Family reunification for migrants in the spotlight in Belgium
And now, one service in particular being offered at the centre is in the political spotlight.
Last week, MPs passed a government bill restricting access to family reunification. This scheme allows legally resident foreign nationals to bring in one or more family members.
Under the new guidelines, refugees will only have six months to submit their application. Beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, those who do not have refugee status, will have to wait two years before they can submit their application.
The text also requires greater financial resources. The minimum income required to submit an application has been increased.
Migrants now need to earn around €2,300 per month, compared with the €2,100 under the previous regulations. This amount is increased by 10% for each additional family member.
"If someone wants to bring in their partner and two children, they have to earn €2,700 net per month," explains Thomas Willekens, policy officer for the Brussels-based NGO Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen.
This sum "is enormous and I would say that the average employee in Belgium does not even earn this amount," he adds.
A virtual impossibility without a name
The Belgian Minister for Asylum and Migration, Flemish nationalist Anneleen Van Bossuyt, has defended these new measures.
The minister who originally put forward the proposal said, "We need to reduce the influx of people. Our society is no longer able to bear this burden."
The government wants to reduce the number of migrants arriving through family reunification. According to figures from the Immigration Office, last year 20,724 people from countries outside the European Union obtained visas for Belgium under this scheme.
Belgian authorities have also decided to increase the application fee for naturalisation, up from €150 to €1,000.
For Thomas Willekens, these new rules are above all a covert way of making family reunification impossible, at the risk of plunging these families into an even more dangerous situation.
"The consequences for refugees in Belgium will be prolonged separation from their families, which will have an impact on their integration and inclusion in Belgian society. It's difficult to learn the language if you're worried about your partner in Afghanistan, for example," he explains.
"As for refugees and countries of origin, while they used to be able to use this safe and legal route to come to Belgium, they no longer have access to it. They will therefore turn to smugglers to come to Europe."
A European trend
Belgium is not alone in Europe.
Last week, Portugal also adopted more stringent measures for granting family reunification.
German MPs approved the suspension of the family reunification scheme last month for people with "subsidiary protection," in other words those who do not have refugee status.
While Austria has suspended family reunification for a period of six months. In practical terms, applications can be submitted to the Austrian authorities, but will not be processed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
an hour ago
- Euronews
Lead MEP says EU should skip 2040 emissions targets
The EU's 2040 emission reduction target is 'simply not necessary' and should be rejected, the Czech MEP responsible for steering the proposal through the Parliament has told Euronews in an interview. Ondrej Knotek is a member of the far-right Patriots for Europe (PfE) group and was appointed as rapporteur to steer through the Parliament a Climate Law amendment setting the 2040 goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The European Commission formally proposed a 90% carbon emissions reduction target by 2040 in an amendment to its Climate Law earlier in July, as a pathway to achieving zero emissions by 2050. Knotek said that when drafting the Parliament's position on the file in the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety (ENVI), he will push to reject the Commission's proposal entirely, without proposing any alternative emissions reduction target. 'The 2040 target is an addition to the two existing targets, that is simply not necessary,' he said, referring to the EU's final goal of reaching climate neutrality by 2050 and the intermediate target of a 55% reduction by 2030. Knotek believes the EU has already done much more than its global competitors to combat global warming, and argues that the risks for the European economy and citizens are 'much higher' than the potential contributions to global climate change mitigation. 'Let's wait for the others to have the same two legally binding targets, let's wait for the others to have this third target, and then we can accompany. No one says that Europe needs to be the flagship,' he said. Beyond the 2040 target, Knotek also challenges the entire Green Deal, the EU's long-term plan to reach climate neutrality by 2050. 'The target as such looked realistic in 2020, but now, after five years, we know that very probably it is not so much realistic,' he said, calling for a 'strong recalibration' of the EU's commitments. 'The correct reaction to the climate change is to reduce the emissions in a sustainable, and even slow way [...] We don't have to invest into faster reduction of emissions, but into the so-called adaptation to the climate change. The role of adaptation should be much higher than the reduction of greenhouse gases.' A clash foreseen on the Climate Law Ondrej Knotek will be supported by his political group, PfE, which strongly opposes EU climate action, and likely by other right-wing parties in Parliament. But dismantling this signature EU climate policy will not be an easy task. Knotek's appointment, which results from a complex allotment system giving large groups control over important files, has already triggered backlash from leftist and centrist members of Parliament. Socialists and Democrats, Renew Europe, the Greens/EFA, and The Left will advocate for maintaining the 2040 target. Therefore, the Parliament's position on the file will depend on the choice of the largest group, the European People's Party (EPP). 'EPP MEPs are split on this issue. I am convinced that if they are left to vote freely, the majority of them would be against the 2040 target,' Knotek said. The Czech MEP believes his EPP colleagues will follow the direction of their leader, Manfred Weber. 'In the EPP, if you do not follow the line, you are sidelined and do not get any missions. So, if there would be a secret vote, they could distract, otherwise they stick to the line.' Knotek's report will be voted in the ENVI committee on September 23. Others MEPs from the same committee have until September 8 to add amendments. Parliament's plenary session has then to confirm the outcome in the second week of October. After the vote in Parliament, however, the provision must be negotiated with the EU's 27 member states, which are set to adopt a common position in the Council. Some including France and Poland have already expressed scepticism about the proposal. The timing of negotiations is sensitive, as the Commission hoped to have the 2040 target enshrined in law ahead of the COP30 international climate conference in Brazil, which takes place in November.
Euronews
2 hours ago
- Euronews
Five things we don't know yet about the EU-US trade deal
After weeks of negotiations, the EU and the US reached an agreement on Sunday in the tariff dispute that has split them since mid-March: the EU will face a 15% tariff on its exports to the US, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced. 'We have stabilised on a single 15% tariff rate for the vast majority of EU exports. This rate applies across most sectors, including cars, semiconductors and pharmaceuticals,' she said, adding 'this 15% is a clear ceiling - no stacking, all-inclusive - so it gives much-needed clarity for our citizens and businesses.' Cars, which have been subject to a 27.5% tariff for several months, will now face a 15% tariff. A modest victory for German manufacturers. Von der Leyen also announced that zero-for-zero tariffs will apply to certain chemicals, certain generic drugs, semiconductor-making equipment, some agricultural products (but with the exclusion of all sensitive products like beef, rice, ethanol, sugar or poultry), some natural resources and critical raw materials. However, uncertainties remain regarding the details and the sectors covered by the 15% rate, the legal certainty of the deal reached on Sunday and the purchase and investment commitment of the EU. 1. No legally binding agreement yet The agreement reached will not be legally binding for both parties for some time. When exactly remains uncertain. A joint statement is expected to be released by 1 August— the deadline set by US President Donald Trump when he threatened to impose a 30% tariff on the EU. 'It will be a relatively light joint statement' an EU official said, adding that the EU is also awaiting the adoption of an executive order by the US that would bring some certainty to what has been agreed. Until then, negotiations on exemptions to the 15% tariffs will continue. 'Given that we want to make sure that the US delivers on its parts quickly, we will also want to deliver quickly on our part,' the official said, adding: 'We are currently looking into the exact legal basis together with Council and the European Parliament.' A bilateral international agreement between the EU and the US would take time, so other instruments might be considered by the Commission. 2. Which EU products are exempt? Aircraft will be exempt from the 15% tariffs, meaning they will be sent to the US with no tariffs. The production lines in these sectors are too intertwined for the US to risk making their aircraft more expensive. However, the EU will keep negotiating other exemptions, with wine and spirits high on its agenda. Since the beginning of the negotiation, EU industries have continuously warned about the consequences of a deal that would penalise them. "We truly believe the trade of wine is of great benefit for both EU and US companies, and it must be included in the 0-for-0 tariff arrangement,' Marzia Varvaglione, president of the Comite europeen des entreprises de vin said in a statement on Sunday, adding: 'It's not just the EU side saying this—our US counterparts have also been strong advocates for protecting this vital exchange." 3. Steel and aluminium: a quota system still to be negotiated The US currently imposes 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium. This will stay until both sides agree on a quota system. The Commission remains confident of its leverage in the coming talks however. 'I think that is where economics kick in and business interests kick in,' the same EU official said, adding that the bloc's provision of speciality steel is something that "US manufacturing badly needs'. But the European steel industry appeared rattled on Monday. 'If a zero tariff on our traditional exports to the US is confirmed, we would be going in the right direction,' Axel Eggert, director general of the European Steel Association (EUROFER) said, but he added: 'There is no clarity yet. As always, the devil is in the detail.' The uncertainty is offset by a commitment of the EU and the US to jointly fight global overcapacities, mainly coming from China. 4. Energy: The EU's purchase commitment will depend on its industry. The EU committed to buy $750 billions' worth of US energy over the next three years. That's to say $250 billion annually directed towards US liquefied natural gas, oil and nuclear industries. 'We've been looking at our needs also in terms of the phasing out of energy imports from Russia,' the EU official said. However the official conceded that there is no public commitment to delivering on this since the EU and its institutions will not be doing the actual buying. 'We can help with aggregating demand and facilitating certain things, and we can look at where there are maybe bottlenecks in infrastructure,' the official said. The EU also committed to purchasing US AI microchips on top of the $750 billion. 5. EU investment in the US will depend on business EU companies will invest $600 billion in the US, according to the deal. But here again, there's no public authority that will be monitoring this, as it is the case in the Japan-US deal reached on 22 July where investments are equity, loans and guarantees from state-run agencies. However the Commission ensures it had detailed contacts and discussions with different business associations and companies in order to see what their investment intentions were. 'We have basically been aggregated what we know about investment intentions of private companies. And the way this will be expressed in the joint statement is that it is an intention,' another EU official said, adding: 'So it is not something that the EU as a public authority can guarantee.'
LeMonde
7 hours ago
- LeMonde
'The slide into climate despair occurs when the conviction sets in that... no, we won't make it'
The summer of 2025 has already broken temperature records in many European countries. Heatwaves, megafires, floods, and other extreme weather events have followed one another, each setting new records in their respective categories. With each passing year, it has become increasingly tangible what climate disruption means. This reality should naturally push politicians and citizens to action. Yet, it is rarely the case. For the "why-bother-about-climate" crowd – citizens, decision-makers, and politicians alike – it is, instead, yet another excuse for inaction: "It's too late, everything is already lost, so if it's lost, why deprive yourself or change your habits?" In a global domino effect, these battalions of resignation have grown, acting as de facto allies of climate skeptics and swelling the ranks of the pro-inaction lobby. It is therefore crucial to understand the roots of this way of thinking and to show that it is misguided. Every gain is worth pursuing Eco-anxiety is based on a combination of specific factors: awareness of the importance of the ecological problem, coupled with a sense of personal powerlessness, which the multiplication of crises and the inadequate political and civic response can sometimes turn into pathological anxiety. The question that obsesses those with climate anxiety is whether we can make it. Will we meet the targets? Targets for emissions reduction, for levels of warming, for developing solutions...? The slide into climate despair happens quickly once the conviction sets in that "no, we won't make it." At that point, lacking an alternative perspective, it is tempting to turn despair into a kind of blasé resignation, which is easier to live with. This whole line of reasoning needs to be challenged. If the answer is hopelessness, it is because the question is wrong. Why should the fight against climate change be the only public policy whose value is measured solely by its ability to meet its targets? Do we stop working as soon as it is clear that economic targets will not be met? Do we stop obeying traffic laws when we realize that road safety targets will not be achieved? For the vast majority of citizens, the answer is obviously no. Everyone understands that what matters is a progressive and collective approach, and that targets, even if only partially reached, already constitute progress.
