On January 31, 2025, the new federal government finally unveiled its long-awaited coalition agreement. From the very first lines of the preamble, the tone was set: Bart De Wever, newly appointed Prime Minister under the banner of the N-VA, made no attempt to hide the harshness of the policies to come. He warns that the road ahead will not be “a walk in the park” and that the measures announced will require “sacrifices from all members of our society.”
But beyond this rhetoric of firmness, the text is repugnant both in its wording and in the justifications it puts forward.
Indeed, throughout the paragraphs of this document, there is a clear desire to stigmatise certain categories of the population. The arguments put forward by the government are based in particular on the alleged “massive influx of migrants” and on a barely veiled criminalisation of these people.
This approach, far from being neutral, fuels fears and divisions, while legitimising restrictive and discriminatory measures. The text does not merely announce reforms: line by line, it distils an anxiety-inducing, racist, and biased vision of society that can only inspire unease and indignation.
Our collective wants a world without borders and walls, where everyone can live and travel wherever they want. As might be expected, this is far from what is in store for the coming years, both in Belgium and in Europe.
Almost six months after the publication of the Arizona government agreement, we would like to revisit the main points concerning “Asylum and Migration.” This is to keep a clear record of the historic moment we are living through, of the ever-deepening shift towards a society fuelled by fear and repression.
PART 2 – RESIDENCE
Dissuasive campaigns: “You’re not welcome”
To limit the number of arrivals on Belgian territory, the government plans to increase its dissuasive campaigns. The objective is clear: to discourage people it deems “ineligible” from applying for asylum in Belgium by highlighting the harsh reception conditions and rigorous procedures. The government itself states:
“We are intensifying and modernising dissuasive campaigns, including online. We are investing in new, more interactive forms of communication that allow us to better inform certain target groups. “
The consequences of this dissuasive strategy are severe for those affected. By massively disseminating messages that highlight obstacles and restrictions, the government is creating a climate of fear and uncertainty for people seeking protection. Many, discouraged by these campaigns, may decide not to seek asylum (even in cases where they are fleeing situations of real danger). Others may turn to irregular and dangerous routes, lacking access to a clear and accessible asylum procedure.
Furthermore, these campaigns are generally misleading and do not take all factors into account. For example, messages on social media stating that people benefiting from protection in another EU country must return to their own country. Or when the director of the Immigration Office visited Guinea, stating that there was very little chance of people of Guinean origin obtaining protection in Belgium.
This policy of dissuasion, far from addressing the causes of migration, further weakens vulnerable people and exposes them to poverty, isolation, or violations of their fundamental rights.
Their message: “Belgium is not for you”
Our response: Everyone is welcome, everywhere.
“Good” and “bad” migrants
Unsurprisingly, Arizona draws a clear distinction between “desirable” migration (i.e., “expatriates”) and ‘undesirable’ migration (i.e., “immigrants”). This distinction is based on deeply racist, capitalist, and neo-liberal criteria, which classify individuals according to their supposed ability to be “beneficial” to the country. This logic pits those considered to bring cultural and economic value to the state against those who are excluded from it. Only skilled migrants, students, and workers are seen as a positive contribution:
“Migration can be beneficial, but only if it is controlled and attracts people who actively participate in the economic and social fabric of the country.”
Any other profile is automatically classified as undesirable and therefore likely to be excluded from Belgian territory. People arriving through channels other than work or study must be “activated,” i.e., quickly integrated and made self-sufficient within their new community. To this end, entry requirements will be tightened: the government claims that this is to prevent these new arrivals from falling into poverty or precariousness, but also to introduce them as quickly as possible to the national languages, Western values and norms, and their rights and obligations. Those who do not meet these criteria will not be able to stay in Belgium permanently. The government claims that only this rigorous approach will enable migration to be a “success,” both for people of foreign origin and for Belgium.
However, even when migrants fit the description of profiles considered “profitable” by the government (employment, degree, studies, , etc.), they still have to manage to slip through the racist net: for example, a growing number of students from post-colonial countries are seeing their access to education restricted by increasingly strict conditions, sometimes to the point of losing their residence permits.
Even if the new measures are chilling, it should be remembered that this desire to increasingly close borders and restrict access to Belgian territory is not new: the Arizona policy merely reinforces a series of existing measures, and selectivity and exclusion are inherent in the current migration system.
Their message: “A place in our society only for those who deserve it”
Our response: Everyone has the right to choose where they want to live, regardless of their reasons.
Regularisation as the only solution?
Today in Belgium, thousands of people live without residence permits, sometimes for many years. These people are victims of a deeply racist and inhumane migration policy that keeps them in extreme precariousness despite their strong and lasting ties to Belgian society. These people, invisible and deprived of rights, have nevertheless built their lives here, forged relationships, worked, and educated their children. But Belgium categorically refuses to allow them to regularise their situation and live with dignity.
In the face of this injustice, GVO supports the demands of undocumented migrants fighting for regularisation for all, without conditions.
Regularisation means granting a residence permit (temporary or permanent) to a person who was previously considered to be “in an irregular situation” (i.e., without valid papers to reside legally in the country). For those affected, generalised regularisation is the only fair and humane solution (within the current system) that allows them to emerge from the shadows and precariousness and to participate fully in the social, economic, and cultural life of the country in which they live.
Beyond the horizon of collective and unconditional regularisation, our collective is committed to abolishing the state’s filing system and the paperwork system, since this system inevitably leads to sorting and administrative control of who can and cannot be part of society.
Unsurprisingly, the Arizona government has taken a completely closed stance on regularisation. In the government agreement, it explicitly states that no collective regularisation will be considered:
“There will be no collective regularisation. Individual regularisation is an absolute exception and is solely at the discretion of the competent minister. As a matter of principle, if a foreigner wishes to come to Belgium, they must obviously do so in accordance with the procedures in force. Failure to do so fuels smuggling networks. If the person is fleeing their country for legitimate reasons, international protection statuses exist. “
This ideological stance criminalises undocumented migrants and denies the reality of their roots in Belgium. This discourse only exacerbates their exclusion and vulnerability, and deliberately chooses to ignore the structural causes that drive migration.
Worse still, this rhetoric fuels stigmatisation and hate speech, and closes the door to any humane and pragmatic solution that would make room for every person in society. Refusing to regularise their status condemns thousands of lives to invisibility, fear, and misery, in defiance of fundamental principles of justice and solidarity.
This policy is also hypocritical when we consider that in a whole range of sectors where conditions are often difficult (such as construction, hospitality, personal services, etc.), the economy relies on the employment (and often exploitation) of people whom the state denies papers.
Their message: “Your presence in our society is illegal”
We respond: Papers for all, then a society without papers at all!
Even when residence is granted, it can easily be revoked
Obtaining a residence permit is often seen as a huge relief by those concerned, as it symbolises official recognition of their right to live in Belgium. However, with the new measures announced by Arizona, this sense of security is becoming increasingly illusory. From now on, the withdrawal of residence permits (which was already possible under Belgian law) will be facilitated and made systematic.
The agreement provides for increased and continuous monitoring of the conditions for granting residence: a residence permit may be withdrawn at any time during its period of validity if certain conditions are no longer met. This permanent instability of the right of residence threatens the legal security of foreign nationals, which is essential to their inclusion in society.
In concrete terms, this means that the authorities will also carry out periodic assessments of the security situation in the country of origin of protected persons. If Belgium considers that the danger that justified the protection no longer exists (for example, if a war or crisis is considered to be over), the person may lose their right to asylum and face immediate expulsion, even after several years of living in Belgium with “protection.”
The list of grounds for revoking residence permits is also growing: committing a crime (even a minor one such as driving without a license or non-violent theft) could result in the automatic loss of residence rights and expulsion from the country. Zero tolerance will also apply in cases of asylum fraud, particularly for refugees who return briefly to their country of origin without authorisation. The Immigration Office will then be able to request more quickly that the CGRA (General Commissariat for Refugees and Stateless Persons) revoke or withdraw protection status.
The consequences of these new rules are concrete and serious: they plunge people of foreign origin into constant legal uncertainty, prevent their integration, and expose them to administrative arbitrariness. By increasing the grounds for withdrawal and facilitating deportations, this policy increases fear, isolation, and precariousness. It weakens the social fabric by denying thousands of people the right to a dignified and stable life, and calls into question the fundamental principles of welcome and protection that should guide a society that claims to be democratic.
These measures demonstrate a political desire to make residency a precarious and unstable privilege, subject to constant surveillance and evaluation, rather than a stable and protective right.
Their message: “You will never truly be part of our society”
Our response: Security for all!
Belgian nationality as a privilege for those who can afford it
Not only is the right to residence becoming increasingly difficult to obtain, but obtaining Belgian nationality is also becoming much more complicated with the new government agreement. The administrative fees for applying for nationality, which were previously €150, will be increased to €1,000 (with indexation planned). This is a considerable increase, placing Belgium among the European countries where naturalisation is most expensive.
This increase represents a major financial obstacle for many people, especially those with limited resources. It risks making Belgian nationality inaccessible to a significant portion of the population of foreign origin.
In addition, the conditions for access have been tightened: anyone wishing to obtain Belgian nationality will now have to pass a “citizenship exam,” which is a test on “fundamental values” (such as the neutrality of public authorities and gender equality) and a language test (the required level of which has been raised from A2 to B1).
These additional requirements can no longer be justified by simple social or economic integration… This risks excluding even more “candidates,” particularly those who have difficulty learning the language.
Furthermore, these citizenship tests raise important ethical and ideological questions: they assume that nationality is conditional on the integration of Western cultural norms and values. These tests (the exact content of which is not yet known) suggest the idea of a hierarchy of cultural norms. The notions of state neutrality and gender equality appear several times in the text, pretending to embellish fascist and inhumane ideas with beautiful values.
The grounds for refusing citizenship are also broadened, particularly in cases where there is a threat to public order, or if the “candidate” is receiving social assistance (which effectively excludes the most vulnerable people from the integration process).
In addition, the authority to grant nationality to stateless children will become federal. Currently, this authority still lies with the registrar. Transferring these procedures to the federal level could complicate and slow down access to nationality for children (as is already the case, for example, for people of Palestinian origin born in Belgium).
Finally, the loss of nationality for “fraud, fraudulent behaviour, falsification of documents, or marriage of convenience” will now systematically result in the loss of the right of residence.
This general policy of instability in the right of residence reflects a vision in which obtaining nationality is considered a favour, not a right. This further undermines the integration and stability of foreign nationals in Belgium.
“We consider obtaining our nationality to be a favour, not a right.”
Their message: “Being Belgian is a privilege, an exception that must be earned”
Our response: Belgian nationality for all, then no nation at all!
Family reunification: stricter rules
The conditions for family reunification in Belgium have been significantly tightened. Provided for in the February agreement, these new reforms were voted on by the Internal Affairs Committee of the Federal Parliament on July 9 (despite a critical opinion issued by the Council of State). This is the penultimate step before their validation by the Chamber.
In order to bring a family member to Belgium, the “sponsor” and the ‘applicant’ will have to meet strict criteria (including passing language and integration tests) and prove their commitment to “Western” values (such as state neutrality and gender equality). A minimum age of 21 is required for both partners (to prevent forced marriages), and polygamous marriages (by proxy or involving minors) are systematically excluded. Income requirements have also been tightened: the sponsor must now prove that they have resources equivalent to at least 110% of the Guaranteed Minimum Monthly Income (plus 10% per additional person). This means that in order to bring a spouse and two children to Belgium, a person must earn €2,745 net per month. In addition, only certain types of income are taken into account: social benefits are excluded from the calculation (unless proof of active job seeking is provided for unemployment benefits).
People who have been granted international protection will now only have six months to bring their families to Belgium: the previous one-year deadline was already very tight given the complexity of the procedures.
In addition, the waiting periods for family reunification have been extended: individuals must now have resided legally in Belgium for two years from the date of obtaining their residence permit before they can initiate a family reunification procedure. For individuals who have obtained residence for medical or humanitarian reasons, this period is also increased to two years. The periods without conditions are reduced to the European minimum of six months.
In addition, checks on the “sincerity” of romantic relationships have been tightened: having a child together is no longer considered “sufficient proof” of the stability of the couple, but only a presumption of a couple (which the administration can question in case of doubt). The authorities are taking a very strict approach to combating fictitious relationships, and specific training is planned for civil registrars and diplomatic posts. At the slightest suspicion, a judicial investigation will be opened.
Certain categories of people are excluded from the right to family reunification, including those convicted of sexual offences, domestic violence, or gender-based violence, as well as those whose partner is a victim of abandonment. Repeated applications without new information will be declared inadmissible, and the automatic granting of a residence permit in the event of exceeding processing deadlines has been abolished.
Finally, unaccompanied minors (MENA) who obtain subsidiary protection will no longer have the right to bring their parents to Belgium.
In summary, these new measures make family reunification much more difficult and restrictive, lengthen reunification times, increase the precariousness and isolation of foreign families, and risk hindering their integration in Belgium in the long term. Under these new rules, it will be impossible for some people to bring their relatives to Belgium. It is not surprising that the government wanted to tighten the conditions for family reunification, as this is the most important (and also one of the safest) legal route for immigration.
Their message: “Your family is under our control”
Our response: Family reunification for all those who want it.
Emergency medical assistance: scope reduced to almost nothing
Emergency medical assistance (EMA) is a system in Belgium that allows people without a residence permit to access certain essential healthcare services. It mainly covers care deemed essential to preserve a person’s life or health, but its scope is regularly the subject of debate and reform.
Certain types of care considered non-essential (such as orthodontics, fertility treatments, non-reconstructive cosmetic care, and certain dental prostheses) are now explicitly excluded from EMH coverage. A reform and harmonisation of the system is underway, in collaboration with the SPP Intégration sociale (SPP IS) and the CAAMI (public social security institution): tighter controls are planned, and a filtering system is being considered, inspired by the medical regularisation procedure.
However, in reality, only 10 to 20% of undocumented migrants currently use the AMU. Among the obstacles are:
- bureaucratic red tape (for example, documents must be provided to the CPAS, which must conduct an investigation)
- lack of information about their rights
- precarious living conditions that hinder access to healthcare.
In practical terms, these changes will further limit access to healthcare for individuals, who will have to forego certain treatments that the state deems non-essential. This risks exacerbating social inequalities in access to healthcare, increasing medical insecurity, and delaying the treatment of certain needs. It will also force patients to go through more complex administrative procedures and increased monitoring of their medical situation.
Their message: “Our social security is not for you”
Our response: Social security and healthcare for all!
The federal government is everywhere and centralises everything (overseeing federated entities and embassies).
In Belgium, the granting of visas and residence permits can sometimes be a responsibility of municipalities and diplomatic/consular posts. These entities are also responsible for performing marriages, registering legal cohabitation, filiation (the legal link between a child and his/her parents), etc.
The federal government provides for enhanced control mechanisms in its agreement. In the event of suspected fraud, abuse, or misapplication of the rules for granting visas or residence permits, the municipality or diplomatic post concerned may be subject to inspection.
This entails numerous risks. Being placed under federal supervision may be perceived as an infringement on the autonomy of municipalities or the specificity of diplomatic work (especially if the criteria for triggering an inspection or supervision are not sufficiently transparent or objective).
These measures also create a risk of politicising the procedure. Indeed, if the federal government considers that a municipality is too favourable to people of foreign origin, that municipality may then be sanctioned and placed under supervision by federal structures. This therefore further encourages a culture of fear and control.
The centralisation of power (in this case by the federal government) is one of the characteristics of authoritarian and undemocratic regimes.
Their message: “The same rules everywhere, decided by us”
Our response: Decentralisation of state power, then no state power at all!
Let’s not turn a blind eye to fascism and state racism, in Belgium and elsewhere!
NO ONE IS ILLEGAL
NO TO DETENTION
NO TO BORDERS
NO TO DEPORTATIONS
PAPERS FOR EVERYONE
FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE
Full analysis:
1/ Reception
2/ Residence
3/ Asylum
4/ Detention & deportation
