ALL IN FOR INTEGRATION
Asylum Seekers and Beneficiaries
of International Protection in V4 Countries
(Updated Report)
V4NIEM: Visegrad Countries National Integration
Evaluation Mechanism Report 2019
ALL IN FOR INTEGRATION
CZECHIAINTERNATIONALPROTECTION
Total
women men
42,9% 57,1%
BIPs
2382
INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION
OAMP MV ČR, ČSÚ - 31. 12. 2018 OAMP MV ČR - 31. 12. 2018
ČSÚ, OAMP MV ČR, Eurostat OAMP MV ČR - 31. 12. 2018
DEVELOPMENT OF NUMBER OF ASYLUM SEEKERS
AND BIPS IN CZECHIA
BIPS IN CZECHIA IN 2018
MOST FREQUENT CITIZENSHIP OF BIPS
94,68%
citizens
5,3%
Foreigners total
without BIPs
Syria (447)
Ukraine (319)
Belarus (218)
Iraq (168)
Russia (151)
0,02%
BIPs total
4085/78
?/96
7220/79
8788/133
18094/83
8484/103
11400/208
5459/142
4021/251
3016/268
1878/191
1656/157
1258/75
833/125
756/108
753/49
707/95
1156/82
1525/71
1475/450
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Asylum Seekers / Number of granted international
protection statuses per year
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
Other (1079)
1451/147
1690/165
2017
2018
HUNGARYINTERNATIONALPROTECTION
Total BIPs
3590
INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION
KSH, BMH, BM - 2018 KSH, BMH, BM - 2018
KSH - 2018 Eurostat
DEVELOPMENT OF NUMBER OF ASYLUM SEEKERS AND
BIPS IN HUNGARY
BIPS IN HUNGARY IN 2018
MOST FREQUENT CITIZENSHIP OF BIPS GRANTED
PROTECTION IN 2018
98,34%
Citizens
1,62%
Foreigners total without BIPs
Iraq (80)
Syria (45)
Iran (35)
Palestine (10)
0,04%
BIPs total
7801/877
9554/464
6412/1408
2401/950
1600/326
1609/192
2117/198
3419/252
3118/290
4672/397
2104/273
1693/205
2157/462
18900/419
42777/483
177135/508
29432/432
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Asylum Seekers / Number of granted international protection statuses
0
100 000
50 000
150 000
Afghanistan (140)
3397/1216
671/349
2017
2018
POLANDINTERNATIONALPROTECTION
Total BIPs
3291
In total
women men
1375 1916
INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION
GUS, UDSC - 2018 UDSC 2018, Data accessed on 14. 5. 2019
UDSC 2018, Data accessed on 14. 5. 2019 UDSC 2018, Data accessed on 14. 5. 2019
DEVELOPMENT OF NUMBER OF ASYLUM SEEKERS AND
BIPS IN POLAND
BIPS IN POLAND IN 2018
MOST FREQUENT CITIZENSHIP OF BIPS
99,05%
Citizens
0,94%
Foreigners total without BIPs
Ukraine (485)
Syria (301)
Iraq (128)
Others (634)
Belarus (106)
0,01%
BIPs total
4662/75
4529/284
5170/253
6922/243
8084/1155
6865/4295
7093/4728
10048/6238
8517/4465
10590/2853
6587/931
6926/1006
10769/995
15277/1357
6625/873
12458/906
12350/541
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Asylum Seekers / Number of granted international protection statuses
0
10 000
5 000
15 000
Russian Federation	
(1637)
5059/523
4141/404
2017
2018
SLOVAKIAINTERNATIONALPROTECTION
total BIPs
448
MV SR 2018, Eurostat
2642/96
909/72
822/112
541/72
491/103
732/136
441/49
331/113
330/49
146/179
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
0
2000
1000
3000
166/54
175/42
2017
2018
INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION
MV SR 2018 MV SR 2018
MV SR 2018
DEVELOPMENT OF NUMBER OF ASYLUM SEEKERS
AND BIPS IN SLOVAKIA
BIPS IN SLOVAKIA IN 2018
MOST FREQUENT CITIZENSHIP OF BIPS GRANTED
PROTECTION IN 2018
99,7%
Citizens
2,22%
Foreigners total
without BIPs
Afganistan (13)
Irak (4)
Syria (3)
Eritrea (2)
Turkey (1)
0,01%
BIPs total
Yemen (19)
ALL IN FOR INTEGRATION
CZECHIAWHOWEREASYLUMSEEKERS?
1690
1152
people
1230
people
WHO WERE THE ASYLUM SEEKERS
IN CZECHIA IN 2018?
OAMP MV ČR - 31. 12. 2018
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REFUGEE STATUS
AND SUBSIDIARY PROTECTION?
NUMBER OF BIPS ACCORDING TO A TYPE OF INTERNATIONAL
PROTECTION IN 2018
35 - 64 y.o.: 640 people / 37,9%
more than 65 y.o.: 15 people / 0,8%
0 - 13 y.o.: 230 people / 13,6%
14 - 17 y.o.: 40 people / 2,4%
18 - 34 y.o.: 765 people / 45,3%
Uzbekistan: 100 people / 5,92 %
Other: 735 people / 43,49 %
Asylum
seekers total
Ukraine: 415 people / 24,56 %
Georgia: 170 people / 10,06 %
Cuba: 155 people / 9,17 %
Armenia: 115 people / 6,80 %
ASYLUM
is granted to a foreigner persecuted for
exercising political rights and freedoms, or a
legitimate fear of being persecuted because
of race, gender, religion, nationality, belonging
to a social group or for holding political
opinions in the state of which he/ she is a
citizen.
Asylum can also be granted to relatives of
an asylee (asylum for family reunification) or
for humanitarian reasons.
Asylum is granted for an indefinite period.
Asylees have access to the labour market,
health care system, welfare system, schooling,
etc. under the same conditions as
citizens.
SUBSIDIARY PROTECTION (SP)
is granted to a foreign who does not meet
the criteria for asylum, however there exists
a legitimate concern that if the applicant is
returned to the country of origin, he/she
would face a genuine risk of serious harm
(death penalty, torture, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, serious
threat to life or human dignity), and he/
she is unable or unwilling, due to such risk,
to accept the protection of the country of
origin.
SP is granted for a limited period (1-2 years)
and must be renewed – the reasons for
protection are always re-examined. Beneficiaries
of SP have access to the labour
market, health care system, welfare system,
schooling, etc. under the same conditions as
citizens.
Eurostat
HUNGARYWHOWEREASYLUMSEEKERS?
670
68
people
281
people
WHO WERE THE ASYLUM SEEKERS
IN HUNGARY IN 2018?
KSH - 2018
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REFUGEE STATUS AND
SUBSIDIARY PROTECTION?
NUMBER OF BIPS ACCORDING TO TYPE OF INTERNATIONAL
PROTECTION GRANTED IN 2018
35 - 64: 115 people / 17,16%
65+ : 5 people / 1,74%
0 - 13: 265 people / 39,56%
14 - 17: 95 people / 14,18%
18 - 34: 190 people / 28,36%
Iraq: 240 people / 35,82 %
Syria: 50 people / 7,46 %
Asylum seekers
total
Other: 45 people / 6,72 %
Afghanistan: 275 people / 41,04 %
Pakistan: 30 people / 4,48 %
Iran: 30 people / 4,48 %
ASYLUM
Refugee status is for those who, in their
country of origin/usual residence, are
subject to persecution due to race or
nationality, membership in a specific social
group, religious or political conviction, or
whose fear of persecution is well-founded.
Refugee status can be granted
-to family members of refugees and to
children born to refugees in Hungary,
-in exceptional circumstances in the
absence of conditions
-to refugees recognised by another state or
UNHCR.
It is granted for an indefinite period –
mandatory status review every 3 years.
As a general rule, refugees are entitled to
the same rights as HU nationals, except
for participation in (general) elections and
employment confined to HU nationals.
SUBSIDIARY PROTECTION (SP)
Subsidiary protection is for those who do
not qualify as refugees but are at risk of
serious harm if they return to their country
of origin and are unable/unwilling to seek
protection there.
SP can be granted to
/ children born to beneficiaries of SP in HU
/ family members of beneficiaries of SP, if
they applied together/the family member
applied with the consent of the beneficiary
of SP, before SP was granted.
The status is for an indefinite period –
mandatory status review every 3 years.
Beneficiaries of SP are entitled to the same
rights as refugees. The main differences: no
access to facilitated family reunification or
naturalisation.
Eurostat
POLANDWHOWEREASYLUMSEEKERS?
4110
1352
people
1939
people
WHO WERE THE ASYLUM SEEKERS
IN POLAND IN 2018?
UDSC 2018, Data accessed on 14. 5. 2019
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REFUGEE STATUS AND
SUBSIDIARY PROTECTION?
NUMBER OF BIPS ACCORDING TO A TYPE OF INTERNATIONAL
PROTECTION IN 2018
35 - 64: 935 people / 22,72%
65+ : 45 people / 1,09%
0 - 13: 1625 people / 39,49%
14 - 17: 245 people / 5,95%
18 - 34: 1265 people / 30,75%
Other: 650 / 15,82 %
refugees / asylees subsidiary protection
Asylum seekers
total
Russia 2715 people / 66,06 %
Ukraine: 465 people / 11,31 %
Tajikistan: 140 people / 3,41 %
Armenia: 70 people / 1,7 %
Iraq: 70 people / 1,7 %
In order to obtain the refugee status, the
legitimate fear of prosecution for reasons
listed in the Geneva Convention has to be
demonstrated. Foreigners who are not
eligible to be granted the refugee status
can receive subsidiary protection.
Subsidiary protection is granted if a
foreigner faces a real risk of suffering
serious harm related to death penalty or
execution, torture, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, or serious and
individual threat to a life or health arising
of the widespread use of violence against
civilians in an international or internal
armed conflict, and thus is unwilling to
return to the country of origin.
There are also three other national forms
of protection of foreigners in Poland.
For example, if a foreigner’s return
obligation would be contrary to the 1950
European Convention on Human Rights
(e.g. with his/her, freedom from torture,
the right to respect for private or family
life would be threatened) or the 1989
Convention on the Rights of the Child,
a foreigner may be granted a residence
permit for humanitarian reasons. If a
foreigner cannot be granted with a stay
for humanitarian reasons, he/she can be
granted with a tolerated stay in cases when
his/her expulsion is not possible due to
the risk of violation of basic human rights.
Additionally, a foreigner might be granted
asylum when it is necessary to protect him/
her and when it is in favor of the important
interest of Poland.
Eurostat
SLOVAKIAWHOWEREASYLUMSEEKERS?
175
289
people
159
people
WHO WERE THE ASYLUM SEEKERS
IN SLOVAKIA IN 2018?
MV SR 2018
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REFUGEE STATUS
AND SUBSIDIARY PROTECTION?
NUMBER OF BIPS ACCORDING TO A TYPE OF INTERNATIONAL
PROTECTION IN 2018
35 - 64 y.o.: 40 people / 22,87%
more than 65 y.o.: 5 people / 2,86%
0 - 13 y.o.: 25 people / 14,26%
14 - 17 y.o.: 20 people / 11,43%
18 - 34 y.o.: 85 people / 48,58%
Iraq: 15 people / 8,57 %
Other: 80 people / 45,72 %
Asylum
seekers total
Afghanistan: 30 people / 17,14 %
Yemen: 20 people / 11,43 %
Iran: 15 people / 8,57 %
Azerbaijan: 15 people / 8,57 %
ASYLUM
Is granted to a foreigner who is persecuted in
his/her country of origin for reasons of race,
ethnic origin or religion, political opinion or
membership of a particular social group or
is persecuted for exercise of political rights
and freedoms.
Asylum can be also granted to relatives of an
asylee or because of humanitarian reasons.
Asylum is granted for an indefinite period.
Asylum means permanent residence. Asylees
have access to the labour market, health
care system, welfare system, education etc.
under same conditions as citizens.
SUBSIDIARY PROTECTION (SP)
Is granted to whom was not granted asylum
and claims that would face a real risk of serious
harm if returned to his/her country of
origin (death penalty, torture, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment, serious
threat to life or human dignity). SP can be
also granted to relatives of persons with SP.
SP is granted for one year; then can be prolonged
for two years repeatedly. SP means
temporary residence.
Beneficiaries of SP have the access to the
labour market, education under same conditions
as citizens, but concerning the health
care there is a problem because of different
regime of reimbursement the expenses and
welfare system is limited.
Eurostat
ALL IN FOR INTEGRATION
CZECHIAINTEGRATION
INTEGRATION OF BIPS IN CZECHIA IN 2018 EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF INTEGRATION
A comprehensive comparison of
European integration mechanisms
for the beneficiaries of international
protection provides an important
overview of gaps in each state
integration regime. Each gap is an
opportunity for further development
and thereby improvement for the
prospects of successful integration, the
core of which lies in the simple outcome
that foreigners can lead normal lives and
coexist with the majority society without
any undue conflicts. The six-year-long
research project NIEM (2016–2021),
which has been underway in fourteen
EU Member States, including three from
the Visegrád Group (V4), tries to identify
these gaps. The discussed comparison
here corresponds with the state of
affairs in 2017, which has not changed
much since.
If the first V4 NIEM report from 2017
showed that the Czech integration
mechanism in comparison with those
in other V4 states is the most advanced
one, today we know that as a whole it
can hold its own even within a European
comparison. The primary reason for
this is the existence of the Czech State
Integration Programme (SIP)—a similar
provision in the form of a comprehensive
strategy with a specific national budget
which can be found in only six other
analysed states. The Czech system
also stands out thanks to the general
legislative environment that treats
BIPs as equals to citizens in a number
of important areas, such as access to
property, employment, and healthcare,
without burdening them with additional
limitations or conditions.
Given that one of the major integration
outcomes should be a coexistence of
foreigners with the majority of society
largely free of conflict, recent results of
the Eurobarometer (presented in this
report below) show that integration in
Czechia is not exactly working smoothly.
This is because Czech society, as a
whole, holds negative feelings towards
foreigners, and in the case of migrants
from outside of the European Union,
attitudes in Czechia are currently the
most negative in the entire Union.
The acceptance of foreigners by the
majority is however an important
part of integration, which cannot
be understood only as a one-way
process. A systematic, comprehensible,
and consistent awareness elevation
amongst the public regarding the issues
of migration and integration is therefore
a crucial integration tool.
Even though only a small number of
BIPs live in the Czech Republic, and
the annual numbers of asylum seekers
are low as well, the impact of public
opinion regarding this specific group is
essential for shaping the public image of
The main tool for the integration of
beneficiaries of international protection
(BIP) in Czech Republic is the state
integration programme (SIP) which
has been in operation since 1994. Its
core mission is to assist asylees and
beneficiaries of subsidiary protection
with a smooth and swift integration
into society: learning Czech, finding a
job and a place to live, and becoming
self-sufficient overall. Each BIP has the
right to be a part of the programme for
up to twelve months. During this time,
they work closely with an assigned social
worker and fulfil a tailored integration
plan. While participating in the program,
each BIP has the option to reside in one
of the Integration Asylum Centres, of
which there are four in Czechia (Brno,
Havířov, Jaroměř, and Předlice). In 2018,
a total of 121 persons entered the SIP,
74 integration plans for 97 BIPs were
concluded, and 354 people attended
free Czech language courses.
Title of the
programme
Spending
Reponsible
authorities
Implementors
Conceptual
documents
Budget
State Integration Programme (SIP)
25 836 903 CZK (1 003 420 EUR)
Ministry of Interior, asylum and migration policy
department
Refugee Facilities Administration of the Ministry of the
Interior and subcontractors
November 2015, No. 954 of the State Integration Programme
for Persons granted International Protection in 2016
and the following: Annex to Resolution No. 954 “Principles
for the provision of funds from budget chapter 314”
200 mil CZK (7.7 mil. EUR) in total, max. 173.5 mil. CZK
for the general provider of services, max 15 mil. CZK on
education (Czech language courses and courses on basics
of culture and democracy), max 10 mil. CZK for support
of rental housing, max 1.5 mil. CZK for support of social
assistance facilities.
MV ČR
ALL IN FOR INTEGRATION
CZECHIAINTEGRATION
Awareness raising on
the specific situation of
beneficiaries of international
protection
Regular publicly funded
campaings to sensitize
society about the situation
of BIPs
Ad-hoc publicly funded
campaigns to sensitize
society about the situation
of BIPs
Lack of publicly funded
campaigns
National strategy for the
integration of beneficiaries
of international protection
National strategy on the
integration of BIPs with a
specific national budget
National strategy on the
integration of BIPs lacking a
specific national budget
Absence of national strategy
foreigners living in Czechia. That is why special attention should be given to BIPs
in awareness-raising campaigns. A robust and coordinated public communication
strategy which would cover the issues of BIPs and any other group of foreigners
is, however, still missing in Czechia. The European comparison showed that to
be the case in most of the analysed countries; the majority of which, however,
do not have to deal with the degree of resentment towards foreigners evident in
the Czech Republic. If the public at large is not willing to accept foreigners, then
equality before the law as well as targeted facilitation programmes such as the
SIP lose much of their integrating effectiveness.
Another consequence of insufficient awareness is the subsequent uncertainties
and restraint of various service providers, such as property owners when they
consider providing services to BIPs, as they are unsure about the specifics of their
legal position. In this sense, the formal rights of BIPs might once again lose their
de facto strength, and the solution lies again with a targeted awareness strategy.
The European-wide comparison however showed that most of the analysed
countries suffer from underdevelopment of such strategies.
HUNGARYINTEGRATION INTEGRATION OF BIPS IN HUNGARY IN 2018 EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF INTEGRATION
In Hungary, BIPs are not just encouraged
but forced by the characteristics of
the Hungarian integration system to
become independent and self-reliant as
soon as possible. Finding housing and
employment are essential to this process,
and concerning opportunities for BIPs,
there are big differences in these areas
within the country.
Housing
In Hungary, just like in many Eastern
European EU Member States, housing
policies are determined by the dominance
of the share of the owner-occupied sector
as a consequence of mass privatisation
before EU accession. Neither the central
nor the regional/local governments
have started social housing projects, the
margin for manoeuvre in social housing is
extremely limited, constrained to a small
shareofflats(still)ownedbymunicipalities
or project-based housing programmes
implemented by municipalities or CSOs.
This means that newcomers, especially
new BIPs face extreme difficulties in
obtaining adequate housing. Following
their recognition, BIPs may spend thirty
days in an open reception centre, during
which time—among other tasks, such as
obtaining necessary ID, health insurance,
and tax documents—they need to find
housing opportunities.
Though legislation provides for equal
rights and obligations in the field of
housing as well, the scarcity of social
housing opportunities and the fact
that many local governments require
a minimum residence period in their
territory so as to access these scarce
opportunities result in BIPs leaving the
reception centres with only access to
homeless shelters.
After the termination of the integration
contract in 2016, no state activities
remained in the field of housing
assistance. Between 2016–18, CSOs
and the municipality of Budapest
implemented projects co-financed with
EU funds (AMIF in particular), the Norway
Grants, or other (e.g. church) funds: CSOs
provided assistance in finding housing,
financial assistance to BIPs, or housing
facilities.
Employment
In stark contrast to housing, employment
is a field where BIPs can find opportunities
to accelerate their integration in Hungary.
In line with EU legislation, beneficiaries
of international protection—with the
exception of the core public sector—enjoy
equal rights with Hungarian nationals
in employment (access to employment,
working conditions, etc.). BIPs may
be employed without a work permit;
the only additional task required from
the employee is to provide statistical
information to the labour authority on the
number of BIPs employed.
In the absence of a specific integration
strategy and the termination of the
integration contract in 2016, the
integration of BIPs in Hungary is based
on legislation granting equal rights as
nationals and on an ‘informal social
contract’ between state authorities
and civil society organisations (CSOs).
According to the ‘informal social
contract, the refugee authority grants
international protection and CSOs
implement programmes facilitating
the integration of BIPs in Hungary.
CSOs assist in the most important
fields of integration: housing, labour
market, access to social assistance,
health care, etc. There are no statefinanced
Hungarian language courses,
but CSOs also provide them free of
charge.
The activities of CSOs were mostly
financed through EU funds, mainly
from AMIF. In January 2018, the
government withdrew all calls
for tender in the AMIF National
Programme without any justification.
It has not issued new calls ever since;
thus, since July 2018 no EU-funded
projects supporting the integration of
BIPs were implemented in Hungary.
2018 saw the last elements of state activities involved with the integration of BIPs
disappear. In 2016, within the framework of dismantling the asylum system, the
Asylum Act was amended, eliminating the integration contract and integration
support; thus, there are no state integration measures provided anymore. The
contracts already concluded before 1 June 2016 were in force until 31 May 2018 (in
some cases, where integration support was suspended by the refugee authority, the
support was able to be provided even after 31 May 2018).
HUNGARYINTEGRATION
Access to employment
Equal access as for nationals to
private and wider public sector
employment
Equal access as for nationals to
private and both wider and core
public sector employment
Unequal access to employment
Access to housing and housing
benefits
Equal treatment with nationals in
housing benefits
Equal treatment with nationals
in housing benefits inhibited by
conditions that newcomers cannot
meet or by additional restrictions
Nevertheless, it is mainly the characteristics of the Hungarian labour market that
facilitates their access to employment. From 2011 on (following the abolition of
remaining restrictions concerning the free movement of citizens of ‘new member
states’ in Western Europe), the mobility of Hungarian nationals in the European
Union increased dramatically, which resulted in a large labour demand in Hungary.
According to statistics, the number of vacant posts doubled from 2015 to 2018.
Unfortunately, there is no statistical data on the number of BIPs employed;
however, the experience of CSOs providing BIPs assistance in accessing the
labour market underlines that they are able to find employment in a short time.
Despite the opportunities offered by the labour shortage, BIPs face challenges
due to their circumstances: They do not speak Hungarian and the majority of
Hungarians do not speak foreign languages either. In addition, employees do not
have adequate information on the conditions of employing foreigners (including
BIPs) or are discouraged by the intercultural difficulties which may emerge in the
workplace.
Many projects implemented by CSOs are aimed at reducing these challenges: BIPs
receive training, social and legal counselling, as well as tutoring and competence
development in Hungarian, facilitating their entry to the labour market. CSOs also
initiated and managed internship programmes for BIPs at Hungarian companies.
A good example is the MentoHRing project, implemented by the Menedék
Association, and which included social and legal assistance, mentoring,
occupational group therapy, internship programmes, and an information
campaign targeting employees on the legal and practical requirements of the
employment of foreigners.
POLANDINTEGRATION INTEGRATION OF BIPS IN POLAND IN 2017 EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF INTEGRATION
In Poland there is insufficient data concerning
the beneficiaries of international protection
in order to make it possible to develop
appropriate and effective integration policies
and evaluate them properly. This is one of the
main conclusions from the integration policy
assessment carried out under the ‘National
Integration Evaluation Mechanism. Measuring
and improving integration of beneficiaries of
international protection’ (NIEM). A comparative
evaluation study has covered, apart from
Poland, fourteen European Union Member
States, including three Visegrád (V4) countries—
Czechia, Poland, and Hungary—providing
material for comparison of the implementation
of integration policies in the European Union
and in the V4.
Four general fields of integration, with
some more detailed areas specified, have
undergone evaluation: (1) general conditions,
including reception and mainstreaming;
(2) legal integration, including residency
right, family unity, and access to effective
nationality; (3) socio-economic integration,
including housing, employment, vocational
qualifications, health, public relief, and social
security; and (4) socio-cultural integration,
including children’s education, language
learning and social orientation, and building
bridges between the receiving society and
the beneficiaries of international protection.
These areas have been submitted to a
comparative analysis of the three stages of
integration policy development: establishing
the legal framework, policy development,
and implementation and cooperation.
Similar to other EU Member States, Poland
is much better at establishing the legal
framework in the areas listed above than in
developing and (especially) implementing
integration policies. In the case of Poland,
there is a clear, visible discrepancy between
the legal framework designing the systemic
solution, which is assessed relatively well, and
the implementation, where the assessment is
very low.
In the areas pertaining to socio-economic
integration, BIPs are treated in the same way
as people with Polish citizenship. While taking
advantage on equal terms of social services
provided by the system at the national level,
BIPs face the same problems as Polish citizens
with respect to the deficit areas, e.g. housing
(access to municipal housing) or healthcare.
At the same time, the specific and vulnerable
situation of BIPs, requiring some proactive
support action (such as providing services at the
employment office or a hospital in a language
which such a person can understand), is not
taken into account. As the comparative analysis
shows, this very narrow interpretation of the
principle of equal treatment is not, however,
something specific to Poland.
The above-mentioned difficulty in obtaining
information about people with international
protection status in Poland is also related to
the fact that, so far, there has been no national
strategy adopted in Poland for integration of
this specific group of people. Therefore, the
implementation of integration policies has not
been covered by the monitoring and evaluation
system. Even though most of the countries
Poland has not, as of yet, adopted any
integration strategy or policy document. In
Poland, there are two separate institutions
responsible for the integration of people
applying for international protection and
those who have already been granted such
status—the Office for Foreigners, which is
accountable to the Ministry of the Interior and
Administration, is in charge of pre-integration
activities throughout the course of the asylum
procedure, whereas the Ministry of Family,
Labour and Social Policy is responsible for the
integration process after protection status
has been granted. Both institutions act on
the basis of two separate acts of law, which
is a source of difficulty in the coordination
of integration activities and responsibility for
the integration process. Regional voivodeship
offices are responsible for coordinating action
with regard to the integration of people
who have obtained refugee and subsidiary
protection status. The main integration tool for
BIPs is the individual integration programme
(IIP) agreed to between a poviat (district)
family support centre and the foreigner.
The IIP has a duration of up to twelve months
and covers the following: payment of cash
benefits for support and expenses related to
learning Polish, payment of health insurance
premiums, and specialist social counselling.
Title of the
programme
Reponsible
authorities
Implementors
Conceptual
documents
Budget
Spending
Individual Integration Programme
The Ministry of Family, Labor and Social Policy
Poviat Family Support Centers
Act of 12 March 2004 on social assistance
2 952 869 PLN (685 578 EUR)
2 879 130 PLN (668 457 EUR)
POLANDINTEGRATION
National strategy on the integration of
beneficiaries of international protection
National strategy on the integration of BIPs with
a specific national budget
National strategy on the integration of BIPs
lacking a specific national budget
Absence of national strategy
where the analysis has been conducted have poor results as regards the integration of
refugee groups into mainstream policies (mainstreaming), it should be noted that Poland
and France (during the analysis period), Slovenia, and Hungary have been the worst
at implementing policies in this area, not offering any national tools for the strategic
management of integration.
Compared to the other V4 countries under analysis, Poland has ranked average in all the
evaluated areas; with scores obtained for individual areas, it ranks between Czechia—
evaluated higher in practically all areas—and Hungary, which received generally poorer
scores (the NIEM analysis is not carried out in Slovakia). The greater distance between
Poland and Czechia, with Czechia scoring much higher, and between Poland and Hungary,
with Hungary getting a much lower assessment, can be observed in areas such as housing,
vocational qualifications, and employment. A clear difference can also be seen between
Czechia, on the one hand, and Poland and Hungary, on the other, in the area of education,
despite the existing legal solutions in Poland supporting the education of children with
migration experience, including refugees (a teacher assistance function, preparatory
classes, additional Polish language lessons, and remedial classes). This is a consequence
of the already mentioned gap between the legal framework and implementation. While
Poland is getting closer to the Czech Republic in the assessment of its legal framework,
with regard to the stages of policy development, and, in particular, the implementation and
cooperation stage, it lags far behind. In addition, among the V4 countries under analysis,
only Czechia has a strategy for the integration of BIPs in place. There are no such strategies
in Poland or Hungary.
SLOVAKIAINTEGRATION
INTEGRATION OF BIPS IN SLOVAKIA IN 2018 EUROPEAN COMPARISON OF INTEGRATION
The integration of beneficiaries of
international protection (BIPs) in Slovakia
remained almost unchanged compared
to the previous year. The state integration
programme, which was expected to be
implemented in early 2017, has not yet been
accepted. Slovakia‘s integration policy, which
has been in force since 2014 and which
imposes integration measures in various
areas of third-country national (including
BIP) integration, should be revised this year.
Last year, the Strategy for Labour Mobility
of Foreigners was approved, pointing to the
need for foreign labour inflows and including
a partial focus on the integration of thirdcountry
nationals in general.
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
continue to ensure the integration of BIPs
in Slovakia through projects. The Czech
Republic is the only country in the V4 region
which has approved a functioning State
Integration Programme aimed specifically
at the integration of BIPs fully funded by the
state budget.
The most important and, at the same
time, the most complicated areas of BIP
integration in terms of the Slovak Republic
seem to be the provision of suitable housing
and the social security system, especially for
the most vulnerable BIP groups.
Pursuant to the Asylum Act, recognised
refugees should be temporarily
accommodated in an integration centre,
but the only facility established for these
purposes is not used. The Asylum Act also
stipulates that the Ministry of Interior of the
Slovak Republic will provide the municipality,
which provides accommodation to
recognised refugees, a subsidy for
accommodation or a contribution to
the development of the municipality‘s
infrastructure under conditions defined by
a comprehensive integration programme
approved by the government in the proposal
of the Ministry of Interior. This provision also
does not apply.
In practice, NGOs which implement
integration projects provide accommodation
for BIPs at the beginning of their integration.
The stay of BIPs in the territory of the Slovak
Republic is justified, their free movement
within the territory is not limited, and
they can also acquire real estate or lease
contracts without restrictions. However, BIPs
have very few possibilities and options at the
initial stage of integration (as they do not
have sufficient contacts and funds) in terms
of their place of integration. Although BIPs
have the right to apply for a state housing
allowance, and it is a part of their material
need benefits, a housing allowance cannot
be applied for separately. As a rule, they
rely on the financial support and capacities
(accommodation, but also personnel) of the
NGOs implementing the integration project.
Usually, individuals stay in lodging houses
or college dormitories, while families with
children and older people stay in private
dwellings where commercial rent is high.
The integration of beneficiaries of
international protection (BIPs) is provided
by non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
based on a project co-financed by the state
budget and the EU Asylum, Migration and
Integration Fund (AMIF). NGOs provide
financial support and services—social,
psychological, and legal help to BIPs.
Participation in the project is voluntary, but
BIPs participate because in Slovakia there is
no existing state integration programme.
BIPs are usually accommodated at hotels and
pensions, with vulnerable persons (families
and elderly people) in private flats. In Slovakia,
there are no operational integration centres
for BIPs. The project covers financial support
(for example, medicine, requalification
courses, school needs, leisure activities) for
some time. BIPs are also entitled to some
state social benefits. Asylees have the same
access to health care as citizens. BIPs have
the same rights and access to education as
Slovak nationals from kindergarten to high
school and universities. BIPs have free access
to the labour market. They do not need work
permission.
Title of the
programme
Reponsible
authorities
Implementors
Conceptual
documents
Budget
Project STEP 3
Ministry of the Interior
Marginal (NGO)
Project STEP 3
1 167 999, 5 EUR
(1/12/2016 – 31/12/2019)
MV ČR
SLOVAKIAINTEGRATION
Inclusion in a system of
social security
Same general conditions
as for nationals to access
social security, which can
be met by newcomers
BIPs are excluded from
certain benefits and/or are
required to meet conditions,
which can be difficult
for newcomers
Access to housing and
housing benefits
Equal treatment with nationals
in housing and housing
benefits
Equal treatment with nationals
in housing and housing
benefits inhibited by conditions
that newcomers cannot meet
or by additional restrictions
According to the integration policy of the Slovak Republic, towns and municipalities are to
focus on ensuring adequate housing with regard to preventing the segregation of foreigners
in the implementation of social inclusion and integration programmes. The State Housing
Policy Concept to 2020 includes foreigners and migrants among disadvantaged groups
in the housing market. However, BIPs do not have access to the public housing system
at an early stage of integration because they do not meet the basic conditions laid down
in the general binding regulations of cities (e.g. a certain level of income, residence in the
city for a certain period of time). Unfortunately, the share of public housing is insufficient.
Overall, local authorities in Slovakia participate very little in the process of BIP integration.
Exceptionally, the City of Košice has provided five two-room social flats for BIPs to an NGO.
Contrary to the Slovak practice, Sweden and the Netherlands have entrusted the main role
of BIP integration to local governments.
In the capital, Bratislava, NGOs established cooperation in housing with a local church.
In the private sector, property owners are reluctant to rent apartments to foreigners,
especially refugees. The reasons are different—xenophobic attitudes, concerns about not
paying rent, or short-term stays.
The biggest challenge in Slovakia, like many other EU countries, remains the social security
system for the most vulnerable groups of BIPs, i.e. widows, the disabled, and the elderly.
BIPs must meet the same conditions as Slovak nationals to be eligible for widow payments,
disability compensation, and pensions. This is virtually impossible for newcomers given
their situation. If BIPs do not meet the requirements and do not have any other income,
they are dependent on state for their material need benefits. These benefits are insufficient
and lead to poverty. On the positive side, BIPs are considered disadvantaged persons in
the labour market, which entitles them to benefits in the field of their employment. They
also have access to social services, compensation for disabled persons, and state family
benefits (except the childbirth allowance, which only belongs to asylees, not persons with
subsidiary protection to the same extent as Slovak citizens.
ALL IN FOR INTEGRATION
ATTITUDESTOMIGRATION
11/2018 YES 11/2018 NO DO NOT KNOW
CZ SK HUPL EU
ATTITUDES TO MIGRATION IN V4 ACCORDING
TO THE STANDARD EUROBAROMETER
DO YOU THINK MIGRANTS CONTRIBUTE A LOT TO YOUR
COUNTRY?
DO YOU AGREE WITH A COMMON EUROPEAN POLICY
ON MIGRATION ?
Eurobarometer 84 (11/2015), 87 (05/2017), 90 (11/2018)
WHAT FEELINGS DO THE IMMIGRATION OF PEOPLE
FROM OTHER EU COUNTRIES EVOKE FOR YOU?
WHAT FEELINGS DO THE IMMIGRATION OF PEOPLE
FROM OUTSIDE THE EU EVOKE FOR YOU?
Three years after negative attitudes to
migration erupted in the V4 countries, often
fuelled by unrealised fears, the Eurobarometer
still does not show much change,
especially concerning immigration from
outside the European Union. Attitudes in
the V4 contrast with higher and growing
numbers of positively attuned citizens in
the majority of EU countries, including those
with the highest numbers of asylum seekers.
Since 2015, Italy has seen an increase in the
share of respondents who see immigration
from outside the European Union as positive
by 4 percentage points (Germany by 5 pp,
and France by 8 pp). Within the V4, a partial
change has occurred in Poland and Hungary.
It stems mostly from the more positive views
of immigration in the European Union, and
in the case of Hungary, also from the change
in attitudes following the closure of the
Balkan route. On the other hand, the survey
shows the attitudes of Czechs getting more
negative to all types of migration. Citizens
of the V4 also have more negative attitudes
than ever to the common European policy on
migration despite the end of the mandatory
refugee relocation scheme.
CZ SK HUPL EU
CZ SK PL HU EU
CZ SK PL HU EU
CZ SK PL HU EU
CZ SK PL HU EU
11/2015
05/2017
11/2018
11/2015
05/2017
11/2018
11/2015
05/2017
11/2018
11/2015
05/2017
11/2018
11/2015
05/2017
11/2018
yes37%
yes39%
yes36%
no55%
no56%
no58%
yes54%
yes58%
yes50%
no37%
no31%
no42%
yes54%
yes49%
yes55%
no31%
no42%
no40%
yes55%
yes47%
yes44%
no39%
no45%
no54%
yes68%
yes68%
yes69%
23%
15%
22%
19%
15%
13%
7%
5%
4%
19%
12%
12%
11%
8%
8%
33%
33%
33%
30%
29%
35%
21%
19%
19%
28%
22%
24%
27%
22%
22%
34%
41%
34%
41%
42%
37%
49%
58%
49%
38%
47%
45%
44%
49%
50%
5%
6%
4%
4%
8%
9%
11%
12%
20%
11%
13%
14%
11%
14%
14%
49%
41%
35%
49%
48%
49%
24%
24%
21%
52%
50%
47%
24%
20%
18%
no24%
no25%
no26%
32%
33%
37%
37%
40%
46%
38%
44%
43%
30%
28%
28%
35%
34%
35%
12%
13%
9%
9%
11%
10%
23%
19%
22%
12%
13%
15%
28%
31%
33%
2%
2%
1%
2%
3%
3%
3%
3%
5%
4%
3%
6%
6%
7%
7%
11/2015
05/2017
11/2018
16% 39% 19% 50%10%
76% 49% 77% 43%85%
very
negative
fairly
negative
fairly
positive
very
positive do not know
ALL IN FOR INTEGRATION
AWARENESS HOW WELL ARE PEOPLE IN THE V4 INFORMED
ABOUT MIGRATION?
TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU THINK YOU ARE INFORMED ABOUT
IMMIGRATION AND INTEGRATION RELATED MATTERS?
Special Eurobarometer 469 (12/2017) Eurostat / *non-EU immigrants
TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WHAT IS THE PROPORTION OF IMMIGRANTS*
IN THE TOTAL POPULATION IN YOUR COUNTRY?
ON AVERAGE, HOW OFTEN DO YOU INTERACT
WITH IMMIGRANTS?
One of the conditions for society’s ability
to take qualified political positions is the
level of its awareness. Therefore, a special
Eurobarometer survey that placed its focus
on migration awareness levels among European
citizens was conducted. In an answer
to a self-assessment question regarding
knowledge of immigration and integration
related matters, citizens of the V4 (except
Poland) admitted to a lower degree of
knowledge than the EU average. The relative
lack of knowledge showed itself in the inability
of respondents to estimate the correct
proportion of non-EU immigrants in the total
population within their respective countries.
The least accurate response came from the
citizens of Poland and Slovakia whose estimate
exceeded reality by ten times. Lower
rates of awareness also lead to overestimating
the ratio of irregular to regular migrants
(SE/469 - QA1).
One way towards awareness is regular interaction
with foreigners in multiple contexts
of everyday life. It is the countries in which
interactions are the scarcest where the
estimates are the least accurate; instead,
opinions are formed by the media and a
political environment which tend to overemphasise
migration and often in negative
contexts, thus feeding the prejudice of a
connection between migration and illegality
or crime. The surveys also showed that the
countries which have the most negative
attitudes to immigration from outside the
European Union are also the ones with a low
intensity of contact between the majority
population and immigrants.
CZ
CZ
SK
SK
HU
HU
PL
PL
EU CZ SK HUPL EU
EU 2,7%
0,6%
8,3%
1,1%
10%
2%
8,8%
16,7%
7,2%
10,5%
Average of respondents‘
estimates
Official data
Very well informed
Daily interactions in one
or two different contexts
Fairly well informed
Daily interactions in three
or more different contexts
Not very well informed
1% 2% 4% 4% 4%
19% 9% 16% 7% 26%
23% 20% 35% 29% 33%
4%
2%
3%
1%
12%
50% 49% 44% 48% 46% 30%
20%
22%
11%
23%
25% 27% 13% 18% 15%
2% 3% 6% 3% 2%
46% 65% 53% 80% 37%
Weekly interactions
Less frequent interactions
Not at all informed Does not know
ALL IN FOR INTEGRATION
CZECHIABEYONDQUOTAS…
BEYOND QUOTAS…
The mandatory refugee relocation
scheme, introduced to EU Member
States in 2015, officially ended in
September 2017. Even though debates
at the European Commission and among
the European heads of states regarding
the new EU migration policy are far
from being concluded, it already seems
clear that mandatory refugee relocation
quotas will not be a part of it (European
Council conclusions 6/2018). Czech
Prime Minister Andrej Babiš saw their
de facto abandonment as a victory and
a result of negotiations and sustained
pressure from the V4 states. At the time,
Babiš identified an alternative scheme,
based on the principle of so-called
flexible solidarity and characterised
by voluntary participation, as a viable
way forward despite the uncertainties
it would create for EU border states
whose assistance such a scheme should
primarily serve.
With the quotas issue being ‘solved’—
the first specifically articulated problem
in the text of the Policy Statement of
the Government of the Czech Republic
from June 2018—the spotlight has
shifted to other European or foreign
policy themes regarding migration and
the refugee agenda to gradually take
its place. Czech Government policy has
therefore moved its focus primarily to
two areas: protection of external EU
borders and managing the causes of
migration outside EU territory. At the
same time, the corresponding rhetorics
have been focusing on the African and
Middle East regions, while obfuscating
the line between refugee and economic
migration issues.
Both areas (border protection and
migration management) intertwine:
A portion of material, personnel,
and financial assistance to extra-EU
countries is directed towards reinforcing
local instruments for protection of
‘advanced’ borders of European space
within the territory of transit countries
such as Libya, the states of the Balkan
Peninsula, and even the countries of
the African Sahel. The focus on border
protection is also expressed in the
official support for the EU-Turkey
deal and similar agreements with
non-European transit countries which
effectively serve to block migration
routes to Europe. Another expression
of the same tendency can be observed
in the Czech Prime Minister’s call for the
transformation of the European Border
and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) so
that it directly assists the Libyan coast
guard in returning migrants to the
shores of Africa. Such a proposition
accentuates another theme of the Czech
government’s agenda: a restrictive
disembark and return policy.
This form of policy, which justifies itself
by pointing to the necessity of managing
migration flows and of breaking up
smuggling networks, rarely pays
attention however to the rights and
basic needs of migrants and refugees
or the need to set up a system of safe
legal routes to Europe. The lack of
concern shows itself in the disregard
with which the dire living situation of
migrants and refugees trapped in Libya
or Turkey are treated, especially when
the migrants and refugees in Libyan
detention facilities, according to Human
Rights Watch, suffer grave human
rights violations. The same attitude
is apparent in the Czech government
position on the non-binding UN Global
Compact for Migration. The purpose of
the Compact is sustainable regulation
of migratory flows which pays attention
to the rights and legitimate concerns of
all involved parties, including migrants.
In December 2018, the Czech Republic
was one of only five countries which
were against it (152 countries were for
the Compact; three out of five against it
were from the V4).
The Czech government also aims to
deal with the issue of managing the
causes of migration in countries of
origin via development assistance,
which it understands in the wording of
its Policy Statement as an instrument
of security policy. The key indicator of
official development assistance (ODA)
is its ratio to gross national product
(GNP). In 2015, Czechia pledged at the
UN conference in Addis Ababa to reach
a ratio of 0.33% GNP by 2030. OECD
data shows that in 2018 the actual ratio
stood at 0.014% GNP which is the same
as in 2016—a 0.01 pp less than in 2017.
It is necessary to add that in 2018 the
average ratio of ODA to GNP in OECD
countries was 0.31%.
However, in 2017 the government
of Bohuslav Sobotka adopted the
Development Cooperation Strategy
for the period 2018–2030 which takes
aim at accomplishing the Addis Ababa
commitments in order to ‘promote
stability in partner countries, and to
foster their potential for sustainable
economic and social development and
prosperity’. Implementation of this
strategy remains both an opportunity
and a challenge for current and future
Czech governments.
HUNGARYBEYONDQUOTAS…
BEYOND QUOTAS…
Controversies in the Hungarian migration policy
2018 was an election year in Hungary,
and migration was a central topic in the
election campaign. Fidesz-KDNP, with
a newly reinforced two-thirds power
in parliament, amended inter alia the
asylum legislation, introducing a new
justification for inadmissibility, which is
a hybrid of the first country of asylum
and the safe third country concepts.
This resulted in dramatically reducing
access to asylum—as of July 2018, all
applications (except for the application
of the former Prime Minister of North
Macedonia) have been rejected on
inadmissibility grounds. Following
the adoption of the amendments, the
European Commission started a new
phase in the infringement procedure,
launched originally in 2015, and referred
the case to the European Court of
Justice.
In addition, despite strong concerns
voiced by civil society and international
organisations, the parliament
adopted another set of rules within
the framework of the ‘Stop Soros’
package. The amendments introduce
a new offence in the Criminal Code
on ‘facilitating illegal immigration’,
including activities such as assisting an
asylum seeker in submitting an asylum
claim, conducting border monitoring
activities, issuing or distributing
information leaflets about asylum
procedure, or organising a network. The
amendments also introduced a special
immigration tax with a 25 percent levy
targeting entities supporting CSOs
by providing financial support for
’an act which supports immigration’.
Though, as of this writing, no criminal
procedure has been launched nor has
the special immigration tax been levied,
the European Commission started
an infringement procedure against
Hungary due to the incompatibility
of the new provisions with European
legislation.
The public discourse on migration
also focused on strengthening border
management; nevertheless, the
government position was controversial
in this regard. The government
implemented and strongly supported
all activities aimed at strengthening
the protection of Hungary’s external
borders (through the development of
a technical border protection device; in
other words, a fence along Hungary’s
southern borders), as well as those
in the European Union and Western
Balkan countries (for example, by
providing officials and equipment to
the Hungarian border police in order
to assist the management of North
Macedonia’s border). Nevertheless,
following the adoption of a European
Parliament report on the situation in
Hungary (the Sargentini Report), the
government argued that ‘Brussels
wants to take away the right of border
protection from the Member States’
(PM Viktor Orbán, 14 September 2018,
Kossuth Radio). For this reason, the
Hungarian government was reluctant
to support the Commission’s proposal
concerning the European Border and
Coast Guard Agency until the very
final stages of the negotiations. In
addition, the Hungarian government
strongly opposed the Global Compact
for Migration and the Global Compact
on Refugees, joining the United States
as the second country to refuse both
documents.
Puttingmigrationatthecentreofpolitical
discourse had more progressive results
as well. Already during the 2015 refugee
crisis, the government had highlighted
the importance of providing support as
close to the crisis areas as possible. For
several years this has been a priority
only in words. In 2017, however, the
government started the Hungary Helps
Programme, a framework programme
centralising Hungary’s international
humanitarian activities addressing
poverty reduction, promoting human
and minority rights, and strengthening
international stability. The principles
of the programme are identifying the
root causes of the problems, creating
conditions to remain in the country
of origin, maintaining the religious
and ethnic diversity of crisis regions,
and more controversially, supporting
Christian communities. The Stipendium
Hungaricum (Hungarian scholarship)
programme is also implemented within
the Hungary Helps framework, awarding
scholarships in Hungary for more than
4,100 students from fifty one countries
in the 2018-19 academic year. According
to the OECD, in 2018, Hungary (after
New Zealand) was the country with the
biggest increase in official development
assistance outflows (up 20.7 percent).
POLANDBEYONDQUOTAS…
RHETORIC AND PRACTICE
In spite of the action brought by the European
Commission before the European Court of
Justice in December 2017 against Poland,
Czechia, and Hungary for failing to fulfil
their obligations under the 2015 decision
concerning the relocation of refugees from
Greece and Italy on the basis of the quota
system, the government in Poland (the Law
and Justice government, albeit with new
Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki) in 2018
sustained its position against relocation and
used two lines of argument with regard to
the issue of receiving refugees in Poland.
First, the concept of ‘assistance in the
place of origin’ was promoted in the origin
countries of the refugees (Syria) and in the
regional countries where there are groups of
refugees, especially Syria (Turkey, Jordan). In
January, the Humanitarian Aid Department
(DPH) was established at the Prime Minister’s
Chancellery, headed by one of the lead
politicians of the Law and Justice party Beata
Kempa. In their external communications,
DPH presented trips made by Minister Kempa
to places where assistance was provided
and made available information about the
amounts of assistance spending.
In another line of argument, the government
emphasised the role of Poland in receiving
people from the Donbas region of the Ukraine,
where war was still underway, people who
were ‘treated as refugees’ (1) . From the
viewpoint of Prime Minister Morawiecki,
in this way Poland ‘was making a great
contribution to calming down the tensions on
the EU’s eastern border ’ (2). The scale referred
to by PM Morawiecki can be illustrated by
data from the Office for Foreigners regarding
applications for international protection and
decisions granting protection to citizens of
Ukraine. In practice, it has only been since
2016 that people from this group began to
receive decisions granting them international
protection: Before 2015, only two people
had received refugee status; in 2016 it had
increased to sixteen people; fifty six in 2017;
and eleven in 2018. As regards subsidiary
protection, twenty people had received it
prior to 2015 and a total of 323 individuals
were granted this protection in the years
2016–18. It is worth noting that the change
in positions took place only after a public
statement by the previous Prime Minister,
Beata Szydło, who in January 2016, stated
in the European Parliament that Poland had
allegedly accepted ‘a million refugees from
Ukraine’.
Political discourse analyses show that
there was a tendency towards increasing
restrictions and securitisation in Polish
migration policy (3). Apart from promoting
assistance to refugee groups far from Polish
borders by providing ‘assistance in the place
of origin’, the Border Guard on the border
crossing with Belarus in Terespol continued
the practice of selective acceptance of
applications for international protection.
Work was also in progress on an amendment
to the act on granting international
protection to foreigners that, according to
the Commissioner for Human Rights and
watchdog organisations, may have had a
negative impact on the rights of people
applying for protection. The conclusions
of the summit in Brussels on 28–29 June
2018, during which the implementation of
the relocation quotas system based on the
principles of solidarity and responsibility
was abandoned, were hailed by the Polish
government as a success of the government’s
policy.
At the same time as this rhetoric of not
accepting refugees, the majority of whom
were considered immigrants, the government
was also working on socio-economic
priorities for its migration policy. The needs
of the labour market guided this document
and it practically ignored those people with
international protection status, providing for
some integration measures to a limited extent
only. It could, however, become the longawaited
document outlining Polish migration
policy. Work on that document coincided with
the campaign preceding the October local
government elections. When the plans for the
migration policy were presented in public by
an official responsible for the preparation of
the document during a university discussion
meeting, criticism from supporters of the Law
and Justice party with strong anti-immigrant
views led to his dismissal and the work on the
policy stopped.
However, Law and Justice’s attempt to play
on anti-immigrant sentiments at the end
of the electoral campaign, with a campaign
commercial presenting the future of Poland
after ‘the invasion of refugees/immigrants’,
proved counterproductive. Some supporters
of the Law and Justice party strongly criticised
the commercial message or considered it not
credibleinlightofpreviousactions.Eventually,
Law and Justice would lose the local elections
at the national scale. Generally, according
to monitoring of the local government
campaign looking at the xenophobic
dimension and the issue of migration and
integration, the strategy of ‘scaring people
with refugees’ turned out ineffective (4).
At the end of the year, Poland joined the
countries which have refused to adopt the
Global Compact on Refugees and the Global
Compact for Migration.
1) Interview with PM Mateusz Morawiecki for CNN on 25 January 2018.
2) Ibid.
3) See: Fomina J., Kucharczyk J., From politics of fear to securitisation policies? Poland in the face of
migration crisis [in:] Kucharczyk J., Mesežnikov G. (ed.) Phantom Menace. The Politics and Policies of
Migration in Central Europe, Prague 2019.
4) See: Helsinki Foundation of Human Rights, Migranci, uchodźcy i ksenofobia w kampanii wyborczej
2018 – raport z monitoringu, Warsaw 2018.
SLOVAKIABEYONDQUOTAS…
THE PERIOD OF MANDATORY QUOTAS IS OVER
The system of mandatory quotas for
the relocation of refugees, which the
European Commission presented on 13
May 2015, officially ended in September
2017. From the beginning, Slovakia did
not agree with the mandatory quotas
system as much as other Visegrád
Group (V4) countries. These countries
actively supported reform of the
current asylum system and rejected
most of the supranational solutions.
Slovakia had to relocate 902 people from
Greece and Italy under the mandatory
quotas. In the end, only sixteen refugees
were accepted. At the same time,
Slovakia pledged to place one hundred
refugees under a voluntary resettlement
scheme. This did not happen. However,
in December 2015, 145 Assyrian
Christians were accepted from Iraq
voluntarily, not under the mandatory
quotas system. The Czech Republic,
Hungary, and Poland have been brought
before the EU Court of Justice for ‘failing
to comply with their legal obligations’ on
relocating refugees. The Commission
has not brought action against Slovakia
because of the sixteen admitted
refugees under mandatory quotas.
The European Council reached a major
migration agreement at the June 2018
summit. The conclusions of the Council
revealed a willingness of Member States
to set up centres within their territories
with the support of EU, where it could be
quickly distinguished whether a person
is entitled to international protection.
According to the conclusions of the
summit, relocation should take place
exclusively on a basis of voluntary
decision by receiving states—thus, there
would be no compulsory redistribution.
The V4 countries were quite satisfied
after the summit. Many of ideas they
had promoted were incorporated into
the summit conclusions, including the
need to strengthen external borders
and changes relating to Frontex‘s
competences and personnel. At the
same time, the V4 countries achieved
a great deal in that they will not have
to retreat from other Member States
under threat of a lawsuit, a reduction
in EU funds, or other sanctions.
A statement from the Minister of
Interior of the Slovak Republic from
November 2018 at a Salzburg forum
confirms Slovakia‘s clear position
in this area: ‘We will make sure that
external border protection is highly
effective. We also want readmission
agreements and return policies to
be 100% fulfilled. At the same time,
we agreed that causes of migration
must always be solved in countries
of origin and where appropriate, in
transit countries, not only in countries
where migrants are seeking asylum.’
Despite the decreasing number of
asylum applications in Slovakia and
the decreasing number of international
protections granted, it is still a major
political issue. Even during the
presidential elections in March 2019, a
refugee theme was used and abused
by some of the candidates during the
election campaign. It is very important
that politicians and media also start to
talk about this topic objectively, use the
correct terminology and facts, and not
confuse the terms migrant and refugee.
Recently, two major documents on
migration and refugee issues were voted
on at the United Nations: The Global
Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular
Migration and a Global Compact on
Refugees. Regarding the attitude of the
Slovak Republic to the Global Compact
for Migration, among the V4 countries,
by deciding not to participate in the
vote, it chose the most modest way to
express its reservations concerning
the migration pact. However, it is
interesting that in the autumn of 2018,
Slovakia approved another important
national document, the ‘Strategy for
Labour Mobility of Foreigners’, which
aims to propose measures resolving
labour market shortages in certain
areas through directed and targeted
mobility of foreigners. As stated in the
strategy itself, it has been developed
in accordance with the key principles
of the Global Compact on Migration.
The Slovak Republic has decided to
support the second UN document,
the Global Compact on Refugees, as
did twenty-five other EU countries. Of
the 193 UN member countries, only
the United States and Hungary voted
against the agreement. Three countries
abstained.
ALL IN FOR INTEGRATION
V4
0,02%
0,01%
0,01%
0,04%
3590
448
41,8% 58,2%
3291
42,9% 57,1%
2382
OF THE TOTAL POPULATION
BENEFICIARIES OF INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION IN V4 COUNTRIES IN 2018
MV ČR, ČSÚ (CZ); MV SR (SK); GUS, UDSC (PL); KSH, BMH, BM (HU) - 2018
ALL IN FOR INTEGRATION
PUBLISHED BY
WITH SUPPORT FROM
The publication was financed through the EU‘s Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund under the project „NIEM:
National Integration Evaluation Mechanism. Measuring and Enhancing the Integration of Beneficiaries of International
Protection“, and through the International Visegrad Fund under the project „V4NIEM: Visegrad Countries National
Integration Evaluation Mechanism”.
www.forintegration.eu
The donors are not responsible for the content or use of the information. The authors are solely responsible for the
content and opinions expressed.
People in Need
Migration Awareness Programme
Šafaříkova 24
Prague, Czechia
www.peopleinneed.cz
migrace@peopleinneed.cz
June 2019
ISBN 978-80-7591-018-9 (online ; pdf)
Grafické zpracování: Lukáš Pitoňák