Following over four decades of isolation, international migration to Hungary was in-creasingly determined by processes set in motion prior to 1990. At this time the country was basicaIly unprepared to receive refugees. Since 1990, new legislation, adapted to rapidly changing circumstances, has regulated the entry and residence of aliens. However, Hungary has still not formulated a coherent migration policy incorporating the country's national interests.
Beside the end of the country's isolation, the following elements best characterise the changes which shaped international migration to Hungary since 1990.
• Hungary's official attitude toward ethnic Hungarians in neighbouring countries has changed considerably;
• owing to her geographic location and unresolved problems of minorities in the Da-nubian region, as weil as armed conflict between the countries of ex- Yugoslavia, Hungary has become a target and transit country of international migratory movements;
• most immigrants are ethnic Hungarians from the neighbouring countries;
• little is known about the migration of Hungarian citizens.
THE ATTRACTION OF HUNGARY
The causes of the attraction of Hungary were created by the peace treaties concluded at the c\ose of World Wars 1 and II.Following the conc\usion of the Treaty of Trianon, the more than 3 million ethnic Hungarians who fell within the new ly enlarged boundaries of the neighbouring states were faced with the decision of having to choose between their home land and Hungarian citizenship. Those who opted for Hungarian citizenship had to leave their homeland, while those who chose their home land became Slovakian, Roma-nian, Serbian or Austrian nationals.
The forcing of ethnic Hungarians into newly-drawn borders was coupled with a dis-tinct anti-Hungariari policy, forcing many hundreds of thousands to flee their new coun-try. The ex act number of ethnic Hungarians who fled to, or were resettled in, Hungary, or who emigrated to a third country is not known at this time. However, a good indication of
I Research made possible byaNational Scientifíc Fundgrant (OTKANo.I7922).
the magnitude of this migration is the fact that between 1919 and 1923 about 200,000 people arrived to Hungary from areas annexed to Romania.
Following the revision of the Trianon borders in 1938, the citizenship ofover 5million people was changed and they became citizens of another state - in this case Hungary -without setting their foot outside their homeland. The partitioning of Transylvania, the annexation of the Felvidék (southern Slovakia) and the Délvidék (northern Yugoslavia) led to the re-settlement of people who had earlier fled to Hungary from these territories, as weil as the exodus of other ethnic minorities from Hungary. In the case of Transylva-nia, this involved the migration of about 200,000 ethnic Hungarians and the same number of ethnic Romanians.
This situation changed again at the end of World War II: the peace treaty signed at the that time disregarded the ethnic principle, but in addition to restoring pre-war boundaries, newer chunks of territories inhabited by ethnic Hungarians were awarded to Czechoslo-vakia. At the same time, the Sub-Carpathian region was taken from Czechoslovakia and annexed to the Soviet Union. Following the disintegration of the Soviet Union, this region became part of the Ukraine.
At the end of World War ll, between 1944-1945, a significant number of Hungarians faced a difficult choice, the result of which was a formerly unprecedented number of Hungarians fleeing to Hungary and then from Hungary. In the case of Hungarians, this was compounded by the fact that ethnic Hungarians and Hungarian nationals living in those territories annexed between 1939 and 1941 to neighbouring countries were regarded as enemies. They suffered retaliation, physical annihilation, were stripped of ali rights, shipped off to labour camps and driven from their forrner homes. Due to a lack ofreliable contemporary statisticaI data, it is impossible to give a precise figure of how many left the country or fled from their form er homeland. This "forced" migration began with the mass deportation of the Jews, the forcible removal of the overwhelming majority of ethnic Germans (about 250,000 persons) and the Hungarian-Czechoslovak population exchange, involving the resettlement of about 90,000 ethnic Slovaks. At the same time, there was a major influx of ethnic Hungarians from Romania (130,000), Czechoslovakia
(115-120,000), as weil as from Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union (over 70,000).
Similar to the poIiticai scene in other Danubian countries, the Communist take-over was solidified by 1948, and, in essen ce, Hungary lost the forrner attraction which she had exerted on her citizens and which had influenced and, in many respects, determined erni-gration, as weil as their repatriation. One consequence of the Communist take-over was that the normalor natural form of international migration carne to halt. Following the 1947-49 wave - which was by far eclipsed by the number of emigrants in 1945 - the borders were practically sealed. The 1956 uprising triggered yet another wave of emigra-tion, with about 200,000 people leaving the country. In the following decades about 8to
10,000 persons left the country each year, both legally and illegally.
In spite of the changes, there are still about 2,750,000 ethnic Hungarians in the neigh-bouring countries. Aceording to the latest (1991) census there were 6,801 ethn ic H ungari-ans in Austria, 586,884 in Czechoslovakia, 378,997 in Yugoslavia, 1,620,199 in Romania and 155,711 in the Soviet Union.
KEY CONSIDERATlON IN FORMULATING A HUNGARIAN MIGRATION STRATEGY
As in other countries, Hungary cannot afford to be indifferent to which citizens lea ve the country, and who arrive "to replace" those who have left. It is usually difficult to demonstrate a direct and solid link between refugees, immigrants and those who apply for citizenship, and those who after theapplication procedure are actually naturalised. In con-trast to general international experience, however, there is a correlation between many new arrivals and those who decide to settie in Hungary, primarily due to the recent history of the region. The peace treaties concluded after World Wars I and II were essentia Ily conceived in a spirit of revenge and the territories seized from Hungary were irrevocably carved up between forrner Czechoslovakia, ex- Yugoslavia, Romania and the forrner So-viet Union. From the moment they annexed their new territories, these countries concen-trated on breaking the economic strength, assimilating and eliminating the national iden-tity of their ethnic minorities.
Even though the countries created after World War I have by now disintegrated, the status of the areas inhabited by ethnic Hungariaus has remained essentia Ily unchanged.
Consequently, the forced and spontaneous migration of ethnic Hungarians away from these regions will continue unless the present socio-economic conditions and relations with the majority population do not change. Hungary's "puli" can not be attributed to the country's economic potential, but rather the general situation of a population which even as citizens of another countries, still considers itself Hungarian. Consequently, it is the internal stability, economic situation and minority policy in these neighbouring countries which essential ly define the magnitude of migratory pressure on Hungary.Even so, Hun-gary's migration policy and strategy should be formulated in a way as to avoid any am-plification of the pressure created by this situation, since this would undermine the posi-tive status enjoyed byethnic Hungarians in neighbouring countries.
At the present time, decisions concerning international migration are - in the absence of acoherent and long-term migration policy - essentially influenced by an assumed so-cial expectation, the existing migratory pressure, and executive officials. In view of his-toric preliminaries. of possible associate membership of some of the region's countries in the European Union, as weil as of the demographic decline of the country's population, the question arises as to what kind of immigration policy strategy is needed to ensure that the reception of potential citizens also serves the be st interest of the country and of the Hungarians in general.
Current administrative activity, which influences neither emigration or immigration has made painfully clear the following facts:
1. As far as the present and future of the Hungariari society is concerned, it is not at ali irrelevant which processes are strengthened, weakened or neutralised by prospective im-migrants when set against the demographic and social backdrop of Hungary's population.
2. In consequence of rapid change, relevant legal rules and their implementation tend to fulfil their original function to a decreasing extent, and therefore will have to be sub-ordinated to common migration strategy when such is reformulated.
3. The management of various tasks in connection with emigration and immigration is not merely a police issue. Therefore, the institutional framework of international
migra-tion needs to be redefined, and the interest and support of affected communities must be generated.
In other words, the formulation of a Hungarian migration strategy can no longer be delayed; this strategy must be based on analysis of the wide-ranging debates concerning this issue. In the interest of formulating a Hungarian migration strategy, I suggest to es-tablish a Hungarian Emigration and Immigration Council which would be independent of shifting poIiticaI interests.
Since 1990, emigration and immigration - a constant social problem and poIiticaI issue - can no longer be neglected. Nor can we circumvent the problem of identifying those who have arrived with the intention of staying in Hungary for shorter or longer periods of time. We must consider the following questions: which are their countries of origin, what are their traditions, what are their intentions, what interests do they represent and what will they be leaving behind when they abandon their former citizenship in favour of a Hungarian one? What are their demographic and sociological characteristics, and which of the processes characterising the Hungarian population will they strengthen or weaken?
We must also address the question of whether Hungary needs immigration or such a high number of new citizens. This can also be put another way: can we be indifferent to the changes in the status of those ethnic Hungarians who, as subjects of the Kingdom of Hungary were Hungarian citizens until the cJose of World War 1,but now live as minori-ties in neighbouring countries? When formulating a migration policy strategy we can and should subordinate to Hungary's national interests - both in terms of domestic and for-eign policy - the increasing desire of ethnic Hungarians to live in Hungary. In the case of Romania, this is also linked to the general economic and poIiticaI conditions in the co un-try, the attitude of the Romanian majority to their ethnic minorities, the differing culture, traditions and customs of the majority, and the desire of former Romanian nationals to resettle in Hungary. As yet, little is known about the social changes and interrelations among ethnic Hungarians, their relation to the majority population, the preservation of national identity which would be affected by their migration to Hungary. Similarly, noth-ing is known about the changnoth-ing patterns creat ed in the fabric of Hungarian society by newly-naturalised ethnic Hungarians. For the lack of basic research, there is no answer to the question of whether the migration of ethnic Hungarians from Yugoslavia triggered by war will end and be stabilised on a lower level or whether the current level will be main-tained. Similarly, it remains unknown as to which point ethnic Hungarians living in south-ern Slovakia consider it within their interests to remain there; when they will decide to leave in greater numbers.
The final question is whether the immigration and naturalisation of ethnic Hungarians from the Czech Republic, Croatia, Austria, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Ukraine should be encouraged or, on the contrary, discouraged. Before answering this question we must consider the effects and consequences of the emigration of ethnic Hun-garians to Hungary on the future of ethnic HunHun-garians remaining in these countries.