Citizens denounce “racist” asylum policy in Chamber and demand “more transparent” regularization policy

‘In My Name’ is an opportunity platform where three collectives of sans-papiers, a few civil society organizations and dozens of citizens have found each other. Because they managed to collect 35,000 signatures – 25,000 was the required number – they were able to present their ideas about regularization in the House Committee on the Interior on Tuesday afternoon.

Eleven citizens were present in the committee. Five of them are people without valid residence papers. Advocate Kati Verstrepen and writer Rachida Lamrabet also spoke on behalf of the citizens’ initiative. The most emotional testimony came from Leticia Assemien, she herself lives without papers in Belgium. She spoke specifically about the fate of the women: “We want to live, not survive,” she begged. “We are not lazy, even less parasites. We are captive by the law.”

Writer Rachida Lamrabet, the former Unia lawyer, called the current Belgian asylum policy “racist”. In the future, she wants a “procedure that takes human rights as a benchmark”. “We are asking for a ban on the word ‘sans-papier’ because a country that divides its inhabitants into people with and without papers is an unworthy country.”

Advocate Kati Verstrepen summarizes what ‘In My Name’ asks in concrete terms. “We are not asking for collective regularization. What we want is the creation of an independent regularization committee that offers a transparent procedure and makes decisions based on clear criteria.”

Several political groups emphasized that they do not want collective regularisation. “We mustn’t fool ourselves”, said Hervé Rigot of the PS. Tim Vandeput of Open Vld warned of a “pull effect” with a general regularization. The same sound was heard from Servais Verherstraeten of CD&V: “Individual regularization is the right option, not the collective one”.

This was diametrically opposed to the position of that other ruling party Ecolo-Groen. Simon Moutquin disputed the argument of the pull effect of general regularization: “No study has shown that a policy of regularization will lead to more people applying for asylum”. He even called the current asylum policy “criminal” because “it does not help people in danger”. “Our policy is alien, the issue of undocumented migrants is not humane. The fate of those people is unfair,” Moutquin said sternly about the asylum policy of his own government.

There was also plenty of support for ‘In My Name’ at PTB-PVDA. “We support your civil law”, said Greet Daems. “It is impossible that two people with the same file often receive the opposite answer to their asylum application. An independent attitude is needed and clear criteria. Those criteria do not exist today.”

“There are fixed criteria”, Ben Segers of Vooruit contradicted that position. “But individual differences remain important, flexibility is essential for humanity, individual consideration remains necessary”, emphasized Segers, who further pointed out that “we should not pretend that everyone who submits an application for regularization has no chance. There is a 40 to 50 percent chance of recognition and that is very much for what is ultimately an exception procedure.”

Vlaams Belang was completely against the citizens’ initiative. “This is unique. In the rest of the world, illegal migrants are deported. Here they are invited to parliament”, Dries Van Langenhove started his intervention. His party colleague, committee chairman Ortwin Depoortere, had also sent his cat to parliament, arguing that the committee session was “completely insane”. “Illegality is a crime. (…) These people in question should have long been deported to their country of origin.”

N-VA and DéFI were not present.