The Belgian Chamber of Representatives approved a controversial new law in the early hours of Friday, November 6, 2026, granting police the authority to enter private homes to arrest individuals without legal residency who are deemed a threat to public order or national security.
The decision followed a heated overnight debate in Parliament, with the vote finally passing shortly after 5:00 a.m. VRT reported that the legislative process concluded after a marathon session. The law allows the police to conduct searches and enter dwellings at the request of the Foreigners Office (DVZ) to locate persons who have ignored orders to leave the country, provided the individual is considered a danger to national security or public order.
Opposition warns of “ICE-like” conditions
Critics and opposition members have expressed grave concerns regarding the impact of the legislation on civil liberties. GVA noted that left-wing opposition members characterized the move as a violation of human rights and a slippery slope, with one member comparing the potential for rapid democratic decline to the immigration enforcement conditions seen in the United States.
The mobilization against the law included widespread protests on Wednesday, November 4, 2026. Under the banner No ICE in Belgium,
activists held demonstrations in more than 55 cities and municipalities, including Ghent, Leuven, Bruges, and various Walloon communities. De Standaard reported that a human chain was formed around the Brussels Palace of Justice during the evening protests. In Leuven, a citizen initiative had previously gathered 1,689 valid votes against the proposal, leading the local city council to pass a motion opposing the federal legislation, according to Leuven Actueel.
Legal experts challenge judicial role and definitions
Legal professionals and human rights organizations have argued that the law undermines the role of the investigating judge. De Wereld Morgen explained that while an investigating judge must still grant permission for a search, the judge does not conduct a standard criminal investigation in these administrative cases, as the dossier is provided by the DVZ. The judge can verify if legal conditions are met but lacks their usual investigative powers.
The lack of clarity regarding the terms “public order” and national security has been a primary point of contention. Migration lawyer Kati Verstrepen, chair of the League for Human Rights, argued that expanding these terms hollows them out, noting that almost anyone interacting with the justice system is currently viewed as a danger. De Standaard quoted Verstrepen stating that the law is a populist measure that risks throwing a fundamental right overboard. She noted that the Association of Investigating Judges and the Council of State had issued negative advice on the text.
I find it important to be present here as a lawyer, because the law on residential entries embraces a real danger to our fundamental rights and completely misinterprets the role of the investigating judge.
Ivan Ficher, attorney, as cited by De Standaard
De Wereld Morgen noted that in 2017, the Constitutional Court previously overturned a similar regulation regarding home searches due to a lack of essential legal safeguards.
Local government and political friction
The law’s passage occurred amid political instability. BRUZZ reported that because Bart De Wever (N-VA) had offered the resignation of his government to King Philippe earlier in the week, the Parliament was in a state of cautious affairs, limiting its scope to urgent legislative work.
While some local leaders have signaled resistance, others have maintained that the law must be upheld. GVA reported that the Mayor of Leuven, Mohamed Ridouani, had previously indicated he would oppose residential entries within his jurisdiction, though a member of the PVDA emphasized during the debate that all mayors would be required to apply the law.
Majority pushes design despite objections
The final vote saw the majority push the design through despite requests from the PS, PVDA, PTB, and Ecolo-Groen to delay the proceedings due to the ongoing government crisis. The liberal opposition party, Anders, supported the text, while Vlaams Belang abstained, claiming the design was so diluted that it would have little practical effect. The majority ultimately passed the measure, ensuring the implementation of the new design despite the various objections raised by the opposition and several other political parties.
