Immigration in Current Political Discourse

                          The Case of Slovakia within the European Union

                                        Jarmila Androvičová

Abstract: The article analyses political discourse about migration in Slovakia. The analysis is
based on methodological perspective of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and analyses parliamentary
debates, political programmes, daily press and official political documents concerning migration in
Slovakia.  The article aims to answer the question: Which views, interests and ideologies domain
the migration discourses and policies in Slovakia? We come out from Alessandra Buonfino´s
conceptualization of securitization of migration in Europe. Buonfino talks about so called “shared
vision” between EU and its member states (old member states) that is based on securitanian approach
to the immigration, but in a way so that “it can be read in a humanitarian key”. Slovakia, and
generally new member states, are more often reproducers than producers of EU this shared vision,
however this reproduction is highly selective. Discourses that form this shared vision are
recontextualized, which means, adjusted to the specific (national) context. Discourse analysis is
based on the assumption that “to talk” means “to act” and words (discourses) have a strong
performative effect on social reality. That´s why they are the important arena of power struggles.


Introduction

            During the last decades, the “immigration problem” in Europe has been politicized and
securitized. Alessandra Buonfino notes: „today, the border between security, terrorism, immigration
and social fear has become very thin…“  (Buonfino, 2004, 23)   Gwendolyn Sasse and Eiko Theilemann
write: „Migration and minority policy issues are now at the forefront of the political debate in
Europe. Both issues denote a dynamic and rapidly changing set of sensitive political, economic and
social questions that affect domestic and international policy-making.” (Sasse, Theilemann, 2005,
655)

            Some authors pay attention especially to study of the discursive side of politicization
and securitization processes. (Buonfino 2004, Bigo 2002, Huysmans 2000, Van Leeuwen, Wodak 1999).
To analyse the discourse about migration[1] means to analyse also the relationship of the discourse
and migration policies. Alessandra Buonfino remarks that there are many existing discourses on
immigration that draw different frontiers between “friends” and “enemies” and between “us” and
“them“; some of these discourses are ignored by policy-makers while others enter into dynamic
dialogues with one another and shape the way policies are structured and negotiated. By producing
such powerful discourses, public opinion can create a political imperative which influences the way
governments operate and the “discourse type” they choose to adopt. This mechanism is relevant when
thinking about the dynamics of political decision-making on immigration.“ (Buonfino, 2004, 37)

Thus we can say that discourse, mainly the dominant/hegemonic discourse, strongly influences the
character of migration policies. On the other hand, the application of real policies and particular
measures is not only the consequence of particular discourse. This is the question that many
theorists of discourse arise – how can we explore the causal effects of the discourse?

 Christina Boswell remarks that the analysis of policy making process and migration management
requires the more sophisticated theory of organizational action. (Boswell, 2007, 590) She works
with the Luhmann´s dichotomy of politics and administration. Administration agencies often aim at
other goals than just to follow the requirements of politics. As a result the policy outputs often
do not follow, or even contradict the proclaimed principles and rhetoric of the politicians. For
example, the recruitment of the low-skilled workers in industrial sectors where they are needed
continues despite the negative portrait of this type of migration in the rhetoric of many
politicians.  The real political measures adopted by politicians with anti-immigration political
programs are often not as radical as their speeches, and usually are less ideological and more
pragmatic.

The study of language/discourse cannot promote the exhaustive picture of how are the migration
policies formed and applied, but it can enrich the classical institutional analysis in political
science and contribute to the more comprehensive and critical understanding. Discourse analysis is
based on the assumption that “to talk” means “to act” and words (discourses) have a strong
performative effect on social reality (Austin, 2004). That´s why they are the important arena of
power struggles.


Securitization of migration in Europe and “shared” vision between EU and its member states

In our analysis, we come out from Buonfino´s conceptualization of securitization of migration
discourses in Europe. Buonfino claims that “immigration as a threat and a security concern has
become the hegemonic discourse type in government policy” (Buonfino, 2004, 24). Issues of
solidarity, ethics and human rights become, according to her, secondary to issues of security, thus
endangering the livelihoods of newly arrived and undocumented migrants while stigmatizing already
settled migrants. (Ibidem)

Buonfino also claims that “the nature of the immigration debate has become even more politicized at
the European Union level as it reflects and magnifies the problems and concerns that nation states
have already internally confronted” (Buonfino, 2004, 24). One of the main reasons for this are
fragmented approaches with intergovernmental dialogue and cooperation that are the basis of EU
migration policy. Thus also G. Lahav claims, pointing out that migration policy of EU is based on
intergovernmental approach and on the principle of the “lowest common denominator” (Lahav, 2004),
which means only those measures are put into practice on which all of the strong nation states
agree – and usually these are mainly restrictive.

That´s why the discourse has not changed so dramatically on the level of EU, and EU in fact
responded to migration with the same securitanian discourse type. However, as Buonfino claims, it
has been re-invented and re-articulated so that “it can be read in a “humanitarian key” expressed
through a deep concern with human rights, cooperation and humanitarian intervention” (Buonfino,
2004, 25).  Such re-invention and re-articulation of the existing national discourses are parts of
the process of manufacturing the new identity of the European Union, an identity which aims to
present the Union to the world as a novel, moral and supranational global actor.[2] (Ibidem) “The
EU perspective on migration provides us with no “new” vision but with the emergence of a “shared”
vision between the Member States and the EU..”(Ibidem)

Radoslav Štefančík claims that EU “has demonstrated the willingness to view the problem also from
another point of view” apart from securitanian (Štefančík, 2010, 70). His interpretation seems to
be more optimistic than the interpretation of A. Buonfino, however his formulation implies that
still it is just a “willingness” and change in view rather than a change in real political
strategy. Whatever our evaluations of this EU´s “right-based” approach (Sasse, Theilemann) or
“humanitarian” approach (Buonfino) are, no matter we consider it a willingness to go step further
from purely securitanian approach at least in the level of rhetoric, or we consider it just a
“gold-leaf” for the same restrictive and security-based policies, we can agree that the Buonfino´s
term “shared” vision could be useful when analysing the migration discourse in Europe.

We use the term “shared vision” to refer to the migration discourse in EU and Western Europe. Of
course we could identify also specific national discourses in Western Europe and as well specific
discourse of EU institutions, but for analysing the impact of these discourses on political
discourse in Slovakia, we believe is more useful to describe them in their interconnectedness.
Migration discourse of the EU and migration discourses of its member states (mainly so called old
member states) interact and intersect dynamically mainly due to the above mentioned
intergovernmental mode of building of migration policies. We can say that the member states have
agreed not to break seriously the discursive rules set up by the “humanitarian” or “right-based”
approach in exchange for EU not invading seriously their national sovereignty in migration policy
issues, thus not intervening actively in changing the intergovernmental mode of building EU
migration policies.

The idea of “shared” vision was developed by Buonfino on the basis of EU before 2004, thus having
in mind only so called old member states, which are nearly the same group of states as when we use
the term “old immigration countries”. The new member states are rather reproducers than producers
of the “shared vision”. In most of them the immigration has been introduced in a qualitatively new
way quite recently, and the “immigration problem” is not so burning. The agenda of migration is not
important topic for political parties and does not play an important role in the elections. On the
other hand, in official discourses the statement about very probable future increase in numbers of
immigrants has become popular since 90´s legitimizing new institutional migration arrangement.


Analysing political discourse and recontextualization of migration discourses

Many scientists have become aware of the importance of discourse for shaping the social reality (so
called narrative or discursive turn in social sciences). In our conceptualization of discourse we
combine the elements of some of the existing conceptions. The definitions that best correspond with
our understanding of the “discourse” are those of Link and Van Leeuwen. According to Link,
discourse is “an institutionalized way of talking that regulates and reinforces action and thereby
exerts power” (Link, In. Wodak, Meyer, 2009, 45). Van Leeuwen building on the work of Michel
Foucault is defining discourses as „socially constructed ways of knowing some aspects of
reality..., context-specific frameworks for making sense of things. “ (Van Leeuwen, In. Wodak,
Meyer, 2009, 144)

Building on the work of Michel Foucault as well, we emphasise the structural aspect of the
discourse. It means, it is not important to search for different (all) rules that an actor uses in
his/her formulations, but for common rules that use all (different) actors. We are interesting in
rules that constitute discussion about migration in Slovakia; however we are aware of the fact that
some structural components are not strictly national. The discourse has many transnational
features, as well as many features that intersect from other discourses. Norman Fairclough uses the
term “nodal discourse” for example referring to a globalism as a “nodal” discourse around which
many other discourses cluster (Fairclough, 2006, 148). The globalist discourse (the specific
neoliberal view on globalization) can be considered as nodal also in reference to the economization
migration discourse which is going to be discussed later.  “Nodal” discourses are due to their
dominance/hegemony often recontextualized into many different contexts.

The process of recontextualization is the process of transferring given elements to the new
contexts (Reisigl, Wodak, In. Wodak, Meyer, 2009, 90). Fairclough emphasises that
recontextualization is often targeted and comes first to prepare the ground for further measures.
“The process of recontextualization is an active process of appropriation within new contexts,
where circumstances, histories, trajectories, strategic positions and struggles within these
contexts shape the ways in which recontextualized elements are appropriated and the outcomes of
recontextualization.” (Fairclough, 2006, 147). In the case of Slovakia (and other countries of EU)
this transmition is supported by the institutional mechanisms (Schengen regime, Dublin system etc).

The term “political discourse” is usually used to refer to the discourse of politicians and
political representatives (in this sense it is used by different authors providing so called
Critical Discourse Analysis – for example T. Van Dijk, Ruth Wodak etc). Alessandra Buonfino prefers
the term hegemonic “policy discourse”, as she argues that “every discourse is essentially a
political discourse” (Buonfino, 2004, 31). We agree with her, and we do not define political
discourse through its agents – politicians, but rather we think it is important to analyse all
actors who contribute to the political discourse. In this case the boundaries of political
discourse are fluid, and what statements belong to the political discourse depends on the context.
For example the discourse of NGOs who deal with the topic of migration can be a part of the
political discourse as they enter into public and political discussion. Due to the lack of space in
this paper we do not analyse the discourse of NGOs systematically, however we believe it´s an
important part of the analysis and should be in the future added to our research.


Critical Discourse Analysis

Main method we use for our analysis is so called Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). We should
rather say it´s the methodology because it does not provide us with the concrete techniques and
guides for our research. Teun van Dijk, for example, prefers the term Critical Discourse Studies
“to designate a multidisciplinary field of scholarly activities” (Van Dijk, In.: Wodak, Meyer,
2009, 62]. Further he emphasises that “DS has many types and methods of analysis: it is not a
method among others within the humanities and social sciences”. (Ibidem) CDA represents many
different approaches that have certain common features. For example, authors using the CDA are
interested in “naturally occurring” language use by real language users. Moreover, they study the
functions of (social, cultural, situative and cognitive) contexts of language use. (Ibidem)

This impetus on context differs them from other types of discourse analysis that are more
linguistically and constructively oriented. CDA is not interested in investigating a linguistic
unit per se but in studying social phenomena which are necessarily complex and thus require a
multidisciplinary and multimethodical approach. However, as the core of this method is the analysis
of language use, authors analyse different phenomena of text grammar and language use: coherence,
topics, macrostructures, speech acts, argumentation, rhetoric, mental models and many other aspects
of text and discourse. (Wodak, Meyer, 2009, 2)

Another important common feature is connected with the word “critical”. The critical impetus lies
in the deconstructivist strategy aiming at discovering of the hidden meanings and power interests
lying behind the discursive strategy. Krings argues that this concept of critique is conventionally
used in a broader sense “denoting the practical linking of social and political engagement” with a
sociologically informed construction of society” (Krings, In. Wodak, Meyer, 2009, 7).

In our analysis, we are inspired by CDA approaches. Our analysis is more contextual and we don´t
analyse many linguistic phenomena. We focus mainly on topic analysis – in which topics, in which
contexts the migration is discussed in analysed texts. Further we focus on representation – how are
the immigrants represented in these discourses, what images of immigrants do these texts construct.
We analyse also the argumentation: which arguments are used to present the “truth” and the
occurrence of so called “false argumentation”. And finally, we analyse legitimization forms – how
are the statements legitimized, which ways of legitimization are used. What “nodal discourses” (can
say also ideologies) stand behind.

The texts we chose for our analysis are: parliamentary debates connected with the topic of
migration (from the year 2007 when Slovakia entered the Schengen Union); statements and opinions
expressed by politicians in the media (mainly in daily press); official documents, materials, laws,
manuals etc. connected with the topic of migration.


 Sources of political discourse about migration in Slovakia

Discourses on migration, integration, and multiculturalism are related to national identities and
self-definitions as well as to practical policy interests. In Slovakia, migration can be seen as a
relatively new phenomenon. Before the 1989 the borders were controlled in a way that only the
specific groups of immigrants could enter the territory, those who were officially admitted by
governing elites, e.g. foreign students from certain third countries, Vietnamese workers etc. These
groups of people were concentrated in certain social areas, so immigrants were seen only for those
moving in these social areas. This type of immigration was considered unproblematic, because the
fact that incomers were coming from politically friendly countries was more important than the fact
of their cultural otherness.

The fall of socialist regimes in Eastern and Central Europe was marked by the revival of
nationalist sentiments. The extreme case was the former Yugoslavia. On the other hand, in
Czechoslovakia nationalist discourses did not gain such dominance. The nature of Slovak nationalism
can be better understood when analysing the relationships inside the country - among the main
ethnic group of Slovaks and other ethnic groups such as Hungarian or Roma minority. The nature of
the discussion about minority rights is crucial for understanding of the discourses about migration
and as well as for anticipating how could this discussion continue if the so called “new
minorities” of migrants settled in the territory would ask for more rights and better inclusion
into the public life of the society. This presupposition is based on perceiving of minorities and
immigrants as “others” – those who do not belong to the national community, community of “us”.

Alena Chudžíková analysed Slovak political discourse about minorities and minority rights and she
claims that in Slovakia, “any requirements of the minorities are understood as the threat for the
majority as a nation” (Chudžíková, 2011, 12). In Slovakia the type of nationalism that dominates is
so called ethnic nationalism and essencialization of ethnic identities. The political discussion
about minority rights is usually quite intensive.

Important factor that forms the nature of the discourse is the institutional arrangement of
migration management in Slovakia. The agenda of “stay of the foreign state members” belongs to the
Office of border and foreign police (Úrad hraničnej a cudzineckej polície- UHCP) under the Ministry
of Interior. Another important institution is the Migration office (Migračný úrad) belonging as
well under the Ministry of Interior. The agenda of this office is mainly to provide the asylum
applications but as well to prepare strategic documents for whole migration area.

It means, main competences concerning the migration management are concentrated into the agenda of
Ministry of Interior, perceived as a “power resort” focusing mainly on migration control. This fact
strongly influences the nature of the discussion about migration in Slovakia – topics under which
migration is framed. Those who talk about the topic and who give their opinions for the media are
most often the ministers and representants of Ministry of Interior. As a result, many important
questions concerning migration, as for example the integration of immigrants, are completely
missing in the discussion while others, as for example criminal activities of immigrants are
emphasized. Third important factor is the influence of the EU discourse about migration (“shared”
vision) that has been discussed in the previous parts.


Political discourse – migration in political debates, programmes and daily press

In this part we will analyse parliamentary debates about migration, opinions expressed by
politicians in the media (daily press), and political programmes from selected elections and we
focus our attention on how politicians frame the problem of migration in their speeches.

Generally, we can say that Slovak political parties pay little attention to the topic of migration
in their political programs. If they refer to the problem, usually it´s indirect and marginal
notice, that counts migration among other problems. For example current government party SMER-SD
(social democratic party) names “migration and unfavourable demographical development” among other
problems such as “global changes in economy” or “climate change” (Smer-SD, 2012, 4) Similarly,
SDKU-DS (until 2012 the most popular right-wing party) counts migration among other problems in the
part “Secure Slovakia” in its program for parliamentary elections 2006: “Security threats that are
related also to Slovakia are much more differentiated than in the past. Main danger for the lives,
health and property of the citizens, economic development and prosperity of the state are mainly
non-military changes such as terrorism, …,failing states, regional conflicts, organised crime and
corruption, uncontrollable migration and…” (SDKÚ-DS, 2006, 41)

These formulations evoke an ambition to show the competence to be aware of the new current
challenges in the world. Selected problems are placed into the programs not because the party wants
to present their conception and solutions to them, but rather to show the political competence.
This is the part of the process of political learning and the core of the process of
recontextualization. Political leaders presenting what they have “learned” often use the language
of the dominant/hegemonic discourse (in this case securitanian) while ignoring other alternative
discourses. Thus they become reproducers of the particular discourse type with specific
argumentation, modes, styles, legitimization forms etc.

In above mentioned statements we can see what we could call the factor of “newness”. When
emphasising the new, unprecedented state of the problem, we can make an excuse for new and
unprecedented solutions. This type of “agenda setting” is often used in political documents
especially when the topic is politicized. We can say that it´s as well a legitimization method. To
denote particular problem as a new often means, we don´t have to provide reasoning for our
statements, because the evidence will be soon shown to everyone, while nowadays only “we”
(visionaries, politicians) can see the connections and consequences.

Setting the problem of migration to the sequence with other problems such as climate change, or
unfavourable development, terrorism etc. emphasizes the global dimension of the problem. If
something is global it of course concerns us no matter the particular situation (in our country)
is, because we can be potentially threatened.  Slovakia has no experience with the big migration
flows, on contrary, the quantifiable trends shows the increase of legal stays and rapid decline of
illegal stays, as well as the decline in numbers of approved asylums in last years, mainly after
Slovakia joined the Schengen union. The number of foreigners residing on the territory of Slovakia
was 1,23% in 2011 (ŠÚ SR, 2012).

The above mentioned right wing party SDKU-DS later, in its program for the 2012 parliamentary
elections framed the problem of migration differently. The party wants to “enhance the
attractiveness of Slovakia for global talents, make it easier to come and stay for highly-qualified
migrants and businessmen, including the students and scientists.  In this area we are among the
worst countries in EU, although the qualified workers are for our economies a gain. They bring with
them innovations, new competences and work possibilities.” (SDKÚ-DS, 2012, 9).

This type of argumentation can be included in what Buonfino calls “economization of migration”. She
claims that this discourse has been introduced by many business and governmental organisations,
however, it “has not received widespread public acceptance, nor has it entered the dominant
discourses in government policies” (Buonfino, 2004, 38).

We can say that this economization discourse is more typical for right-wing liberal parties and
politicians. It is typically based on the idea of migration as “flexible mobility” emphasizing the
idea of migrant as a worker – moving freely according to the market needs while often ignoring
other aspect of migration, as well as the fact that migrants are not only the work force.

 Partially, we can see the economization discourse as a competing to the securitanian one. However,
we saw that the same party (SDKU-DS) had previously adopted the argumentation typical for
securitized discourse and later they emphasized the economized view.  Not only this example remains
us that these discourse strategies – securitization and economization, do not have to be inevitably
competing. On contrary, politicians may present quite coherent opinion claiming on one hand the
need for better flexibility for certain groups of immigrants and on the other hand the need for
security measures to cope with other groups of immigrants.

In the political discourse about migration in Slovakia the ideologically most prevalent are
“conservative and nationalistic” points of view. Most typical representatives of these discourses
are two political parties: KDH (Christian Democratic Movement) and SNS (Slovak National Party),
however nationalistic and conservative approaches toward migration are in different modifications
typical also for other important political parties.

SNS is an example of nationalist political party whose argumentation concerning the migration
problem is similar to right-wing nationalist parties such as Front national in France or FPÖ in
Austria. The difference is in accent, as immigration is not for SNS such an important topic as are
the problems of autochthonic minorities, but SNS can potentially play the role of a political party
building its agenda on anti-immigration rhetoric. At the beginning of the campaign for 2012
parliamentary elections, the election leader Anton Danko named as one of the most important clauses
of their programme “the fight against the islamization of Europe” (TASR, 2012). It happened after
the visit of Austrian FPÖ vice-president Johann Gudenus and thus these statements are example of
paradox of europeization of nationalistic parties. Finally, main topics of the elections were
different mainly due to the big anti-corruption protests, so the SNS did not developed this topic
further.

The standpoint of KDH is quite different, emphasising the traditional Christian democratic values.
What is important that this party held the post of Ministry of Interior for eight years from 1998
to 2006 and then from 2010 till March 2012. As we mentioned above, this “powerful” governmental
department controls most of the migration agenda. However, it is mainly the restrictive agenda – to
control the entrance of the foreigners and to execute the asylum seekers´ applications through its
“Migration office”. Moreover the KDH politicians try to build their image as fighters for fairness
(anti-corruption agenda) and safety above all. Often they adopt the securitanian discourse type
presenting the immigrants as possible security threat but as well as social or cultural threat for
national and traditional culture of Slovakia. Their attitude towards the possible economic
contribution of migrants can be summarized quoting the expression of Vladimír Palko (ex-Minister of
Interior): “we need children not immigrants” (SME, 2007). In the European Parliament elections KDH
presented its effort to eliminate the abuse of asylum systems by economic migrants from third
countries. Negative connotations can be found also in the program for national parliamentary
elections. KDH wants to preclude the negative experiences of some member states with migration.
This idea was clearly formulated by the minister of interior from KDH Daniel Lipšic who claimed
“…the project of multiculturalism in Europe failed, and it´s not our aim to repeat this failure”
(SME, 2011).

Having in mind that this party occupied position of minister of interior for a long time, and as a
consequence, KDH politicians were those who have been speaking most often about migration in media
and in parliament, we can say that this type of political discourse was most prevalent and has had
the strongest impact on the character of migration policies and measures adopted in last years. KDH
politicians often presented the opinion that we should accept mainly the immigrants from culturally
related countries who are according to them more easily integrated. This idea was further placed
into the strategic document “Migration Policy of Slovak Republic. Perspective until the year 2020.”

What has contributed to the hegemonic position of this discourse type is the fact that alternating
Minister of Interior Robert Kaliňák from SMER – SD (2006-2010; March 2012 – nowadays) has not
presented any alternative view and his political approach to the migration has been more similar
than different, presenting the opinion that “naturalization should be the end of the process of
integration not its beginning” (Kaliňák, 2007). He as well agreed to prefer the immigrants from
culturally related countries. The fact that the biggest left-wing political party does not
represent an understandably alternative political view on migration and related issues (such as
minority rights in general) is one of the most important arguments why we think the securitization
discourse type will probably in the future gain the dominance without much fighting.

Partially, we can say that an alternative view has been presented by SMK and later by Most-Híd
which are political parties representing Hungarian minority. Politicians representing these parties
reacted several times in favour of foreigners and migrants in parliamentary debates and media. They
were questioning political measures presenting the immigration as possible security threat. For
example, as a reaction to the proposal of establishing the waiting period before naturalisation for
refugees in 2007 László Nagy (SMK) told: „I don´t know about any circumstances that would talk
about the danger of mass infiltration of persons with terrorist background” (SME, 2007). And again,
his reaction in discussion about building the mosques in Slovakia was the most opened one. He told
that the party (Most-Híd) does not have the official attitude towards building the mosques, but he
personally is not against. “We are living in a multicultural country and the religion diversity
could be enrichment”. (Sudor 2010)

On the other hand, this political party focuses mainly on Hungarian minority and thus its
representatives emphasise the difference between them as autochthonic minority living on this area
for thousand years and immigrants: “It´s not lucky to compare the autochthonic nation living on the
territory of Slovakia with migrants. Hungarian national community cannot be considered a group of
migrants. This national community lives here for thousand years. We are not migrants.” (Dotankoch,
2008)

Really an alternative view on migration (that means not securitanian and not economized view) is
presented mainly by non-governmental organizations, scholars and some think-tanks. However, their
possibilities to influence the dominant discourse, to enter the public debate for example through
media are much more limited.

With the risk of the simplification we can say that in old immigration countries usually the social
democratic parties are those who represent the more moderate and less restrictive view on migration
building on values such as human rights, tolerance, anti-racism etc., thus they are those who are
closest to the “right-based” or “humanitarian” approach. This political view is in Slovakia missing
on political scene, because as we mentioned above, Slovak social-democratic party SMER-SD´s
approach to the migration is ambivalent and rather conservative and nationalistic. However, as we
will show later, analysing political documents, it does not mean that Slovakia completely ignores
this EU discourse (humanitarian “shared” vision).

But, as the only coherent opinions presented to the public and to the employees of migration
administration are conservative and restrictive, the adopted measures usually do not contradict
these principles. The lack of the public debate about the topic has caused the situation that
political and administrative parts of the execution work “at rest” as they know their activities
will not be marked by any political turbulence.[3]

It does not mean that the situation rests unchanged. In the new “Foreigner law” (Zákon o pobyte
cudzincov…, 2011) valid from January 2012 the project of “Blue cards” has been introduced. For the
first time, the Slovak migration policy aims at not only discouraging immigrants from coming but as
well at attracting them to come. Of course this does not change significantly the nature of the
migration discourse and policies. The law has been criticised for measures that are mainly
restrictive such as prolonged period for obtaining the citizenship etc. (Bargerová, 2012)


Political discourse – migration in official documents

In this part we analyse official documents and laws dealing with migration in Slovakia. In these
documents we focus on analysis of proclaimed principles on which the policies are based and on the
way these principles are formulated and presented to the public. We analyse all important documents
approved from the beginning of Slovak Republic in 1993.

The very first document concerning migration “Principles of migration policy” was, as Slovak
migration expert Boris Divinský claims, composed of “ten relatively vague clauses” (Divinský, 3).
More complex documents were approved much later: “The Conception of Migration Policy” in 2005,
“Conception of integration of foreigners in Slovak Republic” in 2009 or “Migration policy of the
Slovak Republic Perspective until the year 2020” in 2011. These documents however, have not got rid
of certain “vagueness” completely.

Analyzing what principles domain the official migration documents in Slovakia firstly and above
all, we can see in all documents the strong impetus on the “national interests”. This principle is
emphasised through several forms. First is its prioritization and repetition. When counting the
aims and principles of migration policy – this “national interest” always comes first or among the
first. In “Conception of migration policy” from 2005 first aim is the “protection of national
interests of Slovak republic and realisation of aims and priorities in the area of migration”
(Koncepcia migračnej politiky SR, 2005). When naming the main principles of this conception, the
principle of “sovereignty” comes first. “Principle of sovereignty guarantees the right for Slovak
Republic to protect its national interests and to manage the migration with regard to maintaining
the social stability, traditional way of life, on the basis of economical and social possibilities
of Slovak Republic respecting of course its duties coming from international agreements and
documents and forms the conditions for intensification of the fight against illegal migration and
terrorism.” (Koncepcia migračnej politiky SR, 2005, 6)

In this quotation the right of Slovak Republic to choose who can enter its territory and stay is
emphasized. The claim that Slovakia will apply this right with regard to maintaining social
stability evokes that immigrants are those who can possibly endanger the social stability.  And
secondly “in regard to protect the traditional way of life” evokes that people in Slovakia are
living in some specific traditional way of life, which is the claim that is itself disputable, and
even if this would be true, it again claims that immigrants are those who can endanger this
traditional way of life.

 Another form of emphasising national interests could be called “creating an enemy” and
criminalization of migrants. The discursive side of criminalization means to formulate statements,
laws etc. in accordance with negative stereotypes that partly correspond with social
representations shared by a majority of the population. The presupposition that migrants could be a
bigger danger for national interests than natives is strongly present in many formulations. The
condition “if the foreigner does not represent a threat for national security and health” is
present in many paragraphs and many rights for migrants are conditioned by this. For example, among
the first things that can be the reason for rejection of permanent stay, the following is
mentioned: “The police will reject the application for permanent stay if a) the state member of
third country is persona non grata b) it is a reasonable suspicion that the third country member
will during his stay endanger the safety of the state, public order or public health.“ (Zákon
o pobyte cudzincov, 2011, § 48, ods.2) These and similar statements create an image of immigrants
whose criminal activities are more dangerous (they are actions against the state) than “ordinary”
criminal activities of native citizens (that are not defined as attacks on broader community of
people, they stay individualized).

The criminalization can have different forms. For example in Conception of migration policy, that
should be a strategic document that is more general than concrete, when evaluating the positive
steps that had been done in the past, the following measurement is mentioned: “What has been
actually improved is the protection of these camps (camps for asylum applicants - author´s notice)
by the professional security services. The obvious problem in administration of these facilities is
the frequent devastation of the inventory and interior furniture by the asylum applicants, which
requires fairly big financial resources for elimination of the damages.” (Koncepcia migračnej
politiky, 2005, 4)

Among the different general steps mentioned in the Conception, this concrete measurement is
mentioned. It is clear that is the problem from the view of official institution. Immigrants
themselves could mention other concrete problems they have but of course, in this conception there
was no space for that. It means the conception in this case neglects the view of other actors apart
from the institution itself, and as well overemphasizes the concrete problems from the point of
view of employees of state institution. In Slovakia, the railway and bus stations are devastated,
children playgrounds are devastated and many public spaces that are not under strict protection are
devastated - and of course, mostly by Slovaks.

The very term “national interests” is very vague and at none of the documents it is explicitly
verbalized, however it´s clear that it can be defined very flexibly in cultural, economic or social
areas. And practically it means that Slovak Republic can choose who will come and stay even if this
choice is led by incorrect information, evaluations or even on prejudices. Thus the subject of
migration policies seems to be rather the “national community” itself who has to be protected than
immigrants themselves.

For example, in the document “Migration policy of the Slovak Republic Perspective until the year
2020“, the following formulation can be found: „The Slovak Republic inclines to an integration
model based on the full acceptance of its political and cultural background.” (Migračná politiky SR
s výhľadom do roku 2020, 2011, 9). This practically means the endorsement of the assimilation
model. In the rest of the EU the reciprocal integration model is preferred at least in the
rhetoric. In the same document we can find a formulation „The basic criterion applicable to the
acceptance of foreigners within the controlled economic migration is their potential for the
development of the Slovak economy … with an emphasis on culturally related countries.” (Migračná
politiky SR s výhľadom do roku 2020, 2011, 6). This clearly demonstrates an ambition to combine the
economic criteria with the cultural ones and it shows the superiority of so called “national
interest” to other principles such as the non-discrimination.


Another important principle shaping these conceptions, laws and policies is the “respect for human
rights”. However, appealing to this principle is often “negotiated” through other institution such
as the United Nations or European Union. The documents often appeals to the duties and
responsibilities coming from international documents or EU requirements (harmonization with EU
legislation).  As a result, sometimes this makes an impression that it is something we don´t want
to, but we have to do. On the other hand appealing to the “superior” institutions such as EU or UN,
is a form of legitimization by authority and gives an impression that the documents and their
consequences are good, standard, and similar to other EU member states.

In many texts, the principle of respect toward human rights is proclaimed in an obligatory form
mainly in the introductions of different laws and documents. However, the general category of
immigrants is scarcely portrayed as the subject of these rights.  Those who are connected with it
are mainly the vulnerable categories, such as: under aged persons, old persons, women, children,
and “real” refugees. But apart from these categories, the immigrants are more likely to be
portrayed as: work-force, speculators, bogus applicants, criminals etc.

Slovak Republic is generally understood as a country of transit of the immigrants. In connection
with this, immigrants are in some places blamed for their false interest – they claim they will
stay here and then they leave.   “Slovak Republic henceforth stays the transit country of different
immigration flows of legal and as well illegal migrants destined to the economically more stable
and more attractive countries of Schengen space. For these reasons, Slovak republic is obliged to
accept the following trend and create the effective system of measurements focused on regulation of
migration.” (Dôvodová správa, 1) As we can see, the idea of transit country thus also serves to
legitimize the restrictive measurements on the borders.

On the other hand, we can find many notices talking about the „huge increase in numbers of
immigrants“ (Koncepcia migračnej politiky SR, 2005, 4) which contrasts with the previous idea of
Slovakia as a transit country and questions the restrictive measurements concerning the permanent
stays and naturalization. “From the statistical indicators results that the number of illegal
immigrants increased enormously in 2001, when it presented 15.548 persons... Enormous increase in
numbers of foreigners resulted also in asylum applicants.” (Koncepcia migračnej politiky SR, 2005,
4)

New law “about the stay of the foreigners” has not changed the previous practice to include the
problems of border protection into one law with the agenda of stay of the foreigners. This step was
however criticized by the NGO´s. For example the Centre for research of ethnicity and culture
(CVEK) claimed that “arrangements of the legal reform of the border control into the law that talks
about stay and integration of foreigners in SR can be perceived as a manifestation of effort to
create an atmosphere of endangerment of the state by foreigners” (Bargerová, 2012, 3).


Conclusion

Slovak political discourse about migration tends to securitization. The only reason we can hesitate
whether the discourse is or is not securitized is the very low intensity of the discussion. Some
authors, for example Salter, consider the intensity of the discussion about the issue as a
precondition for securitization. (Salter, 2008: 325) On the other hand, we can suppose that if the
migration would become more important issue in public debates the tendency towards securitization
is the most probable discursive strategy. The academic expert in the panel discussion that was
dedicated to problems of migration and related policies in Slovakia noticed that the discourse and
policies that enhance perceiving of migrants as essentialized “others” grows, and migrants are
usually perceived as objects that can be managed, and essentialized otherness excludes the
potentially shared equality. (Filadelfiová et al. 2010: 114).

The political debate about migration is very single sided with the dominance of conservative and
nationalist views with new but still marginal tendency to understand certain types of migration
(mainly the high skilled migrants) as positive. The low intensity of political and public debate
and the underdevelopment of migration policies are interconnected. The fact that public is not
informed about migration policies opens the space for making the policies „behind closed doors“,
and causes the blurring of boundaries between political and administrative part of migration
management. Thus many problems that immigrants face when entering or living in Slovakia and that
are long lasting (such as huge queues on foreign police departments or missing right for so called
“tolerated” stays) stay unsolved and do not receive broader attention (for example from the media).

The lack of “political correctness” in political discourse about migration in Slovakia comes in
hand with adoption of new topics and discursive element from EU´s “shared” vision. It means the
official document often appeal to the principles such as non-discrimination and at the same time
principles that contradict this principle (as for example above mentioned impetus on selection of
immigrants from culturally related countries). This clearly evokes that culturally different people
could be a problem and thus problematizes this type of migration. As Didier Bigo reminds us with
the words of Jean Delumeau, security “consists of reassuring and protecting the public, not
disturbing and worrying them. But sometimes, in seeking to achieve the former we unintentionally
produce the latter. Reassuring does not consist of conjuring up every possible danger in order to
"sell" security, or of denying or minimizing genuine dangers. Rather, reassuring entails
re-establishing the symbolic order-- not in its original form, but by managing its transformation.“
(Delumeau, In.: Bigo, 2002)



References

Austin, John, Langshaw. 2004. Ako niečo robiť slovami. Bratislava: Kalligram

Bargerová, Zuzana 2012. „Nový zákon o pobyte cudzincov v SR“. Available at:
http://www.migraceonline.cz/e-knihovna/?x=2322965


Bigo, Didier. 2002 “To Reassure and Protect after September 11th,” Social Science Research Council
Essays. Available  at: http://www.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/bigo.htm.

Boswell, Christina. 2007. „Migration Control in Europe after 9/11: Explaining the absence of
Securitization“. JCMS 45 (3): 499-610.

Buonfino, Alessandra. 2004. „Between Unity and Plurality: The Politicization and Securitization of
the Discourse of Immigration in Europe.“ New Political Science 26 (1): 23-48.

Chudžíková, Alena. 2011. „Menšiny v politickom diskurze na Slovensku“. Menšinová politika na
Slovensku. CVEK (4): 10-12

Divinský, Boris.: „Manažment zahraničnej migrácie v Slovenskej republike – vývoj, nedostatky,
odporúčania pre jeho skvalitnenie“. available at:

 www.infostat.sk/vdc/sk/pris/Divinsky_2.doc,

Fairclough, Norman. 2006. Language and Globalization. London and New York: Routledge.

Filadelfiová, Jarmila et al. 2010. Sondy do kultúrnej diverzity na Slovensku. Bratislava: IVO

Huysmans, Jef. 2000.“'The European Union and the Securitization of Migration.“ Journal of Common
Market Studies. 38: 751-777.

Lahav, Galya. 2004. Immigration and Politics in the New Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge. University
Press.

Salter, Mark. 2008. “Securitization and desecuritization: a dramaturgical analysisof the Canadian
Air Transport Security Authority.“ Journal of International Relations and Development, č.
11,321-349

Sasse, Gwendolyn, Thielemann, Eiko. 2005. „A Research Agenda for the Study of Migrants and
Minorities in Europe“. JCMS 43 (4): 655-671

Štefančík, Radoslav. 2010. Politické aspekty migrácie v Českej republike a na Slovensku. Doctoral
disertation thesis. Vysoká škola ekonomická v Praze. Fakulta mezinárodních vztahů

Katedra politologie

Wodak, Ruth, Meyer, Michael. 2009. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London and Los Angeles:
SAGE Publications Ltd


Documents

Dôvodová správa k zákonu č. 404/2011, Available at: hsr.rokovania.sk/data/att/114533_subor.rtf

Koncepcia integrácie cudzincov v SR. Available at:
https://lt.justice.gov.sk/%28S%28nyunhj45gaaluwaby4adxkah%29%29/Document/AttachmentProvider.aspx?&i
nstEID=160&attEID=8712&docEID=47907&matEID=1239&langEID=1&tStamp=20090416153031513

Koncepcia migračnej politiky Slovenskej Republiky. Available at:
http://www.minv.sk/mumvsr/koncepcia.htm

Migračná politika Slovenskej republiky s výhľadom do roku 2020. Available at:
ec.europa.eu/ewsi/.../docl_22303_312871613.doc

Zásady migračnej politiky Slovenskej republiky (government decree n. 846/1993). Available at:
http://www.migration.sk/index.php?ID=683

Zákon NRSR o utečencoch, Zbierka zákonov č. 283/1995, available at: www.zbierka.sk

Zákon o o pobyte cudzincov a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov, Zbierka zákonov č. 404/2011,
Available at: www.zbierka.sk



Programs, media outputs and parliamentary debates

Kaliňák, 2007. available at: http://dotankoch.sk/talk/display/166698?escape=false

Szigeti, 2008. available at: http://dotankoch.sk/talk/display/152631?escape=false

SDKÚ-DS 2006. “Volebný program SDKÚ-DS pre parlamentné voľby 2006”. available at
http://www.sdku-ds.sk/data/MediaLibrary/145/Volebny_program_2006.doc

SDKÚ-DS. 2012. “Volebný program SDKÚ-DS pre voľby 2012”. available at:
http://www.sdku-ds.sk/volby/data/MediaLibrary/0/220/sdku-ds-volebny-program-2012-web.pdf

SME. 2007. Cudzinci ťažšie získajú občianstvo. Bratislava. Available at:

http://www.sme.sk/c/3181920/cudzinci-tazsie-ziskaju-obcianstvo.html#ixzz1sftsHwrH

SME. 2007. Palko: Potrebujeme deti, nie migrantov. Bratislava.  Available at:

http://www.sme.sk/c/3536576/palko-potrebujeme-deti-nie-migrantov.html#ixzz1sffDINYU

SME. 2011. Lipšic chce spojiť migračný úrad s časťou polície. Bratislava.

(http://www.sme.sk/c/5975040/lipsic-chce-spojit-migracny-urad-s-castou-policie.html#ixzz1sfBOH2iV)

SMER-SD. 2012. „Programové zameranie strany SMER – SD pre volebné obdobie 2012 – 2016.“ available
at http://strana-smer.sk/sites/default/files/uploads/dokumenty/programove_zameranie_2012-2016.doc

Sudor, K.: Mešity majú cestu zarúbanú. Bratislava. SME. 2010.

(http://www.sme.sk/c/5571582/mesity-maju-cestu-zarubanu.html#ixzz1stKcn3Bk)



TASR. 2012. Danko: Najvážnejším problémom Európy je jej islamizácia / EÚ však zlyháva pri riešení
viacerých otázok, available at:
http://www.topky.sk/cl/100535/1295672/SNS--Najvaznejsim-problemom-Europy-je-jej-islamizacia

ŠÚ SR. 2012. “Prezentácia prvých výsledkov.” Bratislava. Available at:

http://portal.statistics.sk/files/prezentacia-vybranych-vysledkov-sodb-2011.pdf


________________________________

[1] In this article the terms „migration“ and „migrants“ are preferred over the terms „immigration“
and „immigrants“. This decision comes out from the fact that official Slovak documents and
legislation operates with this term, although in many contexts they practically means immigration
and immigrants.

[2] We can´t omit the fact, that from nowadays perspective, after EU has won the Nobel Prize for
Peace, we can see these project as at least partially successful, whatever our evaluations of it
may be.

[3] For example, the director of Migration office holds this office from 1995 until nowadays
cooperating with different governments.