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.

We will deal with four main topics: 
1/ Reception
2/ Residence
3/ Asylum
4/ Detention & deportation

PART 3 – ASYLUM

Asylum applications under surveillance

Asylum applications are already a real struggle. People who are forced to go through these procedures are dehumanised, infantilised, inspected and put under pressure by the Belgian administration. Already far too long, inaccessible and unfair, these procedures are set to become even tougher.

The strengthening of the ‘duty to cooperate’ now requires asylum seekers to hand over all their digital data (phones, tablets, computers) to the administration as soon as they submit their application. This is a serious intrusion into the privacy of these people, which is now legalised, putting them under constant surveillance. It places additional psychological pressure on people who are often already traumatised. ‘Refusal to cooperate’, an application that the administration deems late, or the slightest suspicion of fraud become potential grounds for rejecting an asylum application.

This logic reverses the fundamental principle of the right to asylum, since it is no longer up to the state to prove that there is no need for asylum protection: it is up to the individual to demonstrate, under surveillance and in a hurry, the legitimacy of their request for protection.

The real-life consequences are serious: even the smallest mistake, delay, or reluctance to give personal info can lead to an immediate rejection of the asylum application. The rush to process cases (under the pretext of complying with European standards) risks leading to rushed decisions, without a real consideration of each person’s individual situation. The increase in implicit withdrawals, the strict application of Dublin decisions (return to the first country of arrival in the EU) and the drastic limitation of the right to submit additional applications make access to international protection virtually impossible for many people in exile.

Their message: “Your story belongs to us”
Our response: Asylum and protection for all!

One rejection, and that’s it

It will no longer be possible to submit a new asylum application after a previous application has been rejected. Submitting multiple consecutive asylum applications or initiating repeated appeal procedures for individuals who have been denied asylum is considered to place ‘unacceptable pressure’ on the asylum and reception system. The government therefore plans to make full use of the margins offered by European law to manage this so-called pressure.

In particular, it is considered to:

• limit the number of successive asylum applications
• make these procedures non-suspensive (meaning that a second asylum application being processed does not necessarily extend the right to stay: even if their second application is still being examined, a person could be forced to leave Belgian territory, even if there is no response yet to their application, which is still pending).

Furthermore, if a person has already submitted an application for protection in another EU country and has received a decision, any new application in Belgium will only be examined if new and significant elements are presented. Otherwise, the application will be declared inadmissible.

All of this could expose people to quick deportations, without the chance to add new info to their case or get extended hospitality in the meantime. The government says this is to stop people from ‘asylum shopping,’ but that’s a bad argument because it ignores the reality of migration and dangerous situations (which can change over time).

Their message: “No more ‘asylum shopping‘”
Our response: Right to asylum without policing or intrusion into private life!

Limited access to refugee status

The government plans to narrow access to refugee status by interpreting protection criteria in an increasingly restrictive way.

The clearer distinction between refugee status and subsidiary protection aims to limit access to the most protective rights as much as possible: subsidiary protection is for people who don’t meet the criteria for refugee status but who are still facing serious dangers. It is a less stable, more precarious and more limited status.

This restriction on access to refugee status risks depriving people in danger of the status and rights that truly protect them.

Their message: “We are the ones who decide the level of danger you are in”
Our response: Asylum and maximum protection for everyone, regardless of their situation!

Severe restrictions on social welfare

From now on, new arrivals in Belgium (so-called ‘primo-arrivants’) will have to wait five years before they can access social welfare. Access to these benefits is no longer considered a fundamental right, but a privilege subject to strict conditions. This approach reflects a utilitarian and meritocratic view of integration. Integration is not seen as a collective and supportive process: it is a reward, only available to those who meet the government’s strict expectations.

“New arrivals are expected to make an effort to become active and integrated as quickly as possible. Indeed, before being able to obtain a permanent right of residence, they must continue to meet the conditions for entry and residence, including having sufficient means of subsistence.”

Refugees who are already receiving social welfare will be required to follow a ‘reinforced integration programme’ (set up by the government in collaboration with other levels of authority in Belgium). If they fail to comply with these obligations, their financial aid may be reduced.

Furthermore, for people who are granted subsidiary protection, their access to social welfare will be even more limited: financial assistance will be conditional on ‘bonuses’ awarded on the basis of their integration efforts.

In practical terms, the strengthening of mandatory ‘integration’ programmes, coupled with the threat of financial penalties, establishes a system of constant control and surveillance of migrants. They are continuously scrutinised and evaluated, not only on their ability to integrate economically, but also on their supposed adherence to so-called ‘Western values’.

This policy does not promote any real and lasting ‘integration’ into society: it creates constant pressure and social insecurity for people who have recently arrived in Belgium. With its arbitrary conditions and criteria, the government will only exacerbate their precariousness, hinder their autonomy and reinforce inequalities. The government continues to view integration as a punitive obstacle course rather than a shared project based on solidarity, community and respect for everyone’s fundamental rights.

Their message: “In order to stay in Belgium, you must be able to pay”
Our response: Financial aid for all!

The ‘SPF Migration’: harmonisation to better centralise power

The Belgian government plans on merging several official services related to asylum and migration under a single large structure called SPF Migration.

• The Immigration Office
• The General Commission for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRA)
• Fedasil
• The Council for Immigration Litigation (CCE)

The government’s stated objective is to ‘better coordinate’ the entire migration process, “rationalise” staff and adopt a “common approach” at all stages of the procedure.

This institutional regrouping will enable the new Ministry of Asylum & Migration to issue general guidelines to the CGRA and strengthen the judicial section of the Immigration Office, in particular by maximising detection and interception capabilities and considering its integration into the police force.

The government also insists on the need to ‘ensure the neutrality of all staff’: it argues that this is to ‘combat discrimination’ and to affirm ‘fundamental values’ (such as the separation of religion and state and equality between men and women). Measures such as the introduction of a uniform or dress code are being considered to guarantee this supposed neutrality in all interactions with service users. Beyond the threat this may pose to women who wear the headscarf, it also means that people seeking asylum will find themselves facing uniformed and cold staff in an almost dystopian atmosphere.

In concrete terms, this reform aims to ‘centralise and harmonise’ the processing of asylum and migration cases, speed up procedures and strengthen control over the entire journey of foreign nationals.

The expected consequences are numerous:

• Centralised management, and therefore a risk that procedures will be simplified and accelerated, without allowing for nuance or flexibility.
• Standardisation of practices, which will make it harder to take individual situations into account.
• Stronger administrative and police control over foreigners.
• A ‘rationalisation’ of staff, with a risk of less empathy in the processing of cases.

Generally speaking, the government plans to have asylum and migration services systematically appeal decisions deemed ‘too favourable’ in relation to the government’s intentions: this will lengthen processing times and create more obstacles for people seeking protection.

Finally, the government has announced a managerial approach with numerical targets for the administration: Anneleen Van Bossuyt (Belgian Minister for Asylum and Migration) recently indicated that she wanted to impose numerical targets (KPIs, key performance indicators) on asylum judges in order to increase productivity and reduce backlogs in the processing of cases. This measure, criticised by judges for its potential infringement on the judicial system’s autonomy, is part of a policy aimed at limiting the number of refugees accepted and achieving savings of €1.4 billion on asylum and migration by 2029. The minister also wants to impose this managerial system on all other services (OE, CGRA, etc.). In other words, the codes of the private and capitalist world, focused on efficiency, performance and productivity.

People of foreign origin will thus find themselves faced with an even more bloated administration, even less accessible, and even less sensitive to their specific needs.

Their message: “All levels of power under our control”
Our response: ‘Counter-powers everywhere, then no more power to the state at all!’

Against the law: less power for CCE decisions

In immigration law (as in all other areas of law), appeal procedures are essential because they are often the only means of defending oneself against unfair or hasty decisions taken by the administration (such as deportation or denial of residence permit). In a system where the Immigration Office wields significant, sometimes arbitrary power, appeal procedures help to restore a minimum of balance and attempt to ensure that people’s fundamental rights are respected. However, the Arizona government wants to reduce the number of appeal options and focus on written procedures (which limits people’s right to defend themselves in person)

The government also plans to make appeal procedures non-suspensive: this means that an appeal against a decision (such as an order to leave Belgian territory) does not block its immediate enforcement. In other words, even if a person challenges the deportation decision, they can be deported before the court has issued its decision: this deprives the appeal of its protective effect.

Furthermore, lawyers who tend to easily file appeals deemed abusive by the Council for Immigration Litigation (CCE) could now face sanctions. This could discourage some from fully defending their clients in asylum procedures, which constitutes a dangerous obstacle to access to justice.

Without any real possibility of challenging court decisions, the risk of human rights violations is immense. Appeals are not a formality: they are an essential condition for ensuring that the principles of the rule of law apply to everyone.

Judicial independence is also undermined:

• The government is generalising fixed-term appointments (five years, renewable) for judges to the Council for Immigration Litigation: currently, the appointment of judges for life is a fundamental principle for guaranteeing their autonomy.
• The government will also be able to intervene in the composition of the courts and in the decision to refer a question for a preliminary ruling (i.e. a question to be addressed to another court because it falls within another area of jurisdiction), which constitutes a serious interference in the functioning of the justice system.

The new government has already taken action: in May 2025, Bart De Wever signed a letter written by several European governments, in which the role of the European Court of Human Rights is called into question with regard to asylum and migration. This letter was written and co-signed by the Belgian government alongside other far-right leaders (including Giorgia Meloni, for example). This move also clearly challenges the democratic values and fundamental rights that Belgium has always claimed to defend.

Their message: “We control the law and everyone who applies it”
Our response: Independence of the judiciary, and justice for 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