In 2018, a broad and cross-par­ti­san mobi­li­sa­tion of civil socie­ty suc­cee­ded in pushing back a draft law autho­ri­sing “home visits” (a euphe­mism for searches allo­wing the vio­la­tion of the home of an undo­cu­men­ted per­son or their host) within the fra­me­work of migra­tion policy.

Asso­cia­tions, trade unions, aca­de­mics, jurists, magis­trates, pro­fes­sio­nal bodies, poli­ti­cians and field wor­kers had soun­ded the alarm about what this mea­sure meant : a major and dis­pro­por­tio­nate intru­sion into the most pro­tec­ted sphere — the home — and a dan­ge­rous pre­cedent for the rule of law.

Faced with legal cri­ti­cism and the scale of the oppo­si­tion, the pro­ject was shel­ved by the Prime Minis­ter of the MR/NVA govern­ment, Charles Michel.

In 2020 (opi­nion 68.144/4 – 16/11/2020), the Coun­cil of State alrea­dy noted dis­pro­por­tio­nate vio­la­tions of fun­da­men­tal rights and the absence of suf­fi­cient safe­guards to frame a mea­sure of such gravity.

In 2025 (opi­nion 78.049/2/V of 20/08/2025), his­to­ry repeats itself, this time in an even more trou­bling context : the har­de­ning of secu­ri­ty dis­course, the nor­ma­li­sa­tion of lowe­ring thre­sholds for the pro­tec­tion of fun­da­men­tal rights, the temp­ta­tion to bypass safe­guards in the name of effi­cien­cy, and the entrench­ment of the cri­mi­na­li­sa­tion of migrants.

In this opi­nion, the Coun­cil of State is unam­bi­guous : des­pite cer­tain tech­ni­cal adjust­ments, the core of the mea­sure remains fun­da­men­tal­ly unchanged.

The cri­ti­cisms made in 2020 have not been resol­ved. They have been confir­med, conso­li­da­ted and rein­for­ced by the evo­lu­tion of consti­tu­tio­nal and Euro­pean case law since then. Absence of effec­tive safe­guards for third par­ties hos­ting or living at the home in ques­tion, insuf­fi­cient pro­tec­tion for chil­dren, absence of genuine ex post judi­cial review, and the risk of an act of gra­vi­ty com­pa­rable to a cri­mi­nal search without offe­ring the same gua­ran­tees. In short, the text must be fun­da­men­tal­ly revised.

For the Coun­cil of State, this is nei­ther a par­ti­san debate nor an ideo­lo­gi­cal disa­gree­ment. It is a clear, detai­led and repea­ted legal and consti­tu­tio­nal war­ning. To per­sist on this path would be to treat the Coun­cil of Sta­te’s opi­nion as a mere for­ma­li­ty, when it consti­tutes an essen­tial remin­der of the limits that the rule of law imposes on public action.

Yet, when asked about the state of the pro­ject since this opi­nion, the cabi­net of Minis­ter Van Bos­suyt now states that it has “all the neces­sa­ry opi­nions”, while cla­ri­fying that “the essence of the text will remain unchan­ged.” In other words, the war­ning is known, docu­men­ted, ack­now­led­ged… but poli­ti­cal­ly ignored !

But the home is a sanc­tua­ry — it is not mere­ly a phy­si­cal space. It is a place of pro­tec­tion, inti­ma­cy and safe­ty. Autho­ri­sing the for­ced entry of the State into this space for pure­ly admi­nis­tra­tive pur­poses, without safe­guards com­pa­rable to those in cri­mi­nal law, consti­tutes a pro­found rup­ture in the balance of civil liberties.

What the minis­ter pre­sents as a “tar­ge­ted” mea­sure in rea­li­ty creates a hea­vy pre­cedent : the gra­dual accep­tance of serious and violent intru­sions in the name of sup­po­sed pseu­do-admi­nis­tra­tive efficiency.

We also reject the confla­tion that runs through this pro­ject and the stig­ma­ti­sing dis­course that accom­pa­nies it. Irre­gu­lar resi­dence falls under admi­nis­tra­tive law, not cri­mi­nal law. It can­not, as such, be equa­ted with cri­mi­nal beha­viour or serve as the basis for a pre­sump­tion of dan­ge­rous­ness. Confu­sing admi­nis­tra­tive sta­tus with a threat to socie­ty means ins­tal­ling a logic of col­lec­tive sus­pi­cion, legi­ti­mi­sing excep­tio­nal mecha­nisms and under­mi­ning the prin­ciples of equa­li­ty before the law and indi­vi­dua­li­sa­tion of situations.

The human impact of such a mea­sure is also vast­ly unde­res­ti­ma­ted by the minis­ter. An inter­ven­tion at a home never affects just one per­son. It affects fami­lies, sha­red homes, loved ones, chil­dren. It may occur at dawn, in a context of extreme stress, with las­ting effects on men­tal health, trust and the sense of secu­ri­ty. It risks fuel­ling non-take-up of rights, a break­down of trust with public autho­ri­ties, the rup­ture of social and medi­cal fol­low-up, and a dif­fuse fear that will very qui­ck­ly spread well beyond the tar­ge­ted popu­la­tion. When the sanc­tua­ry of the home becomes a space poten­tial­ly pene­trable by the State for admi­nis­tra­tive pur­poses, it is not only a return poli­cy that har­dens : it is a rela­tion­ship bet­ween ins­ti­tu­tions and the popu­la­tion that dete­rio­rates dangerously.

This is also a ques­tion of demo­cra­tic pro­cess. The Coun­cil of State under­lines the insuf­fi­cien­cy of safe­guards and effec­tive over­sight. Yet the more intru­sive a mea­sure, the more strict­ly it must be fra­med, control­led and justified.

The rule of law is not a tech­ni­cal obs­tacle : it is an archi­tec­ture of pro­tec­tion, built pre­ci­se­ly to prevent public power from using dis­pro­por­tio­nate means against people made vul­ne­rable by their status.

The role of the judge can­not be redu­ced to an auto­ma­tic mecha­nism in the ser­vice of the exe­cu­tive. Third par­ties can­not be the col­la­te­ral vic­tims of a pro­ce­dure of which they are not the sub­ject. And the best inter­ests of the child can­not remain a token clause. The best inter­ests of the child — which, accor­ding to the consistent case law of the Euro­pean Court of Human Rights and the Consti­tu­tio­nal Court, requires that chil­dren’s rights and inter­ests be given pri­ma­cy in any deci­sion concer­ning them — can­not remain a mere formality.

Inter­na­tio­nal expe­rience, such as what is hap­pe­ning in the Uni­ted States with ICE, final­ly shows where the logics of nor­ma­li­sing home intru­sion and gene­ra­li­sed sur­veillance lead : they streng­then nei­ther secu­ri­ty nor social cohe­sion. They feed dis­trust, frag­men­ta­tion, iso­la­tion, fear and the ero­sion of the demo­cra­tic bond. A demo­cra­cy that accepts brea­king into peo­ple’s homes without effec­tive safe­guards gra­dual­ly ceases to think of itself as a space of rights and becomes an appa­ra­tus of coercion.

This debate the­re­fore goes beyond migra­tion poli­cy alone. Recent his­to­ry teaches us that what is accep­ted today for cer­tain cate­go­ries of people always ends up under­mi­ning the gua­ran­tees of everyone.

The rule of law does not frag­ment : it holds where it yields. It is for all these rea­sons that we repeat with force : home visits — it was no in 2018, it is no today, and it will be no tomorrow !

We call on the govern­ment to defi­ni­ti­ve­ly aban­don this pro­ject. Fai­ling that, we reaf­firm our deter­mi­na­tion to mobi­lise, col­lec­ti­ve­ly and dura­bly, for as long as neces­sa­ry, to defend the invio­la­bi­li­ty of the home, the pro­tec­tion of chil­dren, the role of judges, and the fun­da­men­tal prin­ciples that under­pin a demo­cra­cy wor­thy of the name.