We believe that the adopted bill does not effectively define the basic framework of migration (the entry and stay of foreigners), regarding the economic and cultural interests of Hungary and Hungarian citizens.
Female workers’ accommodation of the Kőbánya Textile Works. Cuban weaver working in Hungary / Source: Fortepan / Péter Horváth
“Because a country of one tongue and one custom is weak and fragile. Wherefore I bid you, my son, support newcomers with goodwill, and treat them fairly, that they may prefer to continue with you rather than to live elsewhere. If you destroy what I have built up or strive to disperse what I have gathered together, without a doubt, your kingdom will suffer the greatest damage. Lest that be, augment your kingdom daily, that your crown may be held august by all.”
(King Saint Stephen’s admonitions to his son, Prince Emeric)
The new legislation does not build on the experience of the previous regulation, nor does it strive to eliminate strategic and administrative errors and deficiencies. The fact that the implementing rules have not been properly developed suggests that the administration will not be sufficiently prepared and competent to apply the new rules quickly and effectively. All of this is happening in a political and economic environment where Hungary's interest includes maintaining an adequate level of migration control. Additionally, there is a goal to encourage economically and socially necessary migration, as well as to attract and retain foreigners willing to work in Hungary. In our opinion, the new legislation will not help adequately to achieve this social and economic policy goal.
I. The adoption of a new regulation is necessary, replacing the current one in force. But not this way!
Since the bill adopted by the Parliament has still not been announced 10 days before the planned entry into force, we present our position on the basis of the text available on the Parliament’s website.
The entire text reveals a lack of a coherent concept and thorough preparation. It also appears to have been crafted based on current political and party preferences The motto in the introduction of the bill, “Hungary belongs to the Hungarians”, evokes the darkest periods of the 20th century. It is not only horrifying in "translation", but also in its original Hungarian form. The lack of a strategic and comprehensive approach has been a substantial characteristic of the national migration policy for years. There is an urgent need to develop a migration strategy that outlines Hungary's intended responses to current and future challenges and articulates how the country plans to capitalize on emerging migration trends. Irregular migration across the southern border, along with the rising number of irregular migrants and the increasing organized human smuggling, confirms that the law enforcement approach and solutions, as well as the state of crisis since 2015, have not brought effective results. A comprehensive approach is necessary, taking into account security, economy, culture, foreign policy, development policy, and humanitarian interests. Additionally, the strategic directions and proposals need to be developed with the involvement of migration policymakers, experts, and academics. The current regulation is far from perfect, as it has become fragmented, lacks conceptualization, and is difficult to understand due to annual amendments. But let's not change the rules this way!
II. Security concerns
Despite the political declarations citing the need to increase security as a reason for submitting the bill, the proposed provisions will create new, significant security risks. The bill reintroduces residence for investment purposes, the so-called "golden visa" – in the form of a guest investor visa or residence permit. It is sufficient to buy EUR 250,000 worth of investment units in a real estate fund (no minimum investment period is set), or EUR 500,000 worth of residential property in Hungary (five years of ownership is required), or make a donation of EUR 1 million to a higher education institution run by a public interest trust. On the latter, it is ironic that the government, which underlines the protection of sovereignty, wants to facilitate such a significant inflow of foreign financial support with unclear backgrounds. It is unclear how the above serves the interests of Hungarian society. In connection with the application of the previous regulation (settlement for investment purposes), serious national security concerns arose, to which this solution does not provide an adequate answer either.
III. Limiting family reunification instead of protecting families
The bill significantly reduces the possibility of family reunification for foreigners living in Hungary. Unfortunately, no relevant information is provided about the causes. Migrant workers consider not only the expected income but other factors when choosing the target country. It is also true for those who intend to study in a country other than their country of origin. Hungary is not at the forefront of Europe regarding wage levels, working conditions, and university positions in international rankings. This disadvantage could be compensated in the international competition for migrant workforce and talents by other means, such as the opportunity of social integration, and family reunification that provides a community and emotional safety. The adopted bill offers the opposite.
IV. Termination of residence permit instead of flexibility
We did not find an explanation for the revocation of the fourth most popular type of residence permit: residence permit for other purposes. Almost one in 20 foreigners applied for this which is a clear sign of the need for a flexible residence option, which – if the conditions are met – provided temporary residence for example grandparents visiting their grandchild born in Hungary, foreigners completing a six-month Hungarian language course, non-EU citizens owning property in Hungary (less than EUR 500,000) or wishing to spend their retirement years in Hungary.
V. Missed opportunities
In addition to re-codifying the entry and residence rules for third-country nationals, the bill also proposes amendments to related legislation. Unfortunately, it fails to address deficiencies that have already arisen in the application of the legislation currently in force. The bill also fails to extend to asylum seekers the provisions of the Social Act (Act III of 1993), the Child Protection Act (Act XXXI of 1997), Act XXVI of 1998 regarding the rights of persons with disabilities, and the Family Support Act (Act LXXXIV of 1998). Furthermore, it is a long-term deficiency that stateless persons have no access to Hungarian citizenship in the absence of a residence address (the legislation only allows them to have a residence permit issued by the alien’s policing authority).
It failed to learn from the experience of the current legislation and correct its mistakes: Hungarian citizens continue to face a disadvantage compared to citizens of other EU (EEA) states living in Hungary if they wish to live with their family members from non-EU countries. There is still no solution for abused foreigners staying here as family members (mainly women and children), who are abused by the “sponsor” family member (the Hungarian/foreign national through whom they can stay here as family members). They cannot run away from the abuser because they risk having their residence permit revoked. Moreover, the legislation does not provide adequate support for foreign workers who are exploited by their employers.
Read our detailed comments HERE in Hungarian.