Despite initial attempts by the Luxembourg Socialist Workers’ Party (LSAP), the Greens (Déi Gréng), and the Left (Déi Lénk) to postpone the final vote, Luxembourg’s Chamber of Deputies proceeded on Tuesday to debate and ultimately approve two bills that will implement the new European asylum and migration pact, set to enter into force on 12 June. As anticipated, opinions among lawmakers were sharply divided, reflecting broader debates seen across Europe.
Presenting the bill on behalf of the Christian Social People’s Party (CSV), Stéphanie Weydert characterised the reform as a balancing act: Luxembourg and Europe must find ways to organise migration that do justice both to basic humanitarian principles and to the need for functioning institutions. The CSV and Democratic Party (DP) majority, she said, are not seeking to make the system more restrictive, but to clarify procedures. In cases where asylum is not granted, decisions should be issued swiftly to avoid providing false hope, including timely deportations where required.
Gusty Graas (DP) observed that public willingness to help migrants had waned since the 2015 refugee crisis, a change he partly attributed to right-wing populist parties exploiting the issue for electoral gain across Europe. He stressed that, despite the need for certain eligibility requirements, it is crucial to remember that asylum procedures deal with people, not statistics. Commenting on the controversial term “filtration centre”, Graas acknowledged the title could have been better chosen but welcomed new provisions to better protect minors. He also called for increased solidarity among Luxembourg’s municipalities in receiving refugees, noting that poor conditions in some facilities are sometimes linked to both management and behaviour by residents.
On behalf of the LSAP, Dan Biancalana argued that asylum policy is not merely about procedures or quotas, but about the fundamental way people are viewed in Europe. He criticised the European Union for often prioritising national interests over common values and called for stronger safeguards in Luxembourg’s legislation, particularly in terms of legal support for asylum seekers. Biancalana suggested that legal counsel should be able to intervene at any stage of an interview, rather than simply submitting observations at the end, as currently foreseen in the draft law.
LSAP’s Liz Braz was originally scheduled as her party’s main speaker, but was replaced by Biancalana after expressing disagreement with the group’s stance. She did not attend the session.
Tom Weidig (ADR) stated that while his party supports the principle of asylum, there is no right to choose the country in which to seek it. He pointed to failures during the 2015 crisis in both Germany and Luxembourg, where the impression was given that anyone would be accepted. He argued that countries refusing to take back their nationals should face EU sanctions. Weidig conceded that, while the European asylum and migration pact is a step in the right direction, it still contains significant weaknesses, including the possibility that countries may continue to be obliged to take in refugees.
Meris Šehović (Déi Gréng) criticised the new rules for treating all new arrivals as potential threats, including minors, claiming that Luxembourg would go beyond even what is mandated at the European level.
Marc Goergen (Pirate Party) welcomed the establishment of unified European rules on migration. He reminded the Chamber that many people fleeing to Europe are in genuine fear for their lives, including Christians and Jews, and rejected the portrayal of such individuals as terrorists by far-right groups.
Marc Baum (Déi Lénk) denounced what he described as a “migration hysteria” that is not grounded in facts. He pointed out that in the past year, only around 178,000 people without papers attempted to enter the EU, a comparatively small number in relation to the Union’s total population.
Minister for Home Affairs Léon Gloden expressed regret that during the debate, asylum and immigration issues had been conflated. He emphasised that the right to asylum cannot be discussed in the same breath as economic migration, such as that of Portuguese nationals moving to Luxembourg. Gloden highlighted the introduction of voluntary return schemes with financial support for those repatriating, clarified that the new filtration process would not preclude later asylum applications, and stressed that people would not generally be detained and remain able to move freely during the day. The filtration centre will be located at the former ADEM building on Rue Bender in Luxembourg City.
At the end of the debate, a joint motion by CSV and DP was adopted, establishing that the new measures will be reviewed after four years.
Bill 8684 was subsequently approved with 42 votes in favour (CSV, DP, ADR, Pirate Party) and 17 against.
The Chamber of Deputies then turned to a second bill, 8732, introduced by Minister for Family Affairs Max Hahn, concerning the reception of refugees in Luxembourg. DP rapporteur Mandy Minella explained that, under the new provisions, beneficiaries will gain access to the labour market after four months rather than six months, without first requiring a temporary work permit.
However, asylum seekers remain excluded from the services of the National Employment Agency (ADEM), a point lamented by several speakers. Weydert (CSV) acknowledged the critique by Green MP Djuna Bernard, describing the new law as a first step in the right direction. Bernard, for her part, argued that a theoretical right of access is not the same as actual access and advocated for asylum seekers to receive ADEM support after four months.
Claire Delcourt (LSAP) welcomed the greater involvement of the National Office for Children (Office national de l’enfance), though she stressed that more could be done to protect minors.
Dan Hardy (ADR) highlighted as positive that asylum seekers will have improved access to literacy courses and will be informed of both their rights and obligations.
Marc Goergen (Pirate Party) argued that, while Luxembourg’s reception structures are not perfect, the country fares better than many neighbours, and that the two new bills should help reduce strain on existing facilities.
Marc Baum (Déi Lénk) voiced concern that financial support for asylum seekers can be withdrawn if they fail to cooperate with authorities, arguing that the criteria for this are too vague.
Corinne Cahen (DP) commented that, in a perfect world, the Don Bosco shelter would have closed a decade ago, but acknowledged that, given the shortage of beds, it is better to keep such facilities open than have none available.
Minister Hahn concluded that the legislative process had been both swift and effective, describing the changes as an evolution rather than a revolution. He highlighted that Luxembourg is going beyond EU requirements in some respects, such as immediate access to both the labour market and compulsory schooling from day one, rather than after two months as prescribed by the directive. He argued that the goal is to help people achieve independence as quickly as possible, an aim supported by many stakeholders. Hahn also drew attention to the creation of access to the citizens’ pact (Biergerpakt) as an important step for integration. Responding to a question from Hardy, he clarified that asylum seekers can learn all national languages online. In reply to Baum’s concerns, Hahn stressed that only a portion of financial support – up to €30 per month – can be withdrawn if cooperation is lacking. Regarding access to ADEM, he said discussions are ongoing within the government, particularly with the Minister for Labour.
Regarding the National Reception Office (Office national de l’accueil), talks are underway to select a new director, as the current director, Yves Piron, will step down at the end of the year.
The second bill, 8732, was adopted with 37 votes in favour, 12 against, and 11 abstentions.
