Belgium's parliament has approved a controversial law allowing police to enter private homes to detain foreign nationals facing deportation, after a debate that stretched into the early hours of Friday morning.

The law was finally approved by a majority of lawmakers at around 5am local time on Friday 6 November, following a lengthy overnight debate. It is part of a broader push by Prime Minister Bart De Wever's right-leaning coalition to limit migration and increase expulsions of people denied the right to stay in Belgium.

Under the new rules, the Immigration Office can ask an investigating judge to authorise police to enter a home where a person may be staying who has been denied asylum, has ignored an order to leave Belgium and is considered a threat to public order or national security. Police may search for identity documents and detain the person for removal, with immigration officials present.

Home searches must be agreed by an investigating judge and can only take place between 5am and 9am. The power also extends to homes where the person is staying with relatives, friends or other hosts.

Asylum and Migration Minister Anneleen Van Bossuyt, who drew up the bill with Justice Minister Annelies Verlinden, called the measure "historic". She told Le Soir that it fills a gap by providing a tool to execute certain removal orders. Les Engages group leader Aurore Tourneur said the final text's conditions are "strict and cumulative". The governing coalition and the liberal opposition party Anders backed the law, while Vlaams Belang abstained, arguing it had been watered down.

Human rights groups and lawyers strongly opposed the measure. Ahead of the vote, Amnesty International warned that the proposals were "bound to sow fear and division", and said intrusions into private and family life could follow "irrespective of whether children are present". Amnesty also warned the law could discourage people from offering accommodation or support to migrants.

Sotieta Ngo, executive director of the migrant rights group CIRE, said the bill violated the constitutional principle that the home is inviolable. "It's an attack against human dignity. It's an attack against solidarity," she said. Andrea Rea, chair of CIRE's board, warned the legislation could face a challenge before Belgium's Constitutional Court.

Critics also argue that the threshold of a "threat to public order or national security" is not defined clearly enough. Koen Dewulf, director of the Federal Migration Centre Myria, told Le Soir that the definition remains vague and open to interpretation. The Association of Investigating Judges raised a separate objection, with its co-president Jean-Louis Doyen saying that authorising home entry for an administrative deportation differs fundamentally from the criminal investigations that fall within an investigating judge's usual remit.

The final text includes safeguards added after pressure from civil society and coalition partner Les Engages. Investigating judges have seven days, rather than five, to authorise a home visit, repeat requests require new information, and judges may impose conditions where minors are present.

The vote followed demonstrations across Belgium, including a human chain of around 3,000 people around Brussels' Palace of Justice on Wednesday evening and more than 50 other gatherings nationwide.

The law passed while Belgium's governing "Arizona" coalition faces one of its most serious tests since taking office. Earlier in the week, De Wever submitted his government's resignation to King Philippe after coalition talks on the 2027 budget and a package of fiscal measures worth about 10 billion euros by 2029 ended without agreement.

The Belgian debate also has a European dimension. In October, EU governments adopted the Return Regulation, establishing a common system for returning third-country nationals who do not have a legal right to remain in the EU. The regulation allows authorities to enter a person's home or "other relevant premises" and seize belongings. Belgium's law is national, but rights groups argue it reflects a wider European shift toward more coercive migration control.