Belgium's parliament approved a controversial law early on Friday allowing police to enter the homes of undocumented migrants who have ignored orders to leave the country, after a debate that ran through the night.

Lawmakers voted in favour of the measure at around 5 a.m. local time (04:00 GMT), according to Reuters, handing Prime Minister Bart De Wever's right-leaning coalition a significant win in its drive to tighten migration controls and increase expulsions of people denied the right to stay.

The law gives the authorities a power they did not previously have: to enter a private home to find and remove a person who has been refused asylum, has defied an order to leave Belgium, and is considered a threat to public security. Human rights groups and lawyers say the measure crosses a fundamental line — the sanctity of the home — and warn it could also affect people who shelter undocumented migrants.

What the law allows

The new powers are narrower than the headlines suggest, but still far-reaching. Under the law as approved, a home search is permitted only when three conditions are met at once: the person has been denied asylum in Belgium, has ignored an order to leave the country, and is seen as a threat to public security.

Even then, the search cannot simply be ordered by the police. Each operation must be approved by an investigative judge, and immigration officials must be present. Searches may take place only between 5 a.m. and 9 a.m., according to Reuters.

Under the framework as amended during parliamentary scrutiny, investigating judges have seven days to decide on a request for authorisation, and additional conditions may apply when children are present. An evaluation of the law is planned 18 months after it enters into force, including an assessment of its impact on minors.

One of the most contested questions is whose home can be searched. The government's critics, including Amnesty International, have warned that the powers could reach beyond the person named in a removal order to the homes of people who provide accommodation, food or other assistance to undocumented migrants. Amnesty said the legislation offers insufficient opportunities for affected people to challenge decisions authorising police entry.

What the law does not do: it is not a blanket authorisation to search the home of any undocumented migrant. The person must have had an asylum claim rejected, must have ignored an order to leave, and must be considered a public-security risk — and a judge must approve each search. The limits, and whether they hold in practice, are at the centre of the dispute.

Why the government says it is needed

The measure is part of a broader push by De Wever's coalition to limit migration and step up the removal of people refused permission to stay. The government has defended it as a practical tool to enforce deportation orders in cases involving people considered a danger to public order or national security, arguing that police and the Immigration Office currently cannot act against such people when they refuse to leave. Migration Minister Anneleen Van Bossuyt has made the same argument, and the government points to judicial authorisation as an important safeguard against unrestricted police action.

The bill, numbered 1591 in the Chamber of Representatives, was introduced in June 2026 and amended during parliamentary scrutiny. The Home Affairs Committee approved the amended text on second reading on 7 October, adding further procedures for judges and safeguards concerning children.

The opposition: protests, lawyers and Amnesty

The legislation has drawn sustained opposition from human rights groups, lawyers and parts of local government. Ahead of the vote, Amnesty International urged lawmakers to reject it. Dinushika Dissanayake, the organisation's deputy regional director, warned the proposals would create fear and division, and raised concerns about the rights of people who provide accommodation to undocumented migrants.

On Wednesday evening, around 3,000 people formed a human chain around the Palace of Justice in Brussels to protest the bill, and more than 50 other demonstrations and gatherings were organised in towns and cities across the country, according to Belgian media reports cited by Reuters.

"The proposals would create fear and division" — Amnesty International's Dinushika Dissanayake, urging lawmakers to reject the bill before the vote.

Most Brussels municipalities and the Brussels Region had already passed motions opposing the bill, although those motions are symbolic and have no effect on the federal legislation. A campaign by collectives and citizens in Brussels and Flanders, calling itself "No Ice In Belgium", has compared the law to the United States' immigration enforcement agency.

The legal profession has also pushed back. In an appeal published on Thursday, Marc Fyon, president of the French- and German-speaking bar association AVOCATS.BE, criticised the imprecise definition of a danger to public order and the safeguards for people living in the homes concerned. He said the criteria leave the administration considerable room for discretion. AVOCATS.BE has said it intends to ask Belgium's constitutional court to annul the measure.

What is not yet settled: the constitutional challenge has been announced but not yet filed, and the law's entry into force and practical application — including how judges apply the public-security test and whether searches extend to the homes of people offering shelter — remain to be seen. The 18-month evaluation clause means the debate will return.

A wider European argument

Belgium's decision is a national legislative development rather than a European Union rule, but it lands amid continuing arguments across Europe over irregular migration, rejected asylum applications and the enforcement of return decisions. On Thursday, Sweden's government said it would reintroduce checks at its internal Schengen borders for a further six months from 12 November, citing the security situation created by Russia's war in Ukraine and hybrid threats. France, Germany, Norway and Denmark have also reintroduced internal border controls.

In Belgium, the argument is more specific: whether immigration enforcement can justify entering someone's home, particularly when the homeowner is not personally subject to a deportation order. Supporters argue that deportation decisions must be effective, above all when public security is involved. Human rights organisations question whether expanding police access to private residences is a necessary or proportionate response.

Frequently asked questions

Who can have their home searched under the new law?

Only a person who has been denied asylum, has ignored an order to leave, and is considered a public-security threat. Each search needs a judge's approval, may occur only between 5 a.m. and 9 a.m., and requires immigration officials to be present.

Can police search the home of someone sheltering a migrant?

That is one of the most disputed points. The bill's text as reported before the vote would allow searches of a third party's home, and critics including Amnesty International warn the powers could affect people who provide accommodation. How the provision is applied in practice will be tested in the courts.

What happens next?

Attention turns to implementation and the expected legal challenge. AVOCATS.BE says it will ask the constitutional court to annul the measure, and an evaluation is planned 18 months after it enters into force.

Key takeaways

  • Belgium's parliament approved a law early on Friday letting police enter homes to enforce deportation orders, after an overnight debate.
  • Searches are limited to rejected asylum seekers who ignored leave orders and are deemed a public-security threat, require a judge's approval, and may occur only between 5 a.m. and 9 a.m.
  • Amnesty International, lawyers and thousands of protesters opposed the law, warning it undermines privacy and could affect people who shelter migrants.
  • The lawyers' association AVOCATS.BE says it will ask the constitutional court to annul the measure; an official evaluation is planned after 18 months.

What to watch next is how the first searches are carried out — and whether the constitutional court challenge, and the promised 18-month evaluation, narrow or widen a power that has already become one of Belgium's most contested laws.