Description of what happens if they do not receive the refugee status

In case the asylum application is rejected, the asylum seeker may resubmit the appeal to the Immigration Office within 15 days after receiving the decision. The Hungarian Helsinki Committee may offer help with the appeal through a lawyer. The deadline for the court to decide is 45 working days, but in practice the procedure can take several months. Can they return to their country? Once the asylum seeker receives a final negative decision, another interview will be scheduled, this time with the Alien police, in order to issue an expulsion order. During this interview the asylum seekers may mention any personal circumstances which might prevent the authorities from issuing an expulsion order. If the expulsion order is nevertheless issued, the asylum seeker will have maximum 30 days to leave the country.[1] Can they go to a different EU country? No, with the expulsion order the court will also issue a ban of entry to the Schengen area. Entry bans may be ordered for a maximum duration of 3 years, and may be extended by maximum 3 additional years at a time. The expulsion order can be suspended; if more time is needed for preparation of the expulsion, however, the maximum time of detention is 12 months.[2] Will they be deported? In case, for objective reasons, the return is impossible, the asylum seekers will be given a certificate of temporary residence (ideiglenes tartózkodásra jogosító igazolás), which is valid for up to 3 months. The certificate of temporary residence protects them from arrests and detention if they are stopped by the Police and they did not commit any offence or crime. With this temporary residence the asylum seeker is entitled to emergency health care. Nevertheless, this status does not grant them the right to work, to participate in public education or to receive financial aid. [1] Regulation and Asylum in Hungary, Dublin II regulation – European Union, available on http://www.w2eu.info/dublin2.en.html, accessed November 21, 2015 [2] Ibid.

Analysis of how the media depicts the refugees in Hungary

Prior to 2015, Hungarian media did not have a great deal of experience covering the topic of migration and, according to statistics, only 3% of the population considered immigration an important issue. However, over the course of just one year, that changed to 76% who not only thought immigration was important, but that it constituted a “serious threat” to the country.[i] So, what happened?

In large parts, the answer is to be found in the media’s handling of the 2015/2016 migrant influx, and the Victor Orban government’s role in controlling this. In the months leading up to the first arrivals in 2015, state media built up an “apocalyptic atmosphere”, tipping over into “breaking news hysteria” when the first groups of migrants started to show up at the border.[ii]

When looking at the case of Hungary, it is important to keep in mind that public media is notoriously weak compared to other countries; journalists’ associations and unions are often small and lacking in resources, and there is no longstanding tradition of an independent and powerful press.[iii] This makes most news channels particularly susceptible to influence from state propaganda, and journalism tends to be loyal to the government in what has been referred to as a “patron and client” model.[iv]

As the terms for “refugee” and “asylum seeker” bore empathetic connotations from past conflicts, and the Hungarian word for immigrant, which can best be translated as “newcomer”, supposedly appeared to be too neutral, a brand new word, “migráns”, inspired by latin but never used before in Hungarian language, was introduced as a negative tag for those who came to seek entry into Europe through the Hungarian border.[v] As part of an orchestrated government campaign, state media were instructed to use this new term (making unbiased reporting impossible in general, as anyone’s decision to avoid the word became a political act in itself), just as journalists were instructed not to use pictures of women and children that might evoke sympathy in people.[vi] In addition, in comparison with other EU member states, Hungary is one of the countries which has emphasised the most on migrants’ economic (rather than humanitarian) reasons for coming to Europe, and is overall more inward-looking (rather than European) in its focus when describing affairs.[vii]

In the first images of migrants entering Hungary, there was no government or police spokesperson present to make it seem like the situation was under control; on the contrary, TV showed scenes of chaos with groups of undocumented foreigners and no national authority.[viii] In contract, in the time since, most reporting has been on government policies rather than actual migration, with twice as many pictures of Hungarian authorities as of migrants, and over 50% of quotes coming from the government; the proportion of which for NGOs being less than 10%.[ix]

Follow-up on the refugee crisis

Political approach A small Central-European country with an isolated language and less than 10 million people, Hungary has become a territory of contested narratives of nation and migration.[1] Since 1990, Hungary was primarily a transit country for asylum seekers.[2] For the past three years there has been an increase in the number of asylum seekers in Hungary, rising from 2155 applications for asylum in 2012 to 42,775 in 2014.[3] 2015 was arguably the most challenging year post 2nd World War for Europe – and Hungary – in terms of managing what was defined a migration crisis, with over one million asylum seekers and migrants entering Europe by sea or land. In the first 6 months of 2015 there were 81.000 asylum applications in Hungary and the numbers were increasing. As a response to this situation and in an effort to curb the arrival of asylum seekers to Hungary, the Government commenced a series of anti-immigration measures. The first major step was to design a survey, entitled Consultation on Immigration and Terrorism, comprising 12 questions and an introduction letter, signed by the Prime Minister. On April 24, 2015, the survey was sent by post to 4 million households, approximately 8 million Hungarian citizens who have the right to vote, aiming to gather their support for tightening the migration policy and further deporting all irregular migrants. In a letter accompanying the questionnaire, the Prime Minister describes immigration as a threat that needs to be stopped and dismisses asylum seekers as economic migrants in disguise who come to abuse the welfare system. Furthermore, he claims that after the terrorist attacks in Paris earlier this year, it’s a clear fact that EU can’t handle migration properly; therefore, Hungary has to deal with it in its own way. The questions are designed in a way that links migration directly with terrorism and all migrants are labelled “economic migrants” who endanger the jobs and livelihoods of Hungarians, but there is no mention of the asylum applicants and refugees. There are three possible answers that one can choose: I fully agree, I rather agree, I don’t agree. The deadline for filling in the questionnaire and sending it back by post was June 1, 2015.[4] The preliminary results of the National Survey were published on June 8, 2015. 400.000 questionnaires were filled out and returned, which equals to 5% of the number of eligible voters. 90% of respondents agreed that stricter rules should apply to illegal entrants concerning their detention and deportation while more than 90% of the respondents supported central family support schemes instead of accepting immigrants[5]. The next anti-immigration campaign led by the Hungarian Government, starting with May 2015, was to post large boards and banners, written in Hungarian only, throughout the capital, with messages that read:
If you come to Hungary, you have to respect our laws and our culture and
If you come to Hungary, you cannot take jobs away from Hungarians. Given the fact that foreigners, migrants and asylum seekers don’t understand Hungarian, a new Council of Europe Report stated that the real target of this campaign were not the migrants but the Hungarian population, leading to a potential increase in racist actions, xenophobia and hatred towards the migrants.[6] Following the example of Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey, in June 2015 the Hungarian Government decided to build a fence of 175 km long on the border with Serbia in order to stop migrants and asylum seekers from entering Hungary.[7] The work started in July and it was expected to be finished by November but the speed of work was increased to the extent that the fence was finalized by September 15. According to the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, by 2012 it became clear that the migration routes were shifting and that, as a result, more refugees would arrive in Hungary in the near future. The Hungarian government, however, did nothing in anticipation of such a development. Not enough money was spent to develop a functioning, efficient system. Instead of spending billions on a national consultation, anti-immigration billboards, and fences, the government should have expanded the facilities that house temporary and permanent migrants[8]. On 6 July 2015 the Parliament approved more restrictive asylum rules and made it possible for officials to extend the time for which asylum seekers can be detained and to cancel their applications if they leave their designated place of residence for over 48 hours[9]. After Hungary built the fence on its border with Serbia, the asylum seekers heading towards Western and Northern Europe took longer routes crossing the Croatian, then Slovenian border. On September 16, 2015 Hungarian security forces clashed with asylum seekers at the Hungarian-Serbian border at Röszke and as a result, nine Syrians and one Iraqi were arrested for illegally entering Hungary. The ten individuals are formally accused of forcibly removing the closed gate and entering Hungary illegally. They were identified by the police and taken into custody. Foreign Ministry spokesman Tamás Menczer announced: ‘Whoever attacks the Hungarian border commits an act of terrorism.’ [10] On December 21, 2015 the UN Refugee Agency, the Council of Europe and ODHIR – the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights – have urged Hungary to refrain from policies and practices that promote intolerance, fear and fuel xenophobia against refugees and migrants. The Hungarian Government launched a new public campaign in December, portraying those fleeing war and conflict as criminals, invaders and terrorists based on their religious beliefs and places of origin. The Organizations are collectively stressing the need for the Hungarian Government to acknowledge that refugees are coming to Europe, after having endured trauma, tragedy and loss while searching for hope and dignity to start a new life far from of war and conflict.[11] The political approach of the Hungarian Government towards asylum seekers and refugees in 2015 was built on the “narrative of the nation”[12] and on the reoccurring need to protect “the way of life” of the Hungarians[13]. Civil society approach In an article entitled “Two Faces of a Country: Hungary and The Refugees“, one side of the argument goes that the Government’s campaign against refugees has been a political success, fear and aversion towards refugees has become rampant, prompting some attacks as well. As a result, the government’s scandals of corruption were pushed out of the public’s eye and this allowed the government to portray itself as protecting the people against a manifest threat. The “other face of the country” is the civil society. The Hungarian civil society organised itself quickly to provide help and relief. A number of NGOs and thousands of volunteers, using Facebook and other social media platforms, organised help starting from the provision of food and clothing, following with translation and assistance with administrative matters to trying to reunite families that have been separated in the course of their travels across Europe. Thus, the civil society seem to constitute the last remnant of hope in an ever-growing cloud of darkness, the article concludes. [14] In July 2015 Migszol Szeged, an NGO that distributed food and clothing to asylum seekers, reported receiving offers to volunteer from some 17,000 Hungarians in just one day, while a poll by the television channel RTL found that 55 % of the respondents in Hungary would be willing to help migrants in need.[15] As a response to the Government’s banners with messages against migrants and asylum seekers, members of the civil society and satirical groups wrote different banners in English, in capital letters and posted them in several cities. These banners read: Welcome to Hungary and
Sorry for Our Prime Minister. A satirical group, the Hungarian Two-Tailed Dog, also planned to put up counter-billboards, including one in the Prime Minister’s home town, which reads:
If You Are Hungary’s Prime Minister, You Must Respect Our Laws! Finally, another board posted first on the social media reads:
Feel free to come to Hungary, we are already in England!

In 2014 there were approximately 600.000 Hungarian emigrants living and working in other European countries. This number equals to 15% of the four million people that constitute the work force in Hungary. Most of them live and work in the United Kingdom – approximately 300.000 – while 135.000 work in Germany and 63.000 in Austria.[16] Several thousands of private citizens in Hungary have on their own tried to help refugees, in what may well be the greatest volunteer effort in modern Hungarian history, according to a British newspaper in 2015. But it seems unlikely that anything like a political movement will emerge from this, as every attempt over the last five years to translate civil society activism into effective opposition to Fidesz has failed – concludes the same source.[17] [1] Sebestyén, Rita: In And Out Of Hungary: Migration Trends In A Central-European Country, December 20, 2013, in Culture & Integration, History, Politics & Policy, Public Discourse. Available at http://themigrationist.net/2013/12/20/in-and-out-of-hungary-migration-trends-in-a-central-european-country/, accessed June 23, 2015 [2] http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/hungary-transit-country-between-east-and-west [3] Eurostat: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=migr_asyappctza&lang=en, June 2015 [4] Website of the Prime Minister of Hungary: National consultation on immigration to begin. April 24, 2015, available at http://www.kormany.hu/en/prime-minister-s-office/news/national-consultation-on-immigration-to-begin, accessed April 26, 2015 [5] Kovács, Z., Hungarian Respondents to Questionnaire on Migration for Stricter Measures. June 8, 2015, available at http://www.xpatloop.com/news/hungarian_respondents_to_questionnaire_on_migration_for_stricter_measures, accessed June 9, 2015 [6] Euronews: Hungary ‘told’ to crack down on hate. June 9, 2015. Available at http://www.euronews.com/2015/06/09/hungary-told-to-crack-down-on-hate/, accessed June 14, 2015 [7] Rettman, A., Hungary’s anti-migrant fence draws rebuke. June 8, 2015, available at https://euobserver.com/justice/129176, accessed June 13, 2015 [8] Gyulai, Gabor, Unprepared Hungarian Government Facing a Refugee Crisis. June 28, 2015. Available at http://hungarianspectrum.org/tag/refugee-camps/, accessed July 1, 2015 [9] ECRE Weekly Bulletin, July 10, 2015. Hungary passes legislation severely limiting access to asylum. Available at http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=8e3ebd297b1510becc6d6d690&id=ea80f863b5#Hungary, accessed July 11, 2015 [10] http://budapestbeacon.com/public-policy/hungary-indicts-ten-terrorists-for-crossing-into-hungary-illegally/30713 [11] http://www.unhcr-centraleurope.org/en/news/2015/hungary-urged-to-refrain-from-policies-and-practices-that-promote-intolerance-and-hatred.html [12] Sebestyén, Rita: In And Out Of Hungary: Migration Trends In A Central-European Country, December 20, 2013, in Culture & Integration, History, Politics & Policy, Public Discourse. Available at http://themigrationist.net/2013/12/20/in-and-out-of-hungary-migration-trends-in-a-central-european-country/, accessed June 23, 2015 [13] Balint, M. Viktor Orbán’s Redefinition of the Refugee Crisis. June 27, 2015, available at http://hungarianspectrum.org/tag/refugee-camps/, accessed July 4, 2015 [14] Hungarianspectrum, Two Faces of a Country: Hungary and the Refugees. June 27, 2015, available at http://hungarianspectrum.org/2015/07/22/two-faces-of-a-country-hungary-and-the-refugees/, accessed July 7, 2015 [15] Farrell, Gerry. Caledonia at centre of Hungary Migration Aid. July 22, 2015. Available at http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/gerry-farrell-caledonia-at-centre-of-hungary-migration-aid-1-3837398, accessed July 27, 2015 [16] Hungarianspectrum, Hungarian immigrants in London and environs. June 8, 2014, available http://hungarianspectrum.org/2014/06/08/hungarian-immigrants-in-london-and-environs/, accessed May 02, 2015 [17] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/06/refugees-budapest-life-stories-europe-keleti-station

The subjective perspective

Before the start of the so-called refugee crisis in 2015, Hungary had very limited legislative and media focus on asylum and migration, leading many to believe that the subsequent turmoil surrounding migrants entering Hungary was merely the consequence of ill preparation. However, considering the resources spent on border fence construction, warning material (in Hungarian!) and the 2016 migrant quota referendum, it might also be argued that the government did indeed prepare for the situation in calculated detail, albeit not in a way that prioritised their obligations under international conventions.

This notion is backed up by the way the Hungarian government controlled media coverage of events, using images of young angry men trying to tear down the fence while only giving a voice to party-loyal Hungarian authorities. Exceptionally problematic is also the introduction of the “Stop Soros Law” which penalises humanitarian aid and restricts both legal and financial channels for NGOs to function independently. It must not be downplayed that, if left unchallenged, the consequences of this law could create the most restricted civil society in the EU with long-term and devastating effects, going way beyond the protection of vulnerable migrants.

To stay on topic, however, we can point out the specific issues found relating to seeking asylum in Hungary. Firstly, the entry has been made extremely difficult through the aforementioned fence and the illegal pushbacks of migrants which are still denied by the government. In addition to this, the detention-like conditions under which asylum seekers are kept in the transit zones are inhumane quite possibly constitute a human rights violation. Moreover, the fact that interviews are often rushed with not enough time for decent case management, interviewing officers lack basic training and interpreting varies dramatically in quality, speaks volumes about the quality of the asylum process and subsequent decision making about human life and safety. This is also exemplified by the fact that the Helsinki Committee win most of the appeals they go in to.

Secondly, in terms of general support, this is very limited in Hungary, both before and after status is given. As already explored in this report, the access to health, psychosocial and special needs support, and to school for children, is made difficult by lack of time, knowledge or willingness by public sector staff, even if the legal right is present. And finally, given that there is no government agency concerned with refugee integration and no real social support after status is given, it is no wonder that refugees leave the country again and that Hungary de facto rejects its responsibility to offer protection to individuals fleeing war and persecution.