Belgium’s Council of Ministers has reignited a heated migration debate by approving—at second reading—a draft law that would let police officers accompany Immigration Office officials into private homes to detain non-EU nationals who have ignored an enforceable removal order. The bill, cleared on 3 April and published on 7 April, amends the 1980 Immigration Act by adding a new Article 74/7 §1 permitting entry if three cumulative conditions are met: the foreign national is subject to a final return decision, refuses to cooperate, and is deemed a threat to public order or national security. Entry would still require prior authorisation from an investigating judge, and operations must be carried out between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m.
![Belgian Government Revives Controversial Home-Entry Powers to Detain Irregular Migrants]()
Individuals and employers who want to stay ahead of Belgium’s evolving immigration rules can use VisaHQ’s dedicated portal (https://www.visahq.com/belgium/) to check visa categories, residence-permit requirements, and compliance updates. The service streamlines paperwork and offers expert support, helping travellers and HR teams avoid errors that could escalate into enforcement problems under the proposed law.
Supporters—led by Asylum & Migration Minister Anneleen Van Bossuyt (N-VA) and Justice Minister Annelies Verlinden (CD&V)—argue that Belgium’s credibility is at stake. Fewer than one in three return orders are currently executed, largely because police cannot enter dwellings when doors remain shut. Business federations note that ineffective returns have eroded public support for labour migration programmes that companies rely on to plug talent gaps. Civil-society groups and several opposition parties call the proposal a dangerous precedent. Article 15 of Belgium’s Constitution declares the inviolability of the home, and critics warn that expanding police powers—even with a court warrant—risks disproportionate intrusions into private life protected under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They point out that a similar 2018 initiative collapsed after the Council of State highlighted inadequate safeguards. Practical impact will depend on Parliament, which must debate and adopt the text after the Council of State issues a fresh opinion expected in late April. If enacted, employers and relocation providers will need to brief foreign staff about stricter enforcement and verify that residence documents remain valid to avoid sudden detention. The draft also signals to multinational firms that Belgium is aligning with an EU-wide push for tougher return policies—a trend already visible in neighbouring Netherlands and France. For now, companies should add a “return-risk” check to compliance audits, ensure legal counsel is on call if workers face removal, and monitor parliamentary amendments that could narrow or broaden the bill’s scope. Regardless of the outcome, the debate underscores how immigration enforcement and fundamental rights are becoming a central fault line in Belgian politics ahead of the 2027 federal elections.
Individuals and employers who want to stay ahead of Belgium’s evolving immigration rules can use VisaHQ’s dedicated portal (https://www.visahq.com/belgium/) to check visa categories, residence-permit requirements, and compliance updates. The service streamlines paperwork and offers expert support, helping travellers and HR teams avoid errors that could escalate into enforcement problems under the proposed law.
Supporters—led by Asylum & Migration Minister Anneleen Van Bossuyt (N-VA) and Justice Minister Annelies Verlinden (CD&V)—argue that Belgium’s credibility is at stake. Fewer than one in three return orders are currently executed, largely because police cannot enter dwellings when doors remain shut. Business federations note that ineffective returns have eroded public support for labour migration programmes that companies rely on to plug talent gaps. Civil-society groups and several opposition parties call the proposal a dangerous precedent. Article 15 of Belgium’s Constitution declares the inviolability of the home, and critics warn that expanding police powers—even with a court warrant—risks disproportionate intrusions into private life protected under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They point out that a similar 2018 initiative collapsed after the Council of State highlighted inadequate safeguards. Practical impact will depend on Parliament, which must debate and adopt the text after the Council of State issues a fresh opinion expected in late April. If enacted, employers and relocation providers will need to brief foreign staff about stricter enforcement and verify that residence documents remain valid to avoid sudden detention. The draft also signals to multinational firms that Belgium is aligning with an EU-wide push for tougher return policies—a trend already visible in neighbouring Netherlands and France. For now, companies should add a “return-risk” check to compliance audits, ensure legal counsel is on call if workers face removal, and monitor parliamentary amendments that could narrow or broaden the bill’s scope. Regardless of the outcome, the debate underscores how immigration enforcement and fundamental rights are becoming a central fault line in Belgian politics ahead of the 2027 federal elections.
