Family Reunification: Where Do Belgium's Parties Stand?

Where do Belgium's parties stand on family reunification in 2026?

In 2026, family reunification is one of the migration issues that most sharply divides Belgium's parties. On one side, the N-VA, MR, Open VLD and Vlaams Belang want to tighten the conditions: higher income, a raised minimum age, language tests. On the other, the PS, Ecolo, Groen and PTB·PVDA want to preserve the right to family life and consider the latest reform too restrictive.

In between, three partners in the Arizona government — CD&V, Les Engagés and Vooruit — voted for the tightening while voicing reservations about its effects on families and children. That middle position reflects the nature of the coalition: a compromise between sensibilities that, on their own, would not have written the same law.

The issue is not about a "good" or a "bad" manifesto. It is a choice between two principles that genuinely clash: reducing a channel of immigration seen as too open and guaranteeing households' financial autonomy, or protecting a fundamental right recognised by the Belgian Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. Both camps stand for different values, not just different numbers.

How do you read these positions without taking sides?

Each party gets a mark per approach: a green + when it clearly backs the lever, an amber ~ for an intermediate or conditional position, a red − when it opposes it. This replaces stars or out-of-five ratings, which would suggest a moral ranking.

The key point: no column identifies a "good" party. A party marked + on tightening is most often marked − on priority to family life, and vice versa. The two approaches serve distinct goals, backed by distinct voters. Reading the table means spotting which principle each party puts first, not handing out virtue prizes.

What does the law of 18 July 2025 change?

The law passed on 18 July 2025 and in force since 18 August 2025 is the common reference point of the whole debate. It puts into effect the Arizona coalition agreement, reached on 31 January 2025, which aims for "the strictest migration policy in the country's history".

In practice, the reform raises the minimum age for spouses or partners from 18 to 21. It requires the sponsor to have a personal income of about €2,369 net per month, increased by 10% per additional family member and with no ceiling. That income must be strictly personal: it cannot include the CPAS integration allowance, family benefits or the resources of a third-party guarantor. Language and country-knowledge tests are added on top.

The deadlines change too. A recognised refugee now has six months, down from twelve, to file an application without meeting the income condition; after that, the condition applies. Beneficiaries of subsidiary protection must wait two years before they can file. In April 2026, the Constitutional Court also required the authorities to take the foreign applicant's own income into account, not only that of the sponsor — a legal correction showing the scheme is still being contested before the courts.

Which parties want to tighten family reunification?

Parties in favour of tightening argue that family reunification has become the leading channel of legal immigration and must be brought under control. The N-VA, which holds the state secretariat for Asylum and Migration, makes it an openly stated priority: strict income conditions, a raised age, language requirements. The MR and Open VLD share this line in the name of financial autonomy — the idea that a family being welcomed should not depend on social assistance from day one.

The Vlaams Belang goes further still and calls for a near-halt to immigration, family reunification included. Its position differs from the N-VA's less in direction than in degree: where the N-VA tightens the conditions, the Vlaams Belang wants to cut the scheme back to the strict minimum required by the treaties.

The underlying argument is twofold: limit the number of arrivals and ensure that the people joining have enough resources to integrate without weighing on public finances. A worked example: with a threshold of about €2,369 net plus 10% per person, a joining family of four implies an income close to €3,100 net per month — a level that, in effect, rules out some lower-wage applicants. Supporters see a legitimate filter; critics, a class barrier.

Which parties defend the right to family life?

On the left, the PS, Ecolo, Groen and PTB·PVDA place the right to family life above the logic of filtering. They recall that this right is protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Belgian Constitution, and that tightening can, in practice, keep parents and children apart for long periods.

Their criticism focuses on the concrete effects. A high income threshold, they say, penalises part-time and low-wage workers, unrelated to their ability to raise a family. The two-year wait imposed on subsidiary protection is described as a delay that harms children left behind. Groen MP Matti Vandemaele called the text "the height of inhumanity" — a phrasing that captures the register of the opposition, centred on human rights rather than migration volumes.

Unlike the parties on the right, this left does not dispute that a framework should exist, but refuses to let financial and timing conditions hollow out the right itself. Organisations such as Myria, CIRÉ and the Human Rights League make the same case in public debate, giving this position relays beyond the parties.

What do the votes in the Chamber show?

Beyond the manifestos, the vote of 18 July 2025 offers the clearest snapshot of the balance of power. The Chamber adopted state secretary Anneleen Van Bossuyt's bill in plenary, in the night from Thursday to Friday. Voting in favour: the Arizona majority (N-VA, MR, Les Engagés, CD&V, Vooruit), joined by Open VLD and Vlaams Belang. Voting against: PS, PTB, Ecolo, Groen and DéFI.

Comparing promises with actions remains the best antidote to campaign marketing. The same word — "responsibility", "humanity" — serves both camps; the votes reveal which principle is actually being pulled. Here, the vote confirms the dividing line set out in the manifestos, with one useful nuance: the coalition's centrist and social partners voted for a text harder than their own programme, in the name of governmental cohesion.

To dig deeper, the comparator lets you set two parties side by side on immigration, the ranking sums up positions theme by theme, and the general article on immigration and asylum places family reunification within the wider migration debate. The methodology explains how these positions are collected and remains open to challenge.

What this comparison does not settle

This table does not say which approach "works" best: the real effect of tightening on migration volumes, on integration or on public finances depends on many factors and is the subject of conflicting estimates. Nor does it factor in your personal priorities — control of flows, fundamental rights, cost to society, the interests of children — which may weigh more than any general ranking.

The right reflex, then, is not to pick a winning camp, but to link each position to the principle it puts first, and then to test this overview against what you yourself expect from a family reunification policy.