THE FIVE SUGGESTED PRINCIPLES OF A MIGRATION POLICY One of the objectives of the present con ference is to contribute to the elaboration,

or-ganisation and establishment of the legal framework of a Hungariari migration policy.

These elements should reflect a causal link between socially acceptable and supported principles underlying the migration policy and the daily administrative practices involved

2International Covenant on Civiland PoIiticaI Rights, Preamble

3 Forthesakeofprecision I would here remark that agreements on the abolition ofvisas which mayspring tomind inthis context donot eurtail theterritorial state's right to exclusion: byentitling a30 to90day stay without visa,theypreserve the state's right torcquire applications in the case ofaliother- longer or non-pre-ferred - visits.They mayalsodenyentrytopersons already having avisa orexempted írom the visa obligation.

in migration. This is certainly not the case today, when instead of strategic concepts and preferences adopted by legislative organs, we have the endless repetition of the same pet subjects, as weil as a host of inconsistent and uncoordinated proposals which are fre-quently delayed, such as the repeated postponements of the submission to Parliament of the new bill on refugee status in Hungary.

Migration takes three major forms: regular migration, when the individual changes residence of his own free will and in accordance to existing laws; irregular migration which can then be subdivided into two groups, namely forced migration (flight), and ille-gal migration (illeille-gal border crossing and residence of aliens). Any migration policy must consider these three types of migration, yet manage them aceording to different princi-ples. These principles are not grouped aceording to migration types, but rather intersect with them.

What, then, are these principles?

• The principle of solidarity and international burden sharing;

• The principle of historicai embeddedness;

• The principle of responsibility to the nation;

• The principle of long-term macro-econornic utility;

• The principle of the rule oflaw.

Let me briefly review how these principles can influence various aspects of migration policy.

The Principle of Solidarity and International Burden Sharing

Aceording to its primary definition, this principle applies to refugee assistance. It is one of the basic tenets of both Christian and non-Christian ethics that the more affluent should assist the impoverished, and that life-saving assistance cannot be denied to those in need, if such actions do not endanger the life of the assistance-giver. There are at least 150 countries which are poorer than Hungary, even if the opposite seems to be the case in view of our past and in our portrayal in German television serials.

The conclusion is rather obvious: any Hungarian refugee policy must acknowledge that the country cannot deny assistance to asylum seekers even if this requires sacrifice from the Hungarian population (and before we begin to feel truly sony for ourselves we should consider the fact that the government has spent considerably less on asylum seekers and refugees than on the rehabilitation of a single iron miII in Diósgyör.)

This principle, however, also has a secondary meaning which extends to both types of irregular migration: forced and illegal. The latter includes smuggling of humans, illegal immigration and its consequences. What is needed in terms of this interpretation is that the burden of irregular migration should be shared by the affected countries. In an abstract sense this means that these states should not shift the burdens of irregular migration on to another state, either directly or indirectly. Geographical reservations, return agreements and the category of sa fe third countries should be analysed accordingly.

The Principle of HistoricaI Embeddedness

To explain the concept ofhistorical embeddedness, I wish to describe two phenomena.

The first relates to the past and expresses the moral obligation to view history as a contin-uum. Thus states which had previously received favours were, in tum, obliged to repay these "debts" in order to preserve credibility. The structures of international relations are constructed ofmyriad's oftiny bricks ofa nation's actions. Hungary, as a refugee-produc-ing country throughout this century, is hereby indebted to the earlier receivrefugee-produc-ing countries.

Thus, when fate lays the role of a receiving country upon her, she should not retreat into historic amnesia.

The other meaning of historicai embeddedness refers to the present as history. Since 1989, and especially the Southern Slav crisis, it is fairly obvious that Central and Eastern European politics are also an integral part of universal history and that they can precipi-tate unexpected reactions. Any migration policy must take this into account. The laws should define eligibility for temporary protected status and the state apparatus should have a set plan the reception of large-scale influxes, including such practical issues as how and from where can 15,000 beds be transported to any corner of the country within 24 hours should events so require.

The Principle of Responsibility to the Nation

The principle of responsibility to the nation primarily affects regular migration and in-fluences three areas. Most visible in present day Hungarian politics is its influence on the immigration of ethnic Hungarians from neighbouring countries. Quite obviously, the guiding principle of any migration policy concerning ethnic Hungarians should be re-sponsibility to the nation. However, this do es not necessarily lead to an easing of immi-gration and naturalisation restrictions. If the mother country considers her primary objec-tive to keep ethnic minorities in their original home land, she should not offer too enticing possibilities. Otherwise these factors might inspire individuals to opt for migration, who, for the lack of the easy immigration should actually achieve a better life for themselves in their present environment.

If the primary objective is to keep Hungarian ethnic minorities where they are, Hungar-ian migration policy makers should make every effort to avoid a situation in which neigh-bouring countries are left outside the European Union, while Hungary itself becomes part of a Union whose visa policy will be binding without exceptions, thus forcing the nation-als ofneighbouring countries to apply for a visa. This threatening situation can be avoided either by procuring exceptional treatment for the citizens of neighbouring countries in the accession treaty with the European Union, or by supporting their admission into the Un-ion (as Hungary promised in the basic treaties signed with Slovakia and Romania respec-tively).

Beside the conclusions concerning ethnic Hungarians, this principle also affects Hun-garian migration policy governing the emigration and the diaspora, and even the regula-tion of naturalisaregula-tion. While I support the possibility of re-naturalisation, I strongly op-pose the maintenance of the notion that second and third generation descendants of

Hungarian citizens who emigrated 4060 years ago should be considered HunHungarian citizens -especially if they do not maintain even loose ties with the mother country - and should thus have an unrestricted right to immigrate to Hungary. We know of cases when the child of a Hungarian émigré born in Austria was, after serving a prison sentence, deported to Hungary in spite of the fact that he spoke no Hungarian, had no relatives in Hungary and had spent the previous forty years of his life in Austria. The legal ground for his deporta-tion was, that he qualified as Hungarian citizen because of his father and did not "inherit"

Austrian citizenship from his mother who - aceording to legal stipulations in Austria at that time - lost her Austrian citizenship upon marrying a Hungarian citizen.

The third possible aspect of responsibility to the nation affects long-term or final emi-gration. Responsibility to the nation does not mean that a long-term or final emigration should be impeded, but that these processes should be recognised and monitored. The availability of reliable statistics on the number of individuals who have only left the country temporarily and those who have left for good could perhaps be achieved with gentIe legal instruments. A sensible regular migration policy can hardly be formulated if it concentrates only on one direction ofmigration - name ly immigration -, yet does not take into account which social resources (housing, labour, benefits) have been liberated by emigration.

The Principle of Long-Term Macro-Economic Utility

The principle of nation-wide or at !east medium-term utility affects two branches of migration. It must obviously be determined in all cases of regular migration which do not involve motivations based on moral obligation (family reunification, repatriation, etc.).

This is what I would call a utilitarian immigration policy, which is not concerned with neutral annual quotas, but would instead defined which criteria make one immigrant more desirable than an other in view of the Hungarian labour market.

I'm not inclined to identify those selection criteria and their relative importance. If I nonetheless menti on a few considerations, my basic intent is to provoke a debate among colleagues presently working in the field of sociology and economy. In my view the fol-lowing should be acknowledged as elements of an immigration policy:

• Demographic trends will make immigration desirable, if not downright necessary.

Thus what needs to be formulated is a policy not of exclusion, but of controlled reception.

• Immigration priorities may acknowledge Hungarian origin as a preferential factor, but only if we accept that this might endanger the presence and, thus, the survival of eth-nic Hungarians in their respective homelands.

• Chronic shortages in the labour and servicing market, as weil as in areas which can-not be filled by experts trained in Hungary, could justify the preference of immigrants to fill these gaps;

• A long-tenn capital investment of aspecific amount could guarantee preferential treat-ment in exchange for guarantees that such capital will be maintained for ten years.

• An immigration policy could create well-regulated subsystems involving the formai participation and financial responsibility of "sponsoring" communities or legal entities supporting immigrants.

The other area influenced by macroeconomics utilitarianism is the fight against illegal migration. It is the task of the state to combat forces which lead to deteriorating social welfare and living standards. The fight against the competitiveness of illegal workers and services, as weil as against crimes committed or incited by legally or illegally residing foreigners, is the task of a migration policy based on the principle of macroeconomics utility, and strengthened by a number of bilateral and multilateral international legal agreements.

In applying the principle of macroeconomics utility, legislators would do weil to think ahead to the moment in about ten years' time when the country will become a member of the European Union. 1 am convinced that a new situation will arise once we have joined the single market and it becomes possible for Hurrgarian workers, service providers and entrepreneurs to work without restrietion in other member states. This situation will probably not arise the minute Hungary joins the Union, but about 5 to 10 years later, ow-ing to the interpolation of a transitional period at the insistence of the member states.

Policy makers who insist on macroeconomics utility should also consider the influence of such a policy through the analysis of well-known parallels (especially in Spain and Portu-gal).

The Principle of the Rule of Law

Neither ernotions, ardent love of one's nation, nor dry utilitarianism should lead to a migration policy and regulations in violation oflegal obligations. The principle of the rule of law involves two, but nonetheless inextricably linked precepts. On the one hand, it calls for a respect for the Hungarian Constitution and the Hungarian legal system, and on the other it obliges Hungary to fulfil her obligations as set forth in various treaties and, in the lack of written treaties, customary international law. The link is created by paragraph (l) of § 7 of the Constitution." In 1993 the Constitutional Court ruled that

"Paragraph (1) of § 7 of the Constitution means that aceording to the provisions of

the Constitution, the Republic of Hungary participates in the community of nations;

this participation is thus a constitutional command for internal law. It follows from this that the Constitution should be interpreted in a mann er that the generally accepted rules of international law should indeed be applied.

The second part of paragraph (1) of § 7 - the guaranteeing of the harmony of ac-cepted obligations and internal law - extends to ali 'accepted' international obliga-tions, including the generally recognised rules.">

The international lawyer can contribute most creatively to the formulation of a migra-tion policy with reference to the principle of respect for the rule of law.

4"The legal system of the Republic of Hungary accepts the generally recognized rules of international law.

and furthermore guarantees the harmony of accep ted internationallegal obligations wi th internal law."

5 Constitutional Court decision 5311993 (October 13) (on the non-apphcability of the statu te of limitations towar crimcs and crimes against humanity).

In her recent report," Katalin Gönczöl, the parliamentary cornrmssioner of human rights, noted that the current practice of custody as applied by the alien police violates the principle of the rule of law and endangers legal security. The principle of the rule of law requires that Hungary respects human and civil rights of regular and irregular migrants -from the protection of data and personal freedom to the principle of non-refoulement - as set forth in Hungary's laws and international obligations.

The activity of the Hungarian NGOs in promoting human rights and other guarantees concerning migration is weil known. Therefore I would rather like to menti on one particu-lar aspect, the attitude toward Schengen instruments and, in a wider sense, to the deci-sions adopted by the ministers responsible for immigration in the EU states.

The law in force must be respected, even ifwe do not particularly like it. The most im-portant task as far as non-binding decisions are concerned - such as the ministerial deci-sion of the EC in December of 1992 concerning manifestly unfounded claims, host third countries, and countries of ori gin in which there is no serious risk of persecution - is eriti-cai analysis, such as the strongly-worded statement issued by the European Parliament, the elected body ofrepresentatives of the Union's citizens when the Schengen Agreement was applied by a special Convention.? Inthis statement, the first Schengen Agreement, ratified in 1985, was described as "concealing the total lack of a politicai will on the part of the Council and Committee to institute full freedom of movement for persons". It was noted that "the free movement of persons is an integral part of the internal market and within the objectives of the European Union, in accordance with the Article 7a EC" which was in contradiction to the Schengen Agreement and its provisions for a "Fortress Europe". The parti es were requested to "guarantee access to asylum procedures unhin-dered by strict visa requirements". Inaddition, member states of the Union were reminded that the system which carne into effect on March 26 was debated and created without ap-proval of the European Parliament and the parliaments of the member states, even though these organs play a crucial role in the practice of demoeratic government.

Ladies and Gentiemen: Respect for the law, the consideration of European norms must not be limited to the imitation of restrictive movements. Any carefui observer of legislative events in Brussels should also look to Strasbourg. That is, practical action is not necessarily governed by practical benefit, but by the innate dignity of every human being.

"Can we moralise?" - was the tim id question posed at the beginning of this paper. I hope that it has become clear that yes, we can and, in the light of human rights and refu-gee considerations, we definitely should. Philosophers, as weil as major legal texts, con-stitutions and agreements ali illustrate that answers to major issues cannot be entered into small accounting columns of expense and profit, that society should not be envisioned as a beehive of employers and ernployees, and that we should indeed look to our roots and guiding stars, acknowledging that a life which does not bring profit can nonetheless be one of dignity. By the same taken, activities which increase the GDP can also be morally shameful.

6 Cp. the December 6 issue ofNépszabadság.

7CH No C 1091169, May 1. 1995.

Let me call your attention to what three Hungarian NGOs noted at a recent press con-ference:

"Over half a million people fled from Hungary during the course of the

zo"

ali of them found shelter, and the majority found a livelihood and a home in their new homeland. Hungary owes it to the international community to provide shelter in a humane manner, based on clear-cut laws to those, who - for politicaI reasons, as a result persecu-tion owing to, race, religion, napersecu-tionality or social background or out of a fear of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - have be en forced to flee their homeland.t"

8 Press statement issued by the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, the Hungarian Center for the Protection of Human Rights (MEJOK) and the Hungarian Association for Migrants (MENEDÉK) Budapest, December 2, 1996.

Judit Tóth