The draft law, supported by Minister for Asylum and Migration Anneleen Van Bossuyt, was submitted to the Chamber of Representatives in June 2026. It was examined by the Committee on Home Affairs, Security, Migration and Administrative Matters from June onwards, including several hearings and parliamentary discussions. The Committee approved the draft law in second reading on 7 October 2026, following the adoption of amendments introducing additional safeguards, notably concerning the presence of minors and the assessment of the proportionality of the measure. 

The Chamber adopted the text in plenary in the early hours of 6 November, following approximately ten hours of debate. The bill was adopted by 80 votes in favour, 35 against and 12 abstentions. The adopted text inserts a new Article 74/7/1 into the Law of 15 December 1980 on access to the territory, residence, establishment and removal of foreign nationals. It allows police officers, accompanied by one or more officials from the Immigration Office, to enter the residence of a foreign national, including the home or place of residence of a third party, subject to prior authorisation from an investigating judge.

The authorisation to carry out a home search is subject to six cumulative conditions:

• There are reasonable grounds to consider that the foreign national represents a danger to public order or national security.
• The person is subject to an enforceable removal, return or transfer measure.
• The person does not cooperate with the implementation of that measure.
• There are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is present in a residence that is not accessible to the public.
• The authorisation is necessary to carry out the measure, with no other less intrusive measure being effectively applicable.
• The authorisation is proportionate, taking into account the interests of the foreign national and of any third parties residing at the address concerned.

The text specifies that irregular stay alone does not constitute a danger to public order or national security. Nor does the commission of a criminal offence in itself constitute such a danger, although it may be taken into account in the assessment.

To obtain authorisation, the Minister or their delegate must submit a reasoned application to the investigating judge, accompanied by the foreign national’s complete administrative file. The judge must issue a reasoned decision within seven working days and may request additional information. The decision is not subject to appeal. If authorisation is refused, a new application concerning the same person may only be submitted on the basis of a new element.

Home searches may take place between 5:00 and 21:00. Police officers may request the assistance of a locksmith if necessary. They may ask the person concerned to present identity documents and, if the person does not comply, search the residence for documents establishing or verifying their identity. The execution of the search must be recorded in an official report. A copy of the judicial authorisation must be provided to the person concerned; other residents or property owners present may request access to the authorisation and the report.

Specific safeguards apply where children are concerned. An authorisation cannot be requested against a minor. Where minors reside at the address, the judge must take their best interests into account when assessing the proportionality of the measure and determining how it is to be carried out. If children are present during the search, the least intrusive approach must be adopted, with due regard for their right to information and the need to avoid family separation. A multidisciplinary framework is also intended to minimise potential harm and trauma.

The bill prompted opposition from human rights organisations, legal professionals and civil society organisations. Before the plenary vote, Amnesty International called on the Chamber to reject the proposal, arguing that it could constitute a disproportionate interference with the right to privacy and family life and discourage citizens from providing accommodation and support to people in an irregular situation. On 4 November, Amnesty International and a coalition of 36 Belgian organisations organised a human chain around the Brussels Palace of Justice, alongside more than 50 decentralised actions across the country.

The Order of French-speaking and German-speaking Bars (OBFG) also urged Members of Parliament not to approve the text. Among its main concerns were the insufficiently defined criteria for establishing a danger to public order or national security, the absence of an appeal procedure against the investigating judge’s authorisation, the proportionality of the measure and the possibility of entering the home of a third party who is not involved in the return procedure. The OBFG announced that it would take steps to seek the annulment of the law if adopted.

The plenary debate revisited many of the concerns raised by human rights organisations and legal professionals, including the scope of the measure and the safeguards surrounding its implementation. Opponents also questioned its practical necessity, arguing that existing legal instruments could already be used to address the serious offences invoked in its defence. They further raised concerns about the practical implementation of home searches and the extent to which the investigating judge would be able to scrutinise the information provided by the Immigration Office.

The text adopted by the Chamber was submitted for Royal Assent. It provides for entry into force on 1 March 2027, although the King may set an earlier date. The Minister responsible for Asylum and Migration must submit an evaluation of the law to the Chamber within 18 months of its entry into force, with particular attention to its impact on minors.

For further information, please consult the text adopted by the Chamber of Representatives and the report of the plenary session of 5 November 2026.