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 4 – DETENTION & DEPORTATION
——————– DETENTION ——————–
Follow-up to the ‘masterplan centres fermés’
The ‘closed centres master plan’ in Belgium is a strategical plan launched by Theo Francken (N-VA) when he was Secretary of State for Asylum and Migration (between 2014 and 2018). This plan aimed to strengthen migration control, with several objectives announced:
- Increasing the detention capacity of closed centres (i.e. the number of centres);
- Speeding up deportation procedures;
- Deterring migration to Belgium, in particular by strengthening detention measures (the idea was to make Belgium less attractive to people wishing to apply for the right to stay).
Since Francken, it is the Flemish Christian party CD&V (conservative and right-wing) that has been responsible for asylum and migration in the federal government. The fact that it is officially positioned less to the right than the N-VA has not prevented the CD&V from being fully aligned with the same racist and repressive ambitions: the two people who have held the position of Secretary of State for Asylum and Migration (Sammy Mahdi and Nicole de Moor) have pursued Francken’s objectives, including his ‘master plan’ for closed centres.
With the Arizona government, the N-VA is back in charge of asylum and migration (with the position being upgraded from secretary of state to minister), with Anneleen Van Bossuyt. She seems ready (and already on her way) to implement the ‘toughest migration policy ever in Belgium’.
Unsurprisingly, Arizona has announced the continuation of the closed centres master plan and even more repression, detention and deportations, in a climate of racism and fascism.
Their message: “Strengthen migration control“
Our response: Everyone must be free to travel or settle where they wish.
More and more closed centres
To increase detention capacity, Francken’s master plan included the building of six new closed centres. The stated goal was to double detention capacity from the current 600 places to around 1,100. The closed centre for women in Holsbeek was already part of this master plan when it opened in 2019. Today, between four and six other new centres are planned (in Zandvliet, Jumet, Steenokkerzeel and Jabbeke). Unfortunately, the building of the centre in Jumet (in the Charleroi area) is becoming more and more of a reality, despite protests (especially from the Ni Jumet, Ni Ailleurs collective).
The government agreement also mentions the creation of a special centre specifically for the increasing number of people suffering from medical and psychological problems related to drug addiction. Given that the psychological care provided to people detained in closed centres is already dire, we can expect the worst: the aim of such a centre is certainly not to provide care or better treatment for people.
The agreement also announces the creation of ‘Dublin centres’ exclusively focused on return (meaning forced deportation), in order to identify and deport even more quickly people whose fingerprints are registered in other European countries (and who, according to European law, must first be sent back to those countries before being deported from European territory).
Finally, the agreement confirms the ban on the detention of children, but this is not guaranteed in the long term: it plans to review the law after two years, which suggests that a legal return to the detention of children remains possible in the future. In any case, in reality, children often find themselves locked up in centres (because bone tests falsely determine them to be adults).
Their message: “As many centres as possible, to control who stays on our territory“
Our response: Burn down your closed centres and all your prisons.
Belgian prisons outside Belgian territory
Belgian prisons are overcrowded, and the current penal policy is to lock up more and longer. This logic of imprisonment makes no sense: prison has no effect on crime, which is actually falling (while prison sentences continue to increase). The logic of punishing, repressing and imprisoning is at the heart of the ambitions of a racist and security-obsessed state. In Belgian prisons, a large number of people who have been deprived of their residence permits are locked up. Some of these people have lost their residence permits as a result of their ‘offences’ (sometimes for minor offences, such as driving without a licence or non-violent theft). Once they have served their prison sentences, these people are sent directly to detention centres with a view to their expulsion from the country (our collective refers to this as ‘double punishment’).
Since Belgian prisons are full, the Arizona government says it will conclude agreements with other European countries (such as Kosovo and Estonia) to build (or rent) prisons there for convicted persons who do not have residence permits. In this case, these people will be directly deported to their country of origin at the end of their prison sentence. These remote prisons will further invisible and silence those imprisoned, even more than they already are. They risk increasing their isolation, when they are already highly marginalised due to the loss of their residence permits and their criminalisation. It will complicate (or even make impossible) their access to visits, social support and legal remedies, which may exacerbate their vulnerability and psychological distress.
The externalisation of prisons also raises major questions about respect for fundamental rights and Belgium’s ability to guarantee detention conditions that comply with international standards (given that the detention of foreign nationals in Belgium has already been criticised and condemned for inhuman or degrading treatment).
This externalisation does not address the structural causes of prison overcrowding or the growing criminalisation of undocumented migrants: building Belgian prisons abroad would simply displace the problem of overcrowding outside Belgian territory, making the horrors of detention more distant and less visible to the Belgian population and to groups or organisations fighting against detention or monitoring respect for human rights.
The people whom the state deprives of papers are part of the section of the population living in Belgium that is most criminalised by the racist, security-obsessed and capitalist state. The Belgian authorities take advantage of this to accuse these people of being ‘criminals’ and to justify the need to deport them from Belgian territory. This is a simplistic, false, racist and fascist discourse that allows them to get rid of people they deem ‘undesirable’.
Their message: “Prisons far from our eyes and those of our citizens“
Our response: Fire to prisons and all other places of detention.
Extension of the maximum duration of detention
Today, the maximum duration of detention in a closed centre is theoretically eight months. Even then, the maximum of eight months is supposed to represent only exceptional situations:
- The initial period of detention is two months.
- This detention can be extended month by month, up to four times in a row (i.e. a maximum of six months in total).
- In the event of refusal to cooperate or obstacles to deportation, detention can be extended for a further two months (i.e. up to eight months: again, theoretically in exceptional cases).
But the reality is quite different: people detained in centres remain locked up for much longer. Each time an expulsion attempt fails, the person is returned to the centre and the clock is reset. Some people with whom our group is in contact have been locked up for one or two years, with no release date.
However, according to the government agreement, the maximum detention period is being extended to 18 months. Given that the maximum was theoretically limited to 8 months today, but that in reality some people are already being detained for 18 months, it is worrying to think what this new official ‘limit’ will mean…
On the other hand, judicial review of the time limit remains in place. In other words, extensions of detention can (for the time being) only take place in the context of a court hearing. However, even with judicial review, the Immigration Office currently has no difficulty in systematically extending detention: it is a mere formality.
In the agreement, the government says it wants to keep detention times ‘as short as possible’. This is already false, since it increases the maximum duration to 18 months. But it is also misleading, because it does not mean that it wants to keep people locked up for as little time as possible: the government simply wants to deport them as soon as possible.
Their message: “We’ll keep you locked up until you break“
Our response: Even one hour in detention is too much: freedom for all!
No more asylum applications during detention
‘We are resolutely opposed to the practice of submitting undue asylum and residence applications from closed centres for the sole purpose of delaying or preventing return. We will make full use of the possibilities offered by European regulations in this area.’
The government will systematically prevent any attempt to submit a new asylum or residence application from a closed centre. This means that a person who is arrested and detained in a centre, and who has not yet submitted an asylum application, will no longer be able to do so and may be deported.
This is a very serious measure: today, submitting a new asylum application is sometimes the last resort for people who are threatened with deportation.
Recently, we shared the testimony of a man who applied for asylum to block his imminent deportation: he had received an order to leave Belgian territory (OQT), even though the Immigration Office had wrongly judged that he was not the father of his own child. The only thing that could help him at that point was to submit a new asylum application, as all other legal avenues had been denied.
Their message: “When we lock you up, you have no rights“
Our response: Access to asylum for all!
——————– DEPORTATIONS ——————–
Deport more and more, faster and faster
“A consistent and compliant return policy is a priority for this government. Once a final decision has been made, it must be implemented and the person receiving an order to leave the country must comply with it quickly. Last year, tens of thousands of OQTs were issued. But many of them are not enforced, and the majority of foreigners who are refused entry on illegal grounds do not leave. Things must change. This government is aiming for a significant increase in the number of returns. “
The Arizona government is clear and explicit about its desire to increase the number of forced returns of foreign nationals as much as possible. From now on, the order to leave the territory (OQT) is a genuine deportation contract: it details all the obligations of the persons concerned and the penalties incurred in the event of non-compliance.
In addition to so-called ‘voluntary’ returns (notably through ICAM appointments), the government plans to tighten forced return procedures (deportation by plane, with police escort, handcuffs, etc.).
Their message: “Undesirables must be removed from our territory by any means necessary“
Our response: Everyone has the right to choose where they want to live.
‘Voluntary’ returns: mandatory ICAM appointments
‘This government is aiming for a significant increase in the number of returns.’
The previous government (Vivaldi) had introduced a repatriation measure, which it presented as an alternative to detention in closed centres: the ICAM (Individual Case Management) system. The Immigration Office said it was inspired by social work, offering people without residence permits ‘tailor-made’ interviews with ‘return coaches’ to give an opinion on the person’s situation and their chances of obtaining the right to stay. In practice, the ‘coaches’ offer people ‘voluntary’ return and explain the risks involved if they do not agree to cooperate. The ICAM model is praised internationally as a good practice aimed at providing ‘individualised and rights-based’ support, but this is completely false: ICAM appointments are mainly used as a monitoring and control tool for the Immigration Office, which then justifies detention and deportation on the grounds of ‘refusal to cooperate’.
It should also be noted that the Immigration Office employs ‘return assistants or coaches’ in closed centres, whose job is to convince detainees to accept voluntary return by plane.
Arizona has made ICAM mandatory. Pilot projects will also be tested to accompany families (whose asylum has been refused) throughout the return process.
The practice of so-called ‘voluntary’ returns is misleading and deceptive. In the majority of cases, those who are offered ‘voluntary’ return are in a situation of despair: their asylum application has been rejected, they have no means of regularising their status and they face the threat of detention or forced deportation. The ‘choice’ to leave is often made under intense pressure: administrative, psychological or even physical (with the principle of solitary confinement). This return is therefore forced in reality, but disguised as ‘voluntary’.
Their message: “If you don’t accept that we’re kindly forcing you, we’ll use stronger methods“
Our response: A return made under pressure is not voluntary. Stop all deportations!
Diplomatic manoeuvring to encourage deportations
“We link bilateral aid, entry visas, security and defence cooperation, trade and economic cooperation to the conclusion of return agreements and the effective readmission of third-country nationals. […] Sanctions are provided for in the event of non-compliance with the agreements concluded. Optimal cooperation on return is becoming a key issue in the context of a comprehensive government approach towards third countries, the so-called “whole of government” approach.”
The government notes that many orders to leave the country remain unenforced and that the majority of people do not return to their country of origin of their own accord. To remedy this, Belgium will now use links with third countries that are not directly related to immigration (such as trade agreements, bilateral aid, development cooperation, security and defence agreements, etc.).This means that if Belgium’s partner countries do not sign and implement return agreements for their nationals without residence permits in Belgium, the Belgian government will apply sanctions in other areas.
Their message: “We are all-powerful and can extend our power beyond borders“
Our response: Stop neo-colonial practices and the exploitation of migration for geopolitical ends. Freedom of movement and settlement for all!
——————– ARRESTS ——————–
Hunting down undocumented persons and raids at home
“If necessary, the person intercepted is placed in administrative detention and, on the instructions of the Immigration Office, immediately removed or transferred to a closed centre or residential unit with a view to removal. This measure applies to foreigners who have received an OQT and who pose a threat to public order, or who pose a threat to national security due to acts of extremism, radicalism or terrorism, or who have been convicted of serious crimes.”
Arizona plans to strengthen cooperation between police and immigration services (as part of the HIGH TROUBLE project). The aim is to facilitate arrests at home, so that people classified as ‘multiple offenders’ can be arrested and deported directly. Information on the places of residence/domiciles of foreign nationals who do not (yet) have a residence permit will have to be centralised and made accessible to all relevant services. The objective is to increase returns (‘voluntary’ and forced), officially for people ‘who represent a danger to public order’ (a very vague term that could be interpreted in many ways, allowing for the arrest of virtually anyone).
In practice, this means that the Immigration Office and the police now have the right to arrest people directly at their homes.
The implementation of these measures is already beginning to be seen: on 18 July 2025, the Belgian Council of Ministers approved a draft bill authorising house searches.
Their message: “Arrests everywhere, anywhere, anytime“
Our response: The police create insecurity. Racist state, police complicity: abolish the police institution!
Frontex troops on Belgian ground
The Belgian Council of Ministers recently adopted a Royal Decree (proposed by the Minister of the Interior, Bernard Quintin) which now authorises Frontex (the European Border and Coast Guard Agency) to actively operate and deploy on Belgian territory. This decision is in line with the government agreement, which emphasises strengthening internal security and a stricter migration policy.
The legal framework enabling this cooperation between Frontex and Belgium was voted on during the previous legislative term, but the new decree now sets out the specific conditions for the deployment of Frontex (armed) officers (who will always operate under the authority and in the presence of the Belgian police). Frontex’s areas of intervention in Belgium mainly include assistance with external border control (at Brussels-Zaventem airport, but also at major railway stations and international travel hubs), as well as assistance with deportations by air (including for persons convicted of criminal offences).
Frontex’s activities in Belgium will be monitored by the Comité P (the monitoring body for the police services). The stated aim is to prevent abuses and ensure that interventions comply with the legal framework and fundamental rights. However, the Comité P is a monitoring body that does not inspire much trust, given the way in which they almost systematically protect police abuses and violence.
Criticism of Frontex is widespread and well documented. Several international and European organisations (as well as institutions such as the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors) have pointed to serious violations of fundamental rights during Frontex operations: illegal pushbacks, ill-treatment, lack of personal data protection, discrimination and lack of transparency in the follow-up of complaints, etc. In Belgium, human rights and no borders collectives and associations have expressed their concern about the lack of clarity surrounding the powers and responsibilities of Frontex personnel in Belgium. Frontex military personnel will be present on Belgian soil from 2026, and only then will it be possible to directly observe the consequences of this new mechanism.
The deployment of Frontex on Belgian territory reinforces a repressive approach to migration, which is completely opposed to perspectives such as reception, collective regularisation and social security for all.
Their message: “More money, more weapons, more human resources to make every inch of OUR territory impenetrable“
Our response: Abolish Frontex. A world without borders is possible.
————– CONCLUSIONS & OUTLOOK ————–
The migration policy currently being pursued in Belgium clearly reflects the orientation of a state that has veered sharply to the far right. The measures adopted (tighter controls, centralisation of procedures, restriction of access to fundamental rights, etc.) are representative of an ideology that places repression, exclusion and stigmatisation of foreigners at the centre of public discourse and political action.
Under this far-right government, the law is no longer a safeguard for the most vulnerable: it has become an instrument of selection and arbitrary decision-making. Systematic violations of procedural guarantees, abusive detention, unfounded expulsions and the criminalisation of migration are becoming the norm. Foreigners, labelled as ‘undesirable’, are deprived of a voice, of recourse and of any effective protection. The (already rare) institutional counterbalances are weakened or reformed to serve the political objectives of those in power.
This policy, based on control, fear and closure, is accompanied by the normalisation of state racism and a profound questioning of democratic principles. In the face of this authoritarian drift, it is urgent to recall that human dignity, access to justice and unconditional respect for fundamental rights must remain at the heart of all public policy. It is clear that the Belgian state has not been guided by these principles for a long time, and that the state system itself produces inequalities and violence.
Closed centres prove to us every day that not all lives are equal and that not all humans are treated equally. The turn taken by Arizona goes even further: by legalising repressive practices, weakening the mechanisms available to defend people in exile, and enshrining in law an increasingly overt policy of exclusion and repression.
Let’s stand together to fight these fascist, racist, and deadly policies and institutions. Let’s defend an open society, without borders or walls, with solidarity and community at its core. A society where everyone has a place, no matter where they come from.
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
