Civic Dialogues about the Integration of Immigrants in Hungary

Corvinus University of BudapestGyörgy Lengyel

Lilla TóthBorbála Göncz

European Migration Network – national meetingBudapest, 8th December 2011

About the Research

• Funded by the European Integration Fund• Corvinus University of Budapest, Institute of Sociology and

Social Policy• Phases of the research (2009):

1. Representative survey (n=1009) and focus group discussions- How immigrants are perceived by the host society?

2. In-depth interviews - Immigrants’ integration as seen by themselves and experts

3. Civic discussions – Recommendations of the members of the host society and immigrants in the subjects of immigrants’ integration

4. Follow-up phase (2011) - Evaluation of the recommendations by experts

Structure of the Presentation

• About the Civic Discussions• How immigrants are perceived by the host

society?• Immigrants’ integration as seen by themselves

and experts• Recommendations of the Civic discussions• Evaluation of the recommendations by experts

About the Civic Discussion

What is a Citizen’s Jury?

• Well-informed citizen’s participation to political decision making process (12-20 persons)

• Process of a jury with the inclusion of experts

• Deliberation on a (local or national) problem/ topic affecting the community

• Choice between alternatives

political participation

research

education

Civic Discussions on Immigrants’ Integration

• Discussion about the integration of immigrants, recommendation for the political decision makers

»Immigrants: foreign citizens legally arriving from a third country (non-EU) with the aim of permanently residing in Hungary

• Innovative application of the method - two parallel panels: host society members and immigrants (14-15 participants)

• Changes in attitudes of the host society members• Inclusion of a „hidden” group into public policy

decision making• Possibility of comparison of the two panels

How immigrants are perceived by the host society?

1. Representative survey: June 2009, N=1009

2. Focus group discussions (FGDs):Budapest, 24th August 2009Kaposvár, 31st August 2009

Location of the issue of migration

5.83

7.40

7.88

8.30

8.77

9.06

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00

Integration of immigrants (913)

Roma integration (984)

Protection of the environement (999)

Crime (1004)

Corruption (994)

Unemployment (1005)

„How do you weight the following social problems waiting for solution” (average, 0-10)

Opinions about migrants

6.1

5.1

5.2

3.2

2.6

1.4

17.9

9.1

7.5

6.1

3.1

45.9

35.1

28.3

17.5

20.4

12.8

22.6

34.9

41.8

39.5

37.1

40.8

3.7

7.1

15.6

32.2

33.8

41.9

21.7

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Immigrants are generally good for Hungary's economy (1008)

Immigrants make Hungary more open to new ideas and cultures(1006)

Immigrants increase crime rates (1008)

It should be easier for the immigrants of Hungarian ethnic origin to attain Hungarian citizenship (1008)

Immigrants take jobs aw ay from people w ho w ere born in Hungary(1007)

Foreigners should learn our language and adjust to our traditions andlaw s (1008)

Don't know Disagree strongly Disagree Agree Agree strongly

The openness of the Hungarian society

According to the participants of the FGDs:• There is no communication between immigrants and

the host society and nobody seems to initiate it• The openness and acceptance is based on common

personal experiences and it is possible only for the next generation because they grow up and are educated together (practice supporting the idea of assimilation)

• The openness towards certain immigrants groups is influenced and shaped by cultural and ideological fashion (the demand and supply in the spiritual, ideological, philosophical market)

Immigrants’ integration as seen by themselves and experts

Results of in-depth interviews1. Experts: 13 interviews from the field of

law, employment, economy and education

2. Immigrants: 17 half-structured narrative interviews

The results of the expert interviews

• Hungary is not an attractive place for the immigrants (not a target country)

• Few immigrants arrive, not a major problem, not an important topic in the public discourse

• Despite the above, xenophobia is serious in Hungary

• The most important elements of integration: Hungarian education background and wide network

• Civil organizations and educational institutions are the most sucessful in supporting integration

Problems:• Lack of consistent national migration strategy, therefore the

institutions cannot work in a concerted way• Lack of elaborated policy creates uncertainty and sometimes

arbitrary administration • More cooperation and discussion is needed with a clear

political position taken up in the case of immigration

Structural integration of immigrants

• they are forced to manoeuvre to get official papers and permissions;

• mediators exploiting the situation;• diasporas -while support the individual- are also

an obstacle to integration into the host society• In isolated situation: out of work, out of school -

getting good language command is hard, there is no organized system for teaching Hungarian as a foreign language for adults

• The labour market is often segmented (migrants work together and are not in contact with Hungarians)

Cultural and social integration of immigrants

Cultural integration• The integration process can often get stuck because

of the language isolation• Women staying home in the household• Multinational companies where working language is

English

Social integration• Mixed marriages are not guarantee• Overformality at workplaces • Education: open and bridge-builder• Neighbourhood, the immediate space: very open

Serbian man, has been living here for 15 years

„They were very arrogant, they behaved as if they had been patronizing me. Yet I don’t

believe that I live my life in Hungary. I can’t say that a sole Hungarian would’ve helped me or would’ve given me a hand. I acquainted with couple of people at my workplace at the time

being in the studio, but I can say that they behaved in a very cold manner towards me.

They regarded foreigners like vagrants. They might have communicated with the English or

Swedish but we Serbians were regarded as second class citizens.”

Civic Discussions about immigrants’ integration

The Theme and Process of the Discussions

The topics discussed:• The integration of the immigrants on the labour

market • Integration from an administrative perspective –

administration and legal issues • Cultural integration – education

The way it worked:• Providing background information• The event (October 2-4, 2009):

•Day 1: Identification of the problems, meeting with experts, questions & answers, re-thinking the problems

•Day 2: Elaboration of recommendations

About the Panel of the Host Society (15 persons)

Is it possible to discuss the subject independently from the other problems of Hungarian society?

Familiarity with the topic of education, while the labour market and legal perspectives are more difficult to discuss

Typical immigrant: the Chinese Integration of immigrants of Hungarian ethnic

origin is not perceived as problematic The general lack of information about the subject

is seen as an important problem To learn the Hungarian language is perceived to

be the main element of integration

About the Panel of Immigrants (14 persons)

• Heterogeneous group selected based on the composition of immigrants in Hungary

• 14 participants: 8 European, 3 Asian, 1 North American, 1 South American and 1 African

• Both Hungarian and non-Hungarian ethnic origins

• Different migration backgrounds and histories

• Question: group boundaries according to cultural differences

About the Recommendations (1)

• Immigrants of Hungarian origin vs. „Chinese” people

• Dominance of the topic of education• Lack of information and the contacts between

different cultures• Importance of the language

About the Recommendations (2)

Similarities between the 2 panels:• The importance of the knowledge of the language• The role of education should be strengthened: e.g.

multicultural classes• There was a need to get to know the opinion of the

other panel• The expressed need to use the method in other areas

Differences:• More recommendations in the immigrant group (more

detailed recommendations – 13 vs. 44)• Some topics (e.g. employment, legal issues) came up

only among the immigrants

Evaluation of the Recommendations

• 2011: 4 experts (non-profit sector, Ministry of Interior Affairs, Office of the Ombudsman, Office of Immigration and Nationality)

• Divergent opinions: evaluation of immigrants’ integration in principle vs. legal context

• Who is the target of the recommendations? Who would be in charge for implementation?

• Low number of immigrants from third countries makes difficult the implementation of certain recommendations

• Overall: recommendations are important and useful. Further dissemination is important!

Evaluation of the Recommendations - administration and legal issues

• Simplification of legal rules is not possible, but can be aided by suitable communication

• Non-profit organizations are already included at the development of new laws concerning immigration – perception of the efficiency of the consultation process is divergent

• Several recommendations have already been realized, others are unaccomplishable (e.g.: online administration)

• The monopoly of the National Office for Translation and Attestation should be ceased >> several experts agreed

• Remuneration of administrators based on their performance is not feasible, personal administration is problematic

Evaluation of the Recommendations - education

• Per head quota after all children in public education >> unanimous agreement

• Raising awareness in the frame of civic knowledge and society class at school is perceived to be a good idea

• Recognition of foreign diplomas is complex and should be handled together with the claims of Hungarian citizens

• Fostering language skills of immigrants is important, although there is no agreement on the way to achieve this

• Intercultural training of teachers, policemen and other administrators is important (with existing examples!), however, personal experiences remain the main defining factor

Evaluation of the Recommendations - labour market

• A web page with companies willing to employ immigrants is unanimously rejected

• Reducing administrational burdens: depends on EU regulation

Thank you for your attention!