioned the possibility that the residence permit can be withdrawn if there are convictions. Nobody has questioned that, but you’re trying to sell it that way. This is next to the issue.

“Exile someone from this country or severely punish” – that someone is anyone who is not Belgian – “becomes a purely administrative decision where no court can come to the aid, no question of guilt, let alone a conviction. One gets such a situation where DVZ in certain cases is police and judge, people can cross the border and also is an appeal committee, all in one person. This is an unhealthy situation. I would definitely warn you about this.

Mrs. De Coninck, you say the DVZ is a judge. The DVZ is not a judge. The RVV is the court that deals with this. They always have the opportunity to appeal. It will be the RVV that will deal with this. The DVZ is not a judge at all. What you say is simply not true.

You say this is next to the issue. No, that’s just about it. The essence of the story is just that we want to return to the situation from before 2005. This will be the case in almost all cases. There are 70 files of very heavy boys who have been convicted and they will all leave the country. That is the difference. The difference is that they may remain yours and not ours. That law was introduced by you in 2005.

Mr. Francken, thus you say that a conviction is not necessary. Therefore, there are other situations possible without condemnation. That you want to expel people who have suffered severe condemnations to the country, we can do much in this, but the tool you are developing for this is far too broad and far too risky. The DVZ gets almost absolute power to expel people from the country, people who are not Belgians.

You are talking about efficiency. Someone is expelled from the country after a procedure without conviction. In that country, you must say that you suspect that he disrupts public order but that there is no conviction. How will the receiving country react to this? What can they do with it? That is not logical, right?

You do not answer that. We have asked many questions, but you continue to say that we should trust you. You say you will use it very well.

And if any mistake is made, you say, that those who are expelled from the country but appeal must appeal, since the appeal they can then appeal is not suspensive. Second, they must appeal to the DVZ which actually made the original decision. Third, today there is a committee — but you can’t do that — consisting of a number of individuals from a security perspective, a number of NGOs from a human perspective and representatives of the DVZ. It will be decided today, in balance sheets, checks and balances, whether those involved should leave the country. Who is invited there? Those involved are invited and possibly their lawyer if they wish. Everything is clarified there. What is the appeal procedure? From a paper that interested parties can send to the DVZ. De facto they will actually have to send it from abroad because they will already be expelled.

Mrs. De Coninck, you always come back to the point that they may not have to be convicted before they can be deported. However, I would like to point out that this is already possible under current legislation. The current legislation was not created by me, it was created by you.

Yes, that is your last accusation always. We are always.

It is your legislation. The Imam of Dison was never convicted by a Belgian court but was never expelled. He was expelled under the current legal arsenal, which is your legislation. If your biggest problem lies in it...

The [...]

No to. These are people who have arrived in Belgium before the age of 12 or who have been born in Belgium. You must, of course, choose what you want. You say that the essence is not the age of 12 years but the fact that the deportation can be without conviction. Well, you need to know where you focus your criticism. I say that the essence is that deportation can be for people born in Belgium or who arrived here before the age of 12 years. But according to you, that is not the essence, because you actually agree in part with that, especially when it comes to severely convicted. This is how I understood your position. Then you say that your point is that they should always be condemned. Well, I say that at the moment it is not necessary that there is a conviction. The best example is the Imam of Dison, Mr. El Amaouch. Several factions, including and especially from the opposition, questioned the prime minister about this about ten months ago — I don’t know if you also had a question — to know when the imam would finally be expelled from the country. That man was not convicted. Please be consistent in your criticism.

Second, as regards legal proceedings, you say that data subjects can only appeal if they are already abroad. This is also not correct, because against any removal measure there is the possibility of submitting an UDN, which is an appeal procedure in extremely urgent necessity. This is an appeal to the Council for Foreign Disputes. This is dealt with with full jurisdiction. Everyone has the right to submit an UDN. Again, it is not correct that data subjects can only appeal if they are already abroad. That is not true. If you have criticism, be consistent.

You are bluffing. In your second draft it is stated that a dispute can be noted in writing in a very limited way. And the commission, which could possibly be critical about whether or not to decide to expel, that you have suppressed.

I have already said that you are hypocritical. The problems that you cannot solve here, you put over the border. However, within the shortest times they can be back and fundamentally your problem is therefore not solved.

Mr. Secretary of State, our biggest point of criticism is indeed that people will be expelled without condemnation. You give the example of the Imam of Dison. Well, if he is expelled, then there must be a very good reason for that and then you must be able to provoke a decision via Justice. You should discuss this with your colleague, the Minister of Justice.

What are fundamental solutions? This means screening individuals, monitoring the extent to which they commit crimes or plan crimes, tracking, guiding, providing sufficient resources to the services responsible for doing so and taking appropriate measures.

Finally, there has been a commission-Vermeersch twice. One of the recommendations of the second commission-Vermeersch was that a review and follow-up committee of repatriations should be established. We have already asked this several times in various decisions, including in the current discussion on the audit of the Service Repatriations at the DVZ. You can see that there is something out of hand. They all work together. It is a macho world. It would be good for the committee that carries out repatriations to make an evaluation and make recommendations at regular times.

However, you refuse that. You always say that there are all clever people there; you are clever, the administration is clever, you know everything better, you will adjust it, and in addition, you actually do not need to have pot watchers.

Mr. Secretary of State, we have indeed a very big problem with the fact that in the long run people who have not been convicted can be removed from the country. For all clarity, I’m not saying you have that intention, but laws are made for long periods and can also be interpreted and misused. If you think it is only serious cases, I think you should also agree that this only happens to people who have been convicted.

And for the rest, stop windowdressing!

I did not refer to the debate that has already taken place in the committee and which, in addition, was very interesting.

The two main remarks are about the Pandora’s box that this text opens. As already stated, a too broad interpretation of the definition of public order infringement may lead to the removal of persons who have not been convicted.

Mr. Secretary of State, we must go to the end of the reasoning. If you really want to return criminals, wait for them to be recognized as such by justice, which is the only authority in that country to be able to determine who is a criminal. Go to the end of this reasoning.

Let us take an example. Mehdi Nemmouche, who committed the attack at the Brussels Jewish Museum, is French. He will be tried in Belgium. After his conviction, he will be sent back to France. No one sees any disadvantage.

Let us now take another example! There are organized gangs of criminals from Eastern Europe who come to us to commit theft in our villages, in our cities. These people commit crimes. They are arrested by our police services. They are sentenced and they are sentenced. It is normal.

You, you open the Pandora box and say that persons not convicted by justice may, according to the interpretation of the judge, according to the interpretation of the Office of Foreigners, be returned into a country. C is inadmissible.

It may be that I misunderstand both Mrs. De Coninck and Mr. Hellings, but they think that Dison’s hatred preacher has been wrongly sent away? I would like to hear that clarification.

You think so, right? I would like to hear this confirmed. Do you think Dison’s hatred preacher has been wrongly sent away? Is that the correct interpretation of what you are saying?

Mr. De Roover, I come to the second part of my reasoning.

Restons on this point! Mr Bonte also asked for the word and if that is a reaction to Mr De Roover’s intervention, then he must, of course, first get the word.

If you want, give the floor to Mrs. De Coninck, but if I continue my reasoning, it will be a response to Mr. De Roover’s question.

Continue in this case. But let us be clear!

You answer to Mr. De Roover.

No of course. We wish that the Dison Imam and all hatred preachers in this country are subject to control by our intelligence services and, if necessary, that, under the existing Criminal Code, they may eventually be convicted by justice; including the Dison Imam. By the way, Mr. De Roover, Mr. Francken, during the commission, said to me: “You have requested, Mr. Hellings, the return of the Imam of Dison to the Netherlands.” This is completely false.

On July 15, 2015, we had a debate with the Minister of Justice about the deprivation of citizenship. I quote Mr. Geens, in the report of this debate, on the same subject – the preachers of hatred: “In 2013, under the government of Di Rupo, we greatly expanded terrorist incriminations. For example, incitement to hate. It is clear that the expelled imam of which Mr. Francken was speaking” – it is the Imam of Dison – “could probably have been punished under this 2013 incrimination.”

This means, then, Mr. De Roover, that you can say all that you want on the fact that we are laxists. "Monsieur le ministre, selon moi, il serait moins dangereux si cet imam était arrêté et interrogé par nos services de police qu'aux Pays-Bas - c'est-à-dire à quelques kilomètres de Verviers, où il se trouve aujourd'hui. Et il peut continuer, de là où il est, à prêcher la haine et embrigader les jeunes."Je terminais par: "Arrêtez-le!"Et vous n'ai pas changé d'avis! (Applause of Applause)

Mr. President, Mr. Hellings considers that we have a lax persecution policy here. This is of course an interesting discussion.

Mr. Hellings, however, it remains a fact – apart from the further treatment you would like – that the person concerned has not been convicted. Therefore, it is a non-condemned hate preacher from Dison. According to what I have understood from your words, that person, in your conviction and interpretation, should not be expelled. I confirm this with interest. I would also like to hear the reply of Mrs. De Coninck in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to ask for the word, because I did not have the opportunity to follow the discussion in the committee.

However, I would like to call on Parliament not to discuss personal, individual cases in our debates. I don’t think it’s good because one of them has more file knowledge than the other. That is just a call.

In the whole debate of expulsion policy, we must also see the relativity of things.

Mr. Secretary of State, you name some profiles of criminals. I would like to call on the federal government, ⁇ in consultation with the investigation committee – the chairman of the investigation committee is just absent – to make an analysis of the history of all the people in our security services who are classified as foreign terrorist fighters. I would like to see the government and security services analyze the individual history of those hundreds of people on the OCAD list. If that has happened, then we will all understand the relativity of what is being discussed here today. I do not want to comment on the usefulness or inutility of that discussion, but the discussion is immensely relative. After all, you will see that a suit of those people is socialized in crime, from childhood, from the age of 11, 12 or 13 years. Mr. Secretary of State, you have also given examples of some people who have been involved in crime since a very young age. In certain environments, with regard to certain crime phenomena, there is little assistance or little response from the civil society services of Justice or other services.

I live in Vilvoorde and I must work in the judicial description Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde. This has the consequence that a bunch of those young people who socialize in crime – and at some point also radicalize – deliberately choose, even though they are perfectly Dutch-speaking, for a French-speaking language role, well aware that the affairs are therefore especially delayed, that it produces a much lazer judicial practice and that the chance of suspension almost triples. This analysis was recently made by the prosecutor of Halle-Vilvoorde.

Moreover, once those people have been convicted – we unfortunately have a number of cases, which you will know when you analyze the foreign terrorist fighters who have left, have been involved in the crimes and have returned – it can be noted that a number of key figures who have left on their own, flee to the enforcement court, which effectively detains them. So they are really fleeing for the execution of their sentence.

The last point I would like to add to the debate is the following. You will also be able to see this and we all have been able to feel this sadly and painfully enough. Let us not judge that we are somewhat extra secure. Those who want to come back will come back soon. We have a small, open country. We must be vigilant, also for what other members have quoted, namely that we see them come back.

I would like to add the following. I will not name names, but no longer than yesterday there was a returner who had not been seen, but who appeared locally.

I would like to only point out that the debate is meaningful, but that we must also see the relativity of things and also focus on the very great challenge that lies in the question of how it comes to hell that the assistance to children who grow up in crime is missing, especially in immigrant environments.

Let us also have the debate – which will probably have to be held in the Flemish Parliament – about the youth sanction law, which I think is too lax in regards to certain youth crime phenomena.

This is a much greater security gain than in the largely symbolic debate that prevails today.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bonte, it is because of this relativity of things that the government takes more measures than just the measure in question. Otherwise, that measure would be sufficient. Therefore, you are absolutely right that other measures need to be taken and have already been taken.

At the beginning, you are encouraged not to focus on one specific case. However, I did not ask my question for the sake of that concrete case, but rather to know the correct supporting force of the opposition’s statements. That is my intention.

Mr. De Coninck wants to give a clear answer. I want to wait for her answer before I continue my response.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. De Roover, I am, for all clarity, not the type that wants to lead hysterical opposition and is always against everything, even in the Commission on Migration.

We have, in the continuation of Mr. Bonte’s presentation, proposed to organize a number of hearings around the implementation with a number of people who are somewhat aware of the subject.

We have asked to link with the work of the investigation committee and the recommendations that it will formulate, but they did not want to do so. Therefore, the present text is not sufficient if one wants to deliver truly thorough work; it remains with windowdressing.

To answer your concrete question, Mr. De Roover, I do not know the dossier of the relevant imam, nor am I a lawyer. I started by saying that there are a number of rights and duties and laws that must be respected. If one does not respect certain laws, one must be condemned. If one is convicted, one can be expelled. One cannot, in my opinion, give a single administration the right to judge that. For this we have justice. We put a lot of money into it. If that doesn’t work well, one should do something about it and not give an administration that right.

Mrs. De Coninck, I thank you for your very calm and not hysterical statements. You do that by the way. The fact that you said the calm also indicates that you are not emotionally driven, but that you mean what you say. After all, what you say is actually that you regret, in your opinion and interpretation, that Dison’s hate name – which is very interesting for reporting – has been expelled. by Tumult

Mrs. De Coninck, that is of course the only possible interpretation of the words you spoke a few seconds ago. I will repeat it again, then you may be able to repeat your very calm argument even more calmly and above all clarify in that regard. You know that Dison’s hatred preacher has not been condemned. Fortunately, he did not stay in our country for his 12 years, because in that case he would not have been deported under current legislation. Since he entered our territory after his 12 years, what has happened can happen. However, he is not convicted, for all clarity, Mrs. De Coninck. In your speech of zopas you said that there must first be a conviction. You just say that Dison’s hatred preacher should not have been expelled. I think that is a clear position. It is not ours.

To reflect on what you just said, Mr. De Roover, about the Imam of Dison, the question was asked to me by Mr. Francken: "What would you do in my place if you were Secretary of State in charge of Migration and you had in front of you a man who, notoriously, poisoned the minds of several dozen young people in the Verviers region?"

I answered him this. There are, as I pointed out to you, enough incriminations, in the terrorism law passed in 2013, incitement to hatred for the Prosecutor’s Office to instruct and, eventually later, for the justice to convict this person for incitement to hatred. It is stated that the Prosecutor does not do so. So, in the place of Mr Francken, I would put pressure on the Minister of Justice, since this ignoble figure seems to pose a real national security problem. Let the government take its responsibilities and make its duty of injunction to the Prosecutor’s Office! This is how it can be done!

If this person is really dangerous, she will be much less dangerous imprisoned, then following a path of deradicalisation that it will be to invent, dear colleagues, rather than fifteen kilometers from where, at the time of Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and Telegram, he can still poison these young people, Mr. De Roover.

The same reasoning, Mr. Francken, is valid with respect to the returns you mentioned. You mentioned 40 people, 17 of whom were removed their residence card. They are no longer allowed to enter the territory. For the other 23 you are unable, if I have understood correctly, to withdraw them their right of residence.

It is obvious that these 40 people are actually foreign nationals and have links, including criminal links, in Belgium. These people are notoriously dangerous. They learned how to handle weapons. They have frequented and still attend a terrorist group in Syria or Iraq. Isn’t it, from a security point of view, since that’s what we’re talking about, more useful to have them in prison with us at the beginning to check what their links, the people they contact?

In fact, this is how Safety worked in the Verviers case. It was a long threading of several months that allowed in the end to prevent the catastrophe. In Verviers – I’m not talking about the imam, I’m talking about the Verviers affair – where the police, thanks to the intelligence of the Security and the filature carried out by the latter, were able to dismantle a terrorist network that could not, in turn, carry out its attack in the aftermath.

Isn’t it more useful – from a security point of view, from a intelligence point of view, from a police point of view – to let those people come back and condemn them rather than to prevent them from coming back? Are these people not more useful under the radar of our intelligence services? This is a legitimate question. Of course, they are dangerous. But they must be under the radar of the State Security and the police.

Of course it would have been better. That is obvious. But it is not so.

I am the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Article 1 of the Vreemdelingenwet of 1980 defines a foreigner as a person who does not possess the Belgian nationality. I am entitled to enter and reside on the Belgian territory. That is my competence. I am not a judge. I am not responsible for justice. In that sense it would have been better for a judge to have condemned the Imam of Dison for preaching hatred. Absolutely absolute . But it is not so, Mrs. De Coninck. There is reality and there is what you might want to have in life. It is not always the same.

Of course, a conviction would have been better, but it did not happen. I decided that we should try to organize the expulsion.

By the way, I would like to note the following. It is argued here that there is a lack of judicial control that the bill gives much too much power to the DVZ, absolute power, I even hear you say. This is absolutely not true. It is like the Council for Foreign Disputes, the RVV, which is an administrative jurisdiction, with a lot of judges in it, who has confirmed that.

De RVV has in his uitspraak gezegd dat volgens een heel belangrijk European arrest of repatriëring place kon vinden, legitiem was, correct was. Do but, dat has of RVV gezegd, because it is fully in line with the European law. Er is also het advies van de Raad van State, die wetgevende texts toetst aan van de Grondwet in aan international rechtsnormen. It is not in conflict with the European Treaty for the Rights of Men. It is not in conflict with the Constitution. It is not in conflict with eleven land rights. De Raad van State has geen fundamentele opmerkingen gemaakt op dat deel. and Niets.

Mr. Speaker, in the response of the Secretary of State, I do not see the connection with what I have just said. It does not matter.

The seventeen people to whom you removed citizenship, who are still in Syria and who represent a danger to our country and our people, the Imam of Verviers or any other uncondemned criminal, are today in the sight of the State Security and the police. These people are often followed very closely. They pose a danger and are more useful under the radar of our intelligence and police services than abroad, far from any control capability for our intelligence and police services.

Many European countries are mentioned here, but among the people who will be expelled, some of them will be sent back to countries that do not have the technical capabilities to follow them day by day, hour by hour, to know what they say, what they do, or who they meet. In the name of an extremely broad interpretation of what national security and public order are, these people will be sent, like a hot potato, to countries that do not have the means to monitor them. Suddenly, they will be dangerous for the population of the country where they will find themselves but they will remain dangerous for our population thanks to the Internet and the multiplication of the means of communication and transport.

Mr. Secretary of State, your measure is, from a safety point of view, dust to eye. Your goal is not to guarantee more security. Your goal is to provide you with more visibility and we understand this well.

Mr. Speaker, the CDH group will support this bill because we understand the importance of measures aimed at preserving public order and national security, especially in this time of terrorist threat.

It must be able to react quickly in the event of a threat, in particular by removing procedural obstacles to effective removal.

However, we would like to recall our rejection of any form of amalgamation between migrants, criminals and fraudsters. During the discussion in the committee, we recalled the importance of respecting the principle of proportionality. We have abstained from some articles, because we believe we do not yet have all the guarantees regarding the interpretation of the concepts of public order and national security.

In this regard, we regret the removal of the preliminary opinion of the Consultative Committee on Foreigners. It must be able to provide sufficient guarantees as to the respect for the rights of the person concerned. A broad discretion is left to the authority for the application and interpretation of the concept of public order. Therefore, this concept should be confined by specific criteria. It is important that the authorities carry out a comprehensive, detailed and case-by-case assessment of the proportionality of the person’s behavior with the threat it represents, its fundamental rights and the links it has established with the Belgian society.

When considering a decision on removal, it shall take into account the duration of the stay, age, health status, family and economic situation, social and cultural integration and the intensity of ties with the country of origin. In this regard, we emphasize the importance of the graduation of measures. We also emphasize the evaluation of measures implemented in this project and, more generally, the overall evaluation of the return policy.

Mr. Speaker, we also consider the purpose of this bill very good; there are a number of positive elements in it. We can only welcome the coming of simpler and more efficient procedures and the abolition of the delaying advice. It is also a good thing that the appeal is no longer suspensive for the expulsion, unfortunately only in a limited number of cases. These are all positive elements.

You will not blame me that I also want to emphasize some things, which I find less positive. If today, according to the current system, a person is expelled from the country, it will automatically be subject to a ten-year entry ban. With the present draft law, this is disappearing. As Ms. Smeyers pointed out in her speech, the entry ban may be longer. That is of course positive. She gave the example that it could be twenty years now. Unfortunately, it can also be less. You can also get an entry ban for one or two years. This is a weakening of the current system. For us, it would have been better if there had been a minimum of ten years of entry ban, rather than that there are now fewer years of entry ban possible.

Also not so positive is that it is a very limited number of cases. The Secretary of State spoke in the committee about seventy people. Colleague Pivin has confirmed this once again. The fact that the procedural guarantees are extended, with a lot of procedural guarantees and contextualization as a result, weakens the good bill. The very comprehensive proportionality test finds it out for a bit. This is of course not a good thing. When I read the report on it, CD&V is very proud that it cannot be about thieves and street criminals, but that is the opposite of what I heard Mrs. Smeyers say this morning on Radio 1, namely that it is about rapists and thieves. If it is about seventy cases, it is not about rapists and robbers and street criminals, but about a very limited number of serious cases.

Today we have a prison population of 10 000 to 11 000 prisoners. According to the latest statistics, 55% of them have Belgian nationality, that is, 45% do not have it. So we have at least 4,500 to 5,000 foreigners with criminal backgrounds in our prisons. Then a bill that allows for the expulsion of 70 people is still very limited.

We have submitted a series of amendments to make some improvements to the draft law.

Although the draft law speaks about very serious cases, serious reasons, foreigners threatening public order or national security, it states that in those cases deportation may follow. We want to remove this optional character. For us, it should not be possible to expel such strangers. Anyone who threatens public order and national security should be automatically expelled. We want to eliminate this optional nature with all our amendments.

We also want to highlight the very comprehensive proportionality test with our amendments. Honestly speaking, if someone is a threat to national security and public order, it will matter to me whether he has been in the country for 15 or 20 years or what his age is. All these criteria are not relevant in such severe cases.

They all received the amendments. We count on your support to improve the bill in this sense.

Ms. Pas, first, in connection with the entry ban at 10 years, you say that you find it less interesting that there is no longer a deadline. The introduction of a 10-year entry ban was no longer accepted by the Council for Foreign Disputes. He said that it must always be individually motivated. A standard of 3 years, 5 years or 10 years can no longer be. This is, according to European jurisprudence, legally unsustainable. This is no longer possible, so we adjust it. This is also stated in the memory of explanation.

Second, as regards the proportionality test, I personally find it logical that it is included. Even if one does not include it in the law, according to the jurisprudence there must be a proportionality test, when it comes to the withdrawal of the right of residence of foreigners. According to European jurisprudence, this is always the case. It is true that colleagues have asked to put this explicitly into the law. We have done that too. If you say that you want to remove those with your amendment, then that would de facto not change much, because it must always be there. This test is also taking place now. Now it is not explicitly stated in the law, but it must always be proportional and in proportion to the degree of integration, to having a family, and so on. Otherwise, they will come into trouble. So is it together.

I have understood that one always wants to colour well within the lines of the European Union and other regulations, but that does not matter that for the other series of amendments on the optional character, you have not answered. I remain with my comments that it is too limited, that it is a missed opportunity and that it could have been much better.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not only dangerous to democratic rights but is also counterproductive in the purposes allegedly sought. These are the reasons why we will vote against.

From a general point of view, this project allows to accelerate and increase removals for reasons of public order, including for persons with valid residence permits and without being convicted by a court. The administration, not a judge, thus directly decides whether someone is a threat without it having to be proven and without the person being able to defend themselves. We do not know what a threat constitutes, nor what we are based on. Can a trade unionist of Moroccan origin, one day, constitute a threat because he participates in a wild strike or occupation of a factory?

This project potentially opens the door to arbitrariness and violates the principle of presumption of innocence, which is a major problem.

In addition, the removal of Article 21 of the 1980 Act represents an important change in that it makes possible the expulsion of persons born here or arrived before the age of 12 and who are fully part of our society.

In addition, in case of conviction, the expulsion of people born here and who grew up here reintroduces the double punishment. In fact, the double punishment is a return to the country of which one has the nationality after being convicted and having purged his sentence. People who are born and raised in our country are a pure product of our society. Like everyone else, they have rights and duties. If they have committed a crime, they must be tried and sentenced, like any citizen. But expelling them is a second punishment. How can this second sentence be justified? This will be a second penalty because their whole family lives in Belgium, because they do not necessarily speak the language of the country to which they will be returned, a country in which they have no future. This is flagrant discrimination. There is a category of sub-citizens.

These different elements taken separately are already inadmissible. If we take them together, we understand the dangerousness of the project that will be voted for.

In the end, we believe that this bill may be counterproductive. One may first ask whether expelling people rather than judging them here will better guarantee security and protection of public order. What is needed is that the people who have committed mistakes are judged, condemned and purged in our country.

In addition, the message sent is wider. This is a signal given to all people from immigration, whether they were born in Belgium or not, whether they have lived all their lives with us or not. Those who, like the Belgians, have not chosen the nationality received from their parents, are designated as a subcategory of citizens that can be expelled. This creates second-tier citizens. This is a message of exclusion sent not to terrorists or criminals but to many Belgian citizens who participate positively in society, at a time when it is important to strengthen living together and to build a society where every citizen has a full place, regardless of their origin.

That is why we consider this project unbearable and why we will vote against it.

This is a unique and special bill. Acting faster and more efficiently when public order or national security is threatened cannot be really opposed. I don’t think anyone here in the Half-Round is against that.

The notion of public order and the notion of national security are, of course, ⁇ vague. I have heard Secretary of State Francken quote the jurisprudence, but those definitions from the jurisprudence are at least as vague as the concepts themselves. With these definitions, we cannot go much further. A real and an actual threat, what adds that to that other concept? An impairment of the functioning of the institutions is as vague as national security or public order. I don’t think you should get the mustard there.

Democracy must be resilient. There is also a fairly extensive jurisdiction. This requires effective rules on repatriation, expulsion and, in some cases, a ban on entry. In this sense, my group may join in.

I think your design, there is always a certain degree of unpredictability because human rights evolve just as the vision on it and the jurisprudence evolve, colours within the lines. You are on the edge, but it is still within the lines.

In that sense, I think it is important that it shows, I know that some members of the government are not convinced of this, that one can freely color within the lines of Strasbourg and that one can freely take extensive measures. It is not that the ECHR prevents effective or extensive measures.

Of course, the Strasbourg test will be applied, not only to the law, but also to every concrete application of the law. This is the control that takes place in Strasbourg. Look at the law and its practical application. It may be perfect that Strasbourg considers that a law is consistent with the ECHR, but that a concrete application in a particular case is contrary to the Convention. It is a double test.

I also note in the media that your bill is causing unrest. I see a piece of opinion on knack.be from one of the younger, but talented journalists of Knack, who says: "No Belgian nationality, welcome to second-class citizens." This is something I am sensitive to and for which I am grateful. There should and should not be any second-class citizens, especially when it comes to human rights.

Therefore, I would like to examine for a moment what that will imply when one is going to apply that draft concretely, a little that removes the fear of that second-class citizenship. This requires a proportionality test. You are right when you say that it is actually the same whether it is in the design or not, because it is still higher legal standards that require this proportionality test.

That is true, but that means, therefore, that the proportionality test will have to take into account all kinds of elements, for example, including the links that the person concerned has with the country of origin to which he might be returned. This is an important element.

A very important element will be that this will need to be individually motivated. And let that be just the weak side of the DVZ. Let individual motivation be just the weak side. This has recently been proven in several files, such as in the file of the Syrian family applying for a visa and in the file of the Afghan family who could not be returned to Germany.

A very important, essential element for passing that proportionality test will have to be an individual justification.

A second element to color within the lines is that there must be a further judicial review. It is still there, even if it is weakened. In that sense, I can still follow. However, the test is carried out by the Council for Foreign Disputes. I was a little surprised when your answers to a colleague’s questions revealed that you suddenly have a great confidence in that Council for Foreign Disputes. A month ago it was different. Then they heard “I support Theo” and “worldly strange judges”. It is the same Council for Foreign Disputes. Has something changed in the composition or has your opinion about it changed? Have there been new appointments or promotions? Were there courses taught? I don’t know exactly what has changed but I’m a little surprised at the strange evolution in appreciating the Council on Foreign Disputes that now enjoys all confidence while that was not the case a month ago.

Mr. Vuye, I don’t know if you are now hanging out to be able to teach some magistrates of the Council for Foreign Disputes or to the attaches? As far as I know, no courses are taught there.

It is true that the RVV is responsible and competent — you know perfectly — for everything concerning foreign law. This is the Administrative Court of Justice. It is always so. The Council for Foreign Disputes — I have always said that, you must tell the whole story — has also motivated the judgment on the Imam of Dison. It is now to Cassation and we will see what the final judgment will be.

What I want to say is, first of all, that this is definitely not a black-and-white story.

Second, that the decision will be individually motivated. You say there is a problem with the Foreign Affairs Service, but I personally disagree with that. This week, after the advice of the Attorney General, it has become clear once again that this is a very fundamental issue, and that no matter how we have motivated it, it has made no difference. Therefore, it is effectively about the interpretation, where the court concerned says that Article 3 is applicable in Beirut and Aleppo. You said that last time too. Fortunately, you do not follow that opinion, just like I do. Individual motivation is not a problem, the decision will be individually motivated.

Will we never have a case that leads to destruction by the RVV, or later by a European court? Probably yes. But we will still have to see that. All in all, you cannot deny that this is an instrument that already existed and that is now being reintroduced, with which we have an additional argument against serious crime and threat to national security. Is that blissful? Of course not. But it is an additional tool for policymakers to act and, in my opinion, to make the country much safer.

The latter was the correct answer, but to a question that I did not ask. I always appreciate it when a member of the government enters into a legal debate with me. It is always fair to try it.

Mr. Francken, there are two different things. There is the Strasbourg jurisprudence, which I have ruled here, on the visa of the Syrian family. That scope of Article 3 of the ECHR is determined by Article 1 which stipulates: one must fall under the jurisdiction of the Member State. and . There is a very extensive jurisdiction on this subject.

The general lawyer’s opinion, from which you recently cited, is not about that, it is not about that at all, it is about the Charter. The scope of application is completely different. Article 51 of the Charter states that the Charter shall apply as soon as EU law is applied.

This is what the debate is about. The debate before the Court between the judges will focus on whether or not the territorial aspect of jurisdiction is implicitly included in the Charter. This will be the subject. But Article 51 of the Charter uses a completely different criterion than the ECHR.

In connection with the judicial review, I suspect that the Council for Foreign Disputes will be very happy to read the report of these debates and that the appreciation is completely different.

Third, in order not to reach second-class citizens, it will also be important to ensure that deportation is effectively not a punishment, but a security measure. You have also stated this very explicitly. There is a lot of confusion about this, when I hear some colleagues’ speech. A security measure can be taken against someone who has not been convicted, but also against someone who has already been convicted and who, for some reason, would still be in the country. This in itself is a useful tool.

I would like to add the following that has not been discussed in this debate so far.

It is a useful tool, it will find little application, which is very clear, that you have also said in the committee, but in the cases where it will be applied, it can really be a useful tool. However, once the proportionality test is overlooked, because one is not sufficiently individually motivated or for any other reason, you will be sitting here with a very serious case of public responsibility. Then you are in a very serious case of public liability, because the damage that is then inflicted on someone is ⁇ large. Therefore, it will also be an instrument that will need to be handled very carefully.

Again, a democracy must be resilient. The final conclusion of my group is, therefore, that this instrument will be useful. However, it will be little applied. This is also normal, because it is a fairly extensive intervention. In some cases, however, it can be useful effectively. We will also support and vote for it.

It was an interesting debate. I think the design is quite balanced. This also proved, since it passed the test of the State Council with brio. It is therefore legally sufficiently balanced in respect of fundamental rights. In addition, there are many other points which may have been less addressed, but which are still extremely important for the operation, including in relation to the follow-up of the order to leave the territory.

And I totally agree, Mr. Pivin; as mayor here in Brussels, it is necessary to execute the orders to leave the territory. This was a problem in the past.

This is still a discussion, a difficulty. Effective follow-up of orders to leave the territory is one of the government’s biggest challenges. That’s ⁇ so, because it’s very frustrating for police and mayors, whatever I am, as you know. This is indeed sometimes terribly frustrating. Therefore, we need the present draft of course.

In addition, there are many other supplementary measures, which may have received a little less attention, but which allow us to implement an efficient, easier and more comprehensive expulsion policy with a focus on criminals and crime. That is the most important thing for me.

A majority amendment was also agreed to make an evaluation. This evaluation will also actually be made in Parliament. There can always be questions about the application of those articles. That is not a problem. I am always at the disposal of Parliament when there are questions: how often it has already been applied; is it with or without condemnation; if there was no condemnation, what was then the context of the story; what has the Council for Foreign Disputes said on it, and so on. It will surely come back very often in Parliament and I am always at the disposal of the members of Parliament to go deeper into the practice of the draft law.