Hungarian Government has recently launched a national consultation on immigration
in order to have people’s opinions about how “Hungary should defend itself
against illegal border crossing” since “Brussels has failed in handling
immigration (and in responding) to the type of threat.
is a totally misleading questionnaire aimed to legitimize government’s policies
of closure through a populist approach. In the facts the questionnaire is
definitively impartial and it prompts the interview in answering what the government
wants to hear.
introductory statement we can read that “economic immigrants cross the border
illegally, pretending to be refugees while, in reality, they seek social
allowance and jobs”.
sum, they are perceived as “a new type of threat that we need to stop” in order
to “not let economic migrants endangering Hungarian people’s job and
can the answer be impartial and balanced with this introduction?
same title of the Consultation illustrates the government’s point of view: “National
Consultation on Immigration and Terrorism”. It implicitly takes for granted
that there is a direct and positive correlation between immigration and
terrorism. And in facts a specific question would like to know if the respondent
is agree with the opinion that “according to some, immigration, which is badly
handled by Brussels, is connected with an expansion of terrorism”.
not necessary to be a social research expert to find out what is wrong in
questions like this one. First of all it matches three separated facts
together; immigration, the European policies on the issue and terrorism.
Secondly it prompts the respondent to be agreed with the opinion of “some”.
12 questions the government aims to cover economic migrations, international
protection claims, the European policies, terrorism and the government responses.
emerges for the questionnaire is the confusion that the Hungarian government has
over economic migrants, Brussels’ policies and illegal border-crossing.
result are questions like “do you agree that the illegal border-crossers should
be turned back to their own countries in the possibly shortest time?”. There is
no idea that they might not be send back to own countries because they are
escaping from civil wars and massive violence.
the question are totally unbalanced; how can somebody respond “I don’t agree”
to a question such as “do you agree with the Hungarian government, that instead
of supporting immigrants, the support of Hungarian families and future babies
is needed?”. Of course Hungarian government has to sustain families and future
babies, but is this means to sustain only the 100% Hungarian nationals?. Are
not Syrians, Ukrainians children as well? Are not the mixed couple families as
the Hungarian ones?. And why is taken
for granted that exist a trade-off between sustaining migrants and support
Hungarian families and future babies? Supporting migrants doesn’t implicitly
lead to reduce the assistance to families. A good and effective government shall
be able to do both through the most appropriate policies. On contrary the
Hungarian government shows its inability to do it.
least is possible to agree with one point expressed in the consultation; that
is that “Brussels’ policies regarding immigration have failed and a new approach
is needed”. But this new approach cannot be the one that the Hungarian government
has in mind.