By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a significant expansion of existing law, Belgium’s federal Chamber of Representatives has approved the stripping of nationality from individuals convicted of serious crimes. This measure, proposed by the federal justice minister, broadens the scope beyond terrorism to include offenses such as homicide, sexual assault, and organized crime. To be considered for denaturalization, criminals must have received a prison sentence of at least five years. However, this action will be decided on a case-by-case basis, not automatically applied to every offender.
Read the original article here
Committing serious crimes can now lead to loss of Belgian nationality, representing a significant change in how the country views citizenship and punishment. This shift, expanding upon an existing law primarily targeting terrorism, allows for the revocation of citizenship for naturalized Belgians convicted of serious offenses. The legislation, approved by the Chamber of Representatives following a proposal by the federal justice minister, focuses on crimes like homicide, sexual assault, and organized crime, requiring a minimum prison sentence of five years to trigger consideration for such a measure.
The essence of the change is clear: If you’ve acquired Belgian nationality in the last 15 years and commit a serious crime, you risk losing your citizenship. This is not an automatic process. Each case will be assessed individually. This nuance is crucial, as it suggests a degree of judgment in its application, rather than a blanket removal of citizenship for any and all serious crimes. In contrast, the law introduces an automatic revocation for terrorists with dual nationality. The government’s message is strong: those who commit grave crimes that undermine the foundations of society can lose their Belgian citizenship.
There’s a strong sentiment behind this law, echoed in the sentiment that anyone committing serious crimes forfeits their right to remain in the country. The argument is often framed in terms of consequences. If someone chooses to commit a serious crime after becoming a citizen, the implication is that they’ve violated the implied contract of citizenship and should face the consequences, including potential deportation. This perspective is a tough one, emphasizing that if you don’t commit these crimes, you’re not affected.
The concerns about this law are also quite understandable. Some worry about the potential for abuse. The definition of “serious crime” can be subjective and manipulated, which is concerning. The fear is that the criteria for revoking citizenship could become too broad, potentially targeting political dissent or other actions that shouldn’t lead to the loss of citizenship. There’s a widespread feeling that such a system creates a class of “second-class citizens,” where some citizens (the naturalized) are subject to harsher penalties than others (those born Belgian).
The issue of statelessness arises, and that’s a big deal. What happens if someone loses their Belgian nationality and has no other citizenship? This raises questions about international law and human rights, specifically the right to a nationality. This is precisely what makes such a law controversial. The argument is that you shouldn’t create stateless individuals.
The need for strict adherence to international law and respect for human rights is highlighted as well. The possibility of this law being misused by a government with authoritarian tendencies is a legitimate concern. The definition of a “serious crime” can be shifted to target those who don’t agree with the government, or even just criticize it. This is not a hypothetical concern, because governments have done so in the past.
Despite any potential downsides, the law is supported by some because of a perceived need to address serious crime. Some people suggest that because of Europe’s border controls, it can be extremely difficult to deport those who commit crimes. People who are granted citizenship and then choose to inflict violence or otherwise harm others should face consequences, and this might be one of those. The law is intended to serve as a deterrent.
Ultimately, the debate is complex and multifaceted, revolving around the balance between justice, punishment, human rights, and the potential for misuse.