A draft legislative proposal that would enable authorities to enter private residences in order to detain undocumented migrants facing deportation has triggered sharp criticism

across Belgium’s legal, judicial and policing institutions, as well as from opposition lawmakers.

The bill, introduced by Asylum Minister Anneleen Van Bossuyt and Justice Minister Annelies Verlinden, seeks to facilitate the removal of individuals residing illegally in Belgium who refuse to cooperate with return procedures. The measure would apply only in cases where individuals are deemed a threat to public order or national security, and would require prior authorisation from an investigating judge.

However, the proposal has sparked concern that it would significantly expand state powers to enter private homes, including those housing undocumented migrants or individuals providing them shelter.

Police warn of legal ambiguity and operational risk

During hearings in the House Committee on Home Affairs, police representatives raised concerns about the practical and legal clarity of the draft legislation. Officials warned that key provisions remain insufficiently defined, leaving frontline officers uncertain about their responsibilities during high-pressure interventions.

Eric Garbar of the federal judicial police argued that the text leaves too much room for interpretation, stating that officers should not be expected to “fill in the gaps themselves in an emergency situation,” highlighting fears of legal exposure and operational confusion.

Judicial authorities question feasibility of procedure

Judicial stakeholders also expressed reservations over the bill’s procedural framework. Under the draft, investigating judges would have five days to rule on authorisation requests once the Immigration Office submits a case file. Critics say this timeline is unrealistic given the complexity of such decisions.

Claire Bruyneel of the Association of Investigating Judges questioned both the timeframe and the operational model, arguing that it is impractical to expect immigration officials to participate directly in home search operations alongside police units, even in high-risk terrorism-related cases.

Legal sector warns of constitutional risks

The legal profession has issued some of the strongest objections. Kati Verstrepen of the Flemish Bar Association said the proposal risks breaching constitutional and international legal protections, warning that it could amount to an unlawful interference with fundamental rights.

Lawyers also pointed to the absence of safeguards for third parties, particularly landlords or individuals providing accommodation. Verstrepen noted that the draft does not clearly define remedies in cases where property damage occurs during enforcement actions.

Security agency sees limited potential value

By contrast, Gert Vercauteren of Belgium’s Coordination Unit for Threat Analysis offered a more cautious assessment, suggesting the bill could have “added value” in specific scenarios where cooperation with countries of origin is secured and individuals refuse to return voluntarily. However, he stressed that the practical impact remains uncertain and would depend on implementation.

Limited support from former constitutional judge

Among the experts consulted, former Constitutional Court president Marc Bossuyt stood out as the only explicit supporter of the initiative. He argued in favour of similar measures in previous policy discussions, including work conducted under the so-called Bossuyt Committee on return policy.

Opposition and rights bodies raise alarm

Opposition parties have strongly rejected the draft. Groen MP Matti Vandemaele described the proposal as legally questionable and politically excessive, urging the government to withdraw it entirely rather than proceed with further hearings.

Meanwhile, the federal migration centre Myria warned that the bill lacks sufficient protections for vulnerable individuals, including children, and fails to establish adequate safeguards during enforcement operations.

Government defends safeguards and necessity

Despite the criticism, proponents of the bill argue that it includes robust judicial oversight and is necessary to improve the effectiveness of return policy. N-VA MP Maaike De Vreese pointed to existing data suggesting that only a small proportion of undocumented migrants apprehended for public order issues ultimately end up in closed return centres, questioning the efficiency of current procedures.

She argued that home searches are already used in several EU member states and insisted that the proposal contains multiple safeguards designed to prevent abuse.

As parliamentary scrutiny continues, the draft bill remains a focal point of debate over the balance between migration enforcement, constitutional rights, and state authority in Belgium. Photo by Dickelbers, Wikimedia commons.