acknowledged as refugees during the asylum procedure, the criminality of forgery and falsification of authentic documents was practically excluded.
International provisions on asylum, however, do not exclude the possibility of apply-ing provisions of policapply-ing nature against the asylum-seeker durapply-ing conductapply-ing the asylum procedure. One of its institutions is asylum custody (administrative detention), which can basically guarantee the successful conduct of the asylum procedure by guaranteeing the asylum-seekers’ personal presence and availability during the entire procedure. However, it cannot be excluded that ordering administrative detention different in nature from alien policing may have an effect of deterrence for persons having their legitimate claim for international protection. It may also compromise the scientific and technical appraisal of asylum custody if, during housing, pronounced cultural and civilizational differences exist (hygiene, dietary customs, practice of religion, etc.) and, when locked up, the excessive period of the assessment of the asylum procedure (essentially, the lack of immediate and favourable decision) may also have adverse effects.76 Despite all that, this custody may prove to be a necessary coercive measure in cases if the final assessment of the asylum procedure in a large number of cases fail due to the asylum-seekers’ leave to unknown destinations.
Instead of assessing crimes committed, as mentioned above, due to the asylum proce-dures initiated without foundation, the so-called alien policing expulsion can be considered a coercive measure with the purpose of policing. It is ordered by the asylum authority, if it has established that the asylum-seeker is not entitled to international protection, and has no further right to stay in the territory of the country. Similarly to asylum custody, this legal institution may seem alien compared to the spirit of asylum, but in principle it cannot be of concern if the authority has the obligation to establish whether or not the asylum and the prohibition of expulsion is founded.77 Therefore, even in case of an unfavourable ending of the asylum procedure, there is no need to conduct the objective criminal proceedings concerning the crime committed in order to ensure entry or stay prior to applying for asylum or for the purpose of getting an asylum, it is more than enough to simply enforce asylum custody.
(in case of Hungary, it is the European Economic Area), and as regards the alien policing systems encompassing the persons not having the citizenship either of these nation-states or the member states of the international communities.
Though they are apparently synergistic systems, alien policing and border policing have their own characteristics, due to which they can be interpreted by different defini-tions. While in case of border policing being specific to limited areas it is definitive, in case of alien policing it depends on persons or clients. Border policing produces its effects exclusively at the state border and its area, at the border crossings and the border area in order to maintain the desired lawful situation (order). Alien policing has no geographical limits when it extends to persons not having citizenship at their place of residence, more precisely foreigners, in respect of whom, their entry and stay are to be examined under separate legal frameworks. Therefore, alien policing is present either at the state border or in the area of free movement. Nevertheless, either border policing and alien policing may extend to citizens, that is persons having citizenship at their place of residence. This circle is far broader in case of border policing, since it is not only foreigners that happen to be present in the area of the state border and at the border checks, while alien policing very rarely encounters citizens, on an entirely exceptional basis only, when their legal status, e.g. carriers, employers, hosts requires so.
Delimitation of tasks of border policing and alien policing appears in the establish-ment of the organisational structure of the authorities. Border policing is basically law enforcement, a set of tasks that may entail, if need be, establishing checkpoints, roadblocks, area closures, increased and more visible police presence. Alien policing, on the contrary, contains the activities of the authorities which, due to its customer-orientation, must be carried out by enforcing individual rights. This should not necessarily require using classical law enforcement measures. So while the authority responsible for the functions of border policing is the law enforcement authority, the primary authority for the functions of alien policing must be an agency (office).79
As regards the types of sanctions relating to irregular migration, there are several existing alternatives from practices across countries worldwide and within the member states of the European Union.80 Basically, the core issue can be narrowed down to the fact whether measures of criminal law or measures outside the criminal law are applied when eliminating and preventing conducts (behaviours) or situations that are, due to uncontrolled human movement, contrary to law and order. The relevant application of the law is not consistent in the Hungarian legal system. The legal consequences of illegal immigration (entry and stay) may derive from norms outside of criminal law, but they are also present in the provisions of the criminal law.
As a result of its effectiveness, in particular its primary social interest in remedying the unlawful state resulting from unlawful entry or stay, alien policing law should be taken into consideration as a primary legal instrument. By imposing expulsion or, if need be, deportation, but not including asylum procedure, alien policing procedure terminates
79 As of January 1, 2017, this agency in Hungary is the Office of Immigration and Nationality.
80 A recently published article details the effective regulations existing in the European Union. See Criminali-sation of migrants in an irregular situation and of persons engaging with them. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Vienna, Austria, 2014.
irregular stay regardless the possibility of applying further sanctions deriving from other legal sanctions of alien policing.
The Hungarian public administration law and the administrative criminal law contain instruments and measures outside the criminal law. The latter refers to facts of offences against human dignity, personal freedom and public order,81 while those in the public ad-ministration law are public adad-ministration fines established either as public adad-ministration sanctions in the scope of the so-called vested responsibilities82 required from carriers and employers, or due to the increasing migration situation in 2015 with the purpose of ensuring the protection of the temporary border barrier and ensuring the uninterrupted construction of the border barrier.83
There is a wide range of legal means and instruments available to combat and prevent unlawful entry or stay; ultimately criminal law may also offer solutions to punish crim-inal conduct directly related to irregular migration. It is important to mention here that criminalising irregular migration, or basically any form of human migration contrary to the law, has become a current issue for the general public, as well as the people in alien policing, criminology and criminal law. This is the issue of the so-called crimmigration whose concept and scientific interpretation have recently been addressed in more detail.84 Integrating the institutions of criminal law into migration law, applying punitive sanctions against immigration and the social impacts of immigration, respectively, are now in the focus. Connected with this is the examination whether 1. the increase of crimmigration can be justifiable or how inevitable itis in connection with the rising trend of migration; 2. how it can, if at all, provide effective solution to combat and prevent certain phenomena of un-lawful migration; and 3. whether the sanctioning system of criminal law can be considered proportionate to the irregular trends of migration.
When considering the classical examples of criminal law prohibitions relating to the unlawful forms of migration (in particular unauthorised entries and stays), the following may be remembered: prohibited crossing of the state border, foreigner’s unlawful residence or assisting and supporting prohibited conducts, such as people smuggling, providing as-sistance for unlawful stay or, perhaps, unlawful employment of foreigners. The classical criminal law sanction in such cases is expulsion, which refers to the removal of the foreigner, declared persona non grata, and held liable for his/her intentionally committed crime in the territory of the country by the court.
The before-mentioned norms may be found in the Hungarian criminal law together with the particular facts, that is the technical barrier (temporary border barrier) established due to the increased migration pressure on the country, which barrier became the subject of debates in legal literature.85 The prosecution by the state, at the same time, can only be
81 Prohibited border crossing or offences relating to travel documents (Section 158), administrative offences relating to policing foreigners (Section 162), administrative offence in border policing (Section 159) in Chapter XXIV of Act II of 2012 on offences, the procedure in relation to offences and the offence record system.
82 Section 69, subsection (4) of Act LXXX of 2007 on Asylum.
83 Section 2, subsections (1)–(3) of Government Decree 213 of 2015 on the temporary border barrier – protection of border barrier.
84 Regarding the works focusing on the topic, see García Hernández, César Cuauhtémoc (2015): Crimmigration Law. ABA Book Publishing. 75–148.
85 Sections 352/A, 352/B, and 352/C of Act C of 2012 on the Criminal Code – crossing or vandalising the border barrier unlawfully, or disrupting the ongoing works.
possible in the form of substantive, adversarial and contradictory criminal proceedings.
However, it does not prevent applying other legal instruments instead of criminal proceed-ings for practical reasons, in particular when the seriousness and the nature of the committed crime allows for it. A prime example of such move is the separation of military criminal proceedings – initiation of disciplinary proceedings. This method can be applied in mili-tary community in particular and is the application of labour law. Diverting the criminal proceedings, that is setting the liability in criminal proceedings of an act committed else-where is not found in the criminal proceedings in force. The rules of criminal procedures, however, allow for terminating a situation arising from unlawful stay in the scope of an alien policing procedure instead of establishing culpability. This method, however, is only available if there is but one crime committed, and only if the crime, detecting forged or falsified travel documents in case of foreigners, third-country nationals, is detected at the border crossing point. No alien policing procedure should be concluded if the foreigner, due to his/her status of free movement or stay, or his/her being under prohibition to return due to humanitarian principles.
Bibliography
Ádám Antal (1961): A külföldiek fontosabb jogai és kötelességei a Magyar Népköztársaságban.
Jogtudományi Közlöny, Vol. 16, No. 6. 351–361.
Alonso-Borrego, César – Garoupa, Nuno – Vázquez, Pablo (2011): Does Immigration Cause Crime. Evidence from Spain. Madrid, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.
Amberg Erzsébet (2014): Büntetőjogi változások – rendészeti reakciók. Pécs, Pécsi Határőr Tu-dományos Közlemények XV.
Balázs László (2017): Az idegenrendészeti hatóság tevékenysége rendkívüli migrációs helyzetben.
Belügyi Szemle, Vol. 65, No. 2. 5–19.
Balla Zoltán (2016): Monográfia a rendészetről. Budapest, Rejtjel Kiadó.
Beregnyei József (2012): Rendészet, rendvédelem értelmezése, viszonya és kapcsolata a Határ-őrséghez. Pécs, Pécsi Határőr Tudományos Közlemények I.
Blaskó Béla (2015): Közigazgatás – rendészeti igazgatás – büntetőjog. Magyar Rendészet, Vol. 15, No. 4. 37–55.
García Hernández, César Cuauhtémoc (2015): Crimmigration Law. ABA Book Publishing.
Chacon, Jennifer M. (2012): Overcriminalizing Immigration. Journal of Criminal Law and Crimi-nology, Vol. 102, No. 3. 613–652.
Criminalisation of migrants in an irregular situation and of persons engaging with them. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Vienna, Austria, 2014.
Cserép Attila – Fábián Adrián – Rózsás Eszter (2013): Kommentár a szabálysértési törvényhez.
Budapest, Wolters Kluwer.
Éliás Pál (1987): A külföldiek jogi helyzetével kapcsolatos alapvető kérdések. In Konrád Edit szerk.: Idegenjog. Budapest, Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Államtudományi Kutatások Programirodája.
Fábián Adrián (2013): Közigazgatás és szakigazgatás (A szakigazgatás fogalma, jelentősége). In Lapsánszky András szerk.: Közigazgatási jog. Fejezetek szakigazgatásaink köréből. I. kötet.
Budapest, Complex Kiadó.
Fan, Mary (2013): The case of crimmigration reform. North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 92, No. 1.
Finszter Géza (2012): A rendőrség joga. Budapest, Országos Rendőr-főkapitányság.
Gyeney Laura (2014): Legális bevándorlás az Európai Unióba, különös tekintettel a családi élet tiszteletben tartásának jogára. Budapest, Pázmány Press.
Haller József (2016): Migránsok agresszivitása az adatok tükrében. In Hautzinger Zoltán szerk.:
A migráció bűnügyi hatásai. Budapest, MRTT.
Hautzinger Zoltán szerk. (2016): A migráció bűnügyi hatásai. Budapest, MRTT.
Kis Norbert (2015): „Metszéspontok” – rendészettudomány, bűnügyi tudományok, közigazgatás-tu-domány és transzdiszciplinaritás. Magyar Rendészet, Vol. 15, No. 4. 85–92.
Klenner Zoltán (2013): A menekültügyi őrizet és bevezetésének szükségessége. Pécs, Pécsi Határőr Tudományos Közlemények XIV.
Kovács Gábor (2012): A rendészet, határrendészet értelmezése a határőrségi csapaterő feladat- és tevékenységrendszerében. Pécs, Pécsi Határőr Tudományos Közlemények I.
Legomsky, Stephen H. (2007): The new path of immigration law: asymmetric incorporation of criminal justice norms. Washington and Lee Law Review, Vol. 64.
Lőrincz Aranka (2015): Az állampolgársági jog válasza a terrorizmusra. In Hautzinger Zoltán szerk.: Migráció és rendészet. Budapest, Magyar Rendészettudományi Társaság, Migrációs Tagozat.
Madai Sándor (2016): A „tömeges bevándorlás okozta válsághelyzet” kezelésének büntető anyagi jogi eszközei hazánkban. In Hautzinger Zoltán szerk.: A migráció bűnügyi hatásai. Budapest, Magyar Rendészettudományi Társaság, Migrációs Tagozat.
Mádl Ferenc – Vékás Lajos: (1997): Nemzetközi magánjog és nemzetközi gazdasági kapcsolatok joga. Budapest, Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó.
Pacsek József (2016): A menekültügyi és az idegenrendészeti őrizet, valamint a kitoloncolás végre-hajtása az ügyészi törvényességi felügyeleti tapasztalatok tükrében. In Hautzinger Zoltán szerk.: A migráció bűnügyi hatásai. Budapest, MRTT.
Parkin, Joanna (2013): The Criminalisation of Migration in Europe. CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security, No. 61.
Patyi András (2013): A rendészeti igazgatás és a rendészeti jog alapjai. In Lapsánszky János szerk.:
Közigazgatási jog. Fejezetek szakigazgatásaink köréből. I. kötet. Budapest, Complex Kiadó.
Póczik Szilveszter (2017): A jelenkori nemzetközi migráció egyes speciális kriminológiai vonatkozá-sai. In Sabjanics István szerk.: Modern kori népvándorlás. A migráció komplex megközelítése.
Budapest, Dialóg Campus Kiadó.
Polt Péter ed. (2013): A Büntető Törvénykönyv Kommentárja. Budapest, Nemzeti Közszolgálati és Tankönyv Kiadó.
Rigo, Enrica (2006): Citizens and Foreigners in the Enlarged Europe. In Sadurski, Wojciech – Czarnota, Adam – Krygier, Martin eds.: Spreading Democracy and the Rule of Law?
Springer.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998.
Rózsás Eszter (2013): A külföldiek igazgatása és a menekültjog. In Lapsánszky András szerk.:
Közigazgatási jog. Fejezetek szakigazgatásaink köréből. I. kötet. Budapest, Complex Kiadó.
Stumpf, Juliet (2006): The Crimmigration Crisis: Immigrants, Crime, and Sovereign Power. American University Law Review, Vol. 56, No. 2.
Suba János (2017): Határvédelem a második világháború időszakában, 1938–1944. In Pósán László – Veszprémy László – Boda József – Isaszegi János: Őrzők, vigyázzatok a határra!
Budapest, Zrínyi Kiadó.
Szamel Lajos (1992): Jogállamiság és rendészet. Rendészeti Szemle, Vol. 30, No. 3. 3–21.
Szép Árpád (2017): A 2015-ös migrációs válságra adott menedékjogi válaszok. Jogszabály-módosítás-sal a tömeges beáramlás ellen? In Tálas Péter szerk.: Magyarország és a 2015-ös európai migrációs válság. Budapest, Dialóg Campus Kiadó.
Szuhai Ilona – Tálas Péter (2017): A 2015-ös európai migrációs és menekültválság okairól és hát-teréről. In Tálas Péter szerk.: Magyarország és a 2015-ös európai migrációs válság. Budapest, Dialóg Campus Kiadó.
Tóth Norbert (2016): „Államarcú” nemzetközi jog, avagy a 2015 őszén módosított magyar Büntető Törvénykönyv a menekültek jogállásáról szóló 1951. évi genfi egyezmény 31. cikk (1) bekezdése fényében. In Hautzinger Zoltán szerk.: A migráció bűnügyi hatásai. Budapest, MRTT.
Vajkai Edina (2014): A migráció kezelésének térnyerése a biztonságpolitikában. Pécs, Pécsi Határőr Tudományos Közlemények XV.
Varga János – Verhóczki János (2013): Határrendészet. Budapest, Nemzeti Közszolgálati Egyetem, Rendészettudományi Kar.
Varga János (2008): A schengeni eszme uniós biztonsági rendszerré válásának kiteljesedése és táv-latai. In Postavenie Schengenkého acquis v systéme politik Európskych spoločenstiev. Zborník z medzinárodnej vedeckej konferencie. Bratislava, Akadémia Policajného zboru v Bratislave.
Virányi Gergely (2012): Gondolatok a rendészettudományhoz. Pécs, Pécsi Határőr Tudományos Közlemények I.
Windt Szandra (2015): Az emberkereskedelem jelensége és a fellépés nehézségei. In Hautzinger Zoltán szerk.: Migráció és rendészet. Budapest, MRTT Migrációs Tagozat.
Woude, Maartje van der – Barker, Vanessa – Leun, Joanne van der (2017): Crimmigration in Europe. European Journal of Criminology, Vol. 14, No. 1. 3–6.