Belgium has recently decided to restrict the conditions of access to family reunification for migrants, after the House of Representatives adopted new legislation amending the provisions of the law of December 15, 1980. Besides 107 favorable votes, 38 against and no abstention, these changes are binding especially for workers and persons benefiting from subsidiary aid, while the requirements were already high.
In a country where Morocco constitutes one of the main nationalities of foreign communities, the minimum wage to file a request goes from almost 2,100 euros to 2,323, the equivalent of 110% of guaranteed average monthly income (RMMMG). Added to this is an increase of 10% for each additional member of the family, without limit. The entries recorded must be strictly personal and include neither those from the Public Center for Social Action (CPAS), nor family allowances, those of integration, nor the gains of a guarantor or a third party.
Longer and longer waiting times
Some advantages are even deleted or reduced, like the period of exemption from income and housing conditions. For relatives of a beneficiary of subsidiary protection, this provision is completely deleted. The duration is reduced from one year to six months, so that a applicant with refugee status can bring family members. As for the age required for regrouping with a legally registered spouse or partner, it goes from 18 to 21 years.
In addition, certain waiting times its extensions, in particular for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. While the latter had the same rights to regrouping as the refugees, they will now have to wait two years before being able to submit a family reunification request. Only the prior existence of family ties in Belgium will be able to reduce this duration to one year.
These new provisions even report the end of implicit acceptance. Indeed, the lack of response from the Office of Foreigners within the legal period of nine months, extendable at 15 months, no longer returns to a green light for applicants. It is rather an implicit refusal. This automatically opens the remedies before the Conseil des littieux des Foreigners, within 30 days.
On the majority side, Belgian government supported these beak and nail reforms, before the deputies. In the eyes of the Minister of Asylum and Migration, Anneleen Van Bossuyt (N-VA), these provisions constitute guarantees so that family reunification is made in conditions favorable to “economic autonomy” and integration. According to her, they would also reduce the number of arrivals on Belgian territory.
Approved provisions of objections
However, the Council of State has made its criticisms on several points, starting with that of the increase in income and the unlimited increase. The body has also expressed its concerns about differentiated treatment between refugee applicants and those benefiting from subsidiary aid, concerning the exemption period on income and housing conditions.
For his part, the child’s rights commissioner expressed his concerns on the exclusion of non-accompanied minors benefiting from subsidiary protection. As of July 10 and while the text was in its bill phase, its content was pinned up for the infringement of recognized rights in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights. In his declaration, the commissioner argued that family reunification for children was “a right and not a privilege”.
Few to make the weight in the face of the coalition, the elected officials of the opposition also stood against these provisions. Among them, the environmentalist Matti Vandemaele (Groen) described the text as “the height of inhumanity”. “You say to children who have not seen their mother for four years: ‘we are going to make things even more difficult’. I am not surprised by this on the part of the N-VA and the Vlaams Belang, it is in your DNA, “castigated the deputy, addressing Anneleen Van Bossuyt and his far-right party.
The new provisions are also criticized by civil society organizations, which have been worried in the face of “attack on the right to family life” and even the integration efforts. Number among them intend to challenge this law before the Constitutional Court for discrimination and violations of fundamental rights.
