czech asylum policy and its social aspects …...the international status of refugees). after rise...

13th International Scientific Conference

“Economic Policy in the European Union Member Countries”

September 2–4, 2015, Karolinka, CZECH REPUBLIC

ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3

Conference Proceedings

© Faculty of Economics

VSB - Technical University Ostrava, 2015

-454-

CZECH ASYLUM POLICY AND ITS SOCIAL ASPECTS IN THE HISTORICAL DIMENSIONS

Lubomír Nenička1

1 Slezská univerzita, Obchodně podnikatelská fakulta, Univerzitní nám. 1934/3,73340 Karviná

Email:[email protected]

Abstract: The paper analyses the approach towards refugees in the connection with economic and social

development in Czech Republic in the context of the European migration policy in the past and in the present.

The particular attention is paid to the perception of social risks vis-à-vis changing situation of Czechoslovakia.

The paper reminds the connection between the immigration and social policy in the time of Great Depression in

Czechoslovakia. The historical analysis will be based on unpublished archival sources and newspapers.

Czechoslovakia was supposed to be only a transit country offering just a temporary resort for refugees coming

from Germany and Austria during the interwar era. In the second half of the 20th

century immigration to the

Czechoslovakia and the state’s immigration policies were limited by the country’s membership in the socialist

block. After fall of communism immigration represents a new phenomenon for the Czech society. The article

describe main trends in Czech asylum policy and its social aspects. Comparison would reveal striking parallels

of asylum policies and patterns of different periods.

Keywords: Migration, asylum, refugees, social policy, labour market

JEL classification: J15, J61, K37, N34, N44

1. Introduction

The ever increasing rate of refugees is one of the most discussed problem of the present world. The

paper deals primarily with migration policy relating to refugees and asylum seekers. The main goal of

the article is to describe and analyse which factors influenced the changes of Czech asylum policy.

The term refugee is used here according to the definition from United Nations Conventions Relating

to the Status of Refugees. Czech legal system uses the term asylee. Asylum Act from 1999 defines the

asylee as „foreign national who has been granted asylum pursuant to this Act for the term of validity

of the decision of the granting system“. Asylum seeker is by the law defined as applicant for

international protection - it means as „foreign national who may be presumed to be seeking asylum

subsidiary protection in the Czech Republic“. (Asylum Act) Asylees and applicants for international

protection are not economic immigrants, but their migration has also economic and social dimension.

In comparison with Western countries, Czech asylum policy has been influenced by different

historical experience and political factors which had a stronger impact on it. Until 1989, the

predominance of emigration was typical for Czechoslovakia. Between 1918 and 1938, more than

230,000 Czechoslovak citizens emigrated abroad, mainly heading for Western countries. (Drbohlav,

2010). Their motivation was primarily economic. However, political reasons for emigration prevailed

after 1948. Nonetheless, the country became an asylum for tens of thousands political refugees during

the interwar period as well as when the Communist regime started. Their admission was presented as

an act of solidarity as well as an expression of a political opinion and international orientation. Yet

Czechoslovak asylum policy was not based on general social consensus in these cases. Starting with

the First Republic, there were various approaches to political refugees which mirrored several

political, economic and social preferences. From 1948, the asylum policy was limited by the

country’s integration into the Soviet bloc. These factors then formed specific experience with

migration policy in the Czech environment and also influenced its development after 1989.

Czech asylum policy is subject of several books which deal with the main trends of immigration to

the Czechoslovakia and Czech Republic. The basic historical overview can be found in Drbohlav

(2010) or in Barša-Baršová (2005). This monographs describe Czech approach to the asylees and

asylum seekers in the European context. The particular attention was paid to the situation of the




ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3




-455-

refugees in the period of the First Czechoslovak Republic. Specially Čapková and Frankl (2008)

reflect critically several myths about liberal approach toward asylum seekers in the interwar

Czechoslovakia. Detailed research was focused on the Greek immigration after Second World War.

The basic informations about history of the Greek community in Czechoslovakia can be found in

Králová and Tsivos (2012) or Botu and Konečný (2005). These books can be understood also as

professional contribution to search for the roots of their authors. The mentioned publications reveal

the important tendencies of Czech asylum policy, but comprehensive monograph still missing. This

paper summarizes main features of Czech asylum policy in the context of current refugee crisis.

2. Asylum policy in the 20th century

2.1 Beginning of modern asylum policy

The concept of the refugee appeared first in the international law in the connection with Russian

emigration at the end of First World War. Around 1, 7 millions persons left Russia after revolutions in

1917. Many of them lost Soviet nationality. Situation repeated in the case of Armenian refugees.

League of Nations created the Arrangement relating to the Issue of Identity Certificates to Russian

and Armenian Refugees. This document contained first international definition of refugee: „Any

person of Russian (Armenian formerly subject of the Ottoman empire) origin who does not enjoy or

who no longer enjoy the protection of the Government of the Union Socialist Soviet Republics

(Turkish Republic) and who has not acquired another nationality.“ (Honusková, 2011) One of the

most important center of Russian emigration was Czechoslovakia. The country became the asylum

for about 20 000 Russian emigrants after Bolshewik Revolution. In 1933 was ratified the Convention

relating to the International Status of Refugees which strengthened protection of refugees.

Convention signed by nine European countries including Czechoslovakia served as model for new

conception of refugees law after Second World War (Jaeger, 2001). The Convention ensured the

„enjoyment of civil rights, free and ready access to the courts, security and stability as regards

establishment and work, facilities in the exercise of the professions, of industry and of commerce, and

in regard to the movement of persons, admission to schools and universities.“(Convention relating to

the International Status of Refugees). After rise of Nazism to power was established High

Commissioner for refugees coming from Germany.

The Czechoslovakia soon became the most important country for asylum seekers in the Central

Europe. The exact number of refugees is unknown but it is estimated that more than 22 000 Germans,

Austrians and Jews found their temporary home in the First Republic. (Čapková-Frankl, 2008).

Czechoslovakia was geographically close, its borders were long and poorly guarded, German

refugees did not need visa to enter the country and they could speak their language without any

problems. (Veselý, 1983) Real conditions of refugees (nowadays called „emigrants”) were influenced

by the fact that Czechoslovakia was supposed to be only a transit country offering just a temporary

resort for refugees coming from Germany and Austria. The right to asylum was not anyhow published

by the legislature and also the status of a refugee was not legally defined. Implementation of some

immigration policies was also constrained by disagreements between „the castle-sided” Ministry of

Foreign Affairs and the agrarian Ministry of Interior. (Čapková-Frankl, 2008) This Ministry of the

Interior and its institutions preferred restrictive policy which became dominant in the second half of

the 1930´s. Solidarity was limited by social and economic factors.

2.2 Refugees in Czechoslovakia and limits of solidarity

The First Czechoslovak Republic is widely thought of as a country with liberal immigration policy. It

enjoys such a reputation mainly due to the welcoming attitude towards refugees from Nazism in the

first half of 1930´s. However, reality is somewhat more complex. The Czechoslovak government




ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3




-456-

implemented first legislative measures that were meant to prevent potential unwelcome consequences

of immigration before rise of the crisis. Their primary goal was to protect domestic labour force.

More specifically, in 1928 the government approved a draft bill on protection of domestic labour

market which stated that employees could employ foreigners only if they had obtained an official

permission. These permissions were either granted or refused to be granted and they were depended

on the situation on the labour market.

The bill on protection of domestic labour market influenced the position of the refugees. Their

situation was complicated by possible different interpretations of domestic and international

legislation. The approaches of some groups of refugees are represented in the resolution of Ukrainian

associations from 1934. According to their leaders the Ukrainian refugees obtained in

Czechoslovakia the residence permit on the basis of the asylum´s right and they could participate in

the domestic labour market. The situation changed since the late of 20th years. Employers began to

refuse the foreigners including the Ukrainians. According to their representatives they should not

have been considered as foreigners in the sense of the valid legislation. As political emigrants without

nationality they should have access to the domestic labour market. Ministry of Social Affairs

confessed that majority of the Ukrainian refugees arrived to the country before 1923 and so they

could obtained permission (National Archive in Prague a). Various national corporations warned

before the growth of immigrants and its consequences. For example the National Czechoslovak

Council in resolution for the Ministry of the Interior reminded the increased numbers of immigrants

in the country, According to the census from 1930, 158 149 foreigners lived in Czech lands. Many of

them worked on the important positions in the industry – specially in the borderland The number of

German professors at the Prague University increased too. The National Council asked the

government to prevent the influx of foreign experts and scholars, who should be replaced by Czech

people. (National Archive in Prague b) Also the representatives of the Agrarian Party interpellated the

government in the question of the growing numbers of foreigners - especially from Germany. They

argued that a part of these refugees had used the asylum in an economic way at the expense of the

Czechoslovak citizens and domestic production. According to Agrarian politicians, the immigrants

got well paid jobs in industry, trade, and in agriculture. They especially criticized employing of the

foreigners in the companies important for the defence of the state. The members of the parliament

also referred to the negative consequences of the German refugees´ influx for the national relations.

The government was supposed to control the employment of the immigrants and guarantee the

implementation of the law for the protection of the domestic labour market. (National Archives in

Prague c) The representatives of business corporations complained on generosity towards refugees

from Germany. According to National Unity of Northern Bohemian their influx deepened social

consequences of Great Depression and strengthened position of German minority. Czech

corporations suggested strengthening of control and concentration of refugees in camps in the inland.

(National Archives in Prague d)

Material relief to refugees came mostly from various „relief committees”. Since March 1933

Human Rights League had participated in relief activities and the Relief Committee or Šalda´s

Committee – named after its founder, F.X. Šalda – was founded at around the same time. These

organisations aimed at providing material and moral support to the German and Austrian refugees,

„especially from the ranks of intellectuals”. In the middle of the 1930´s the immigration policies were

further tightened. Real conditions of refugees (nowadays called „emigrants”) were influenced by the

fact that Czechoslovakia was supposed to be only a transit country offering just a temporary resort for

refugees coming from Germany and Austria. We can see this reflected in the fact that employers were

forbidden to employ foreigners in order to prevent increasing unemployment of Czechoslovak

citizens in the times of economic depression. Jewish refugees got into a much more peculiar situation.

They often obtained residency permit only on the condition of moving out of the country in a short

time. Authorities tried to keep them away from entering the country. Jews fleeing to Germany and




ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3




-457-

later to Austria did not obtain a status of political refugees; instead they were termed as unwelcome

„economic immigrants”. (Čapková-Frankl, 2008). The right-wing media defended the strict measures

against refugees taken by the Czechoslovak security authorities by argument that „under the veil of

emigrants are often hidden completely dirty, dangerous criminals and parasites”. After the

Anschluss of Austria in March 1938, rejection of Jewish immigrants culminated. A critical remark of

one of the right-wing dailies can serve as an example. It pointed out to the continuing presence of

Austrian Jews who had been meant to stay only temporarily: according to this remark, presence of

Austrian Jews led to raising dissatisfaction among Czechs. This was explained in economic rather

than in openly discriminatory terms. In 1937, a decree to concentrate all refugees in the Vysočina

region was introduced which represented the peak of these restrictive measures. Obviously, this plan

was not officially launched because its realisation would mean the disintegration of relief activities.

Moreover, it evoked a wave of protests both at home and abroad and has therefore never been fully

realized. The Ministry of Interior has never called it off, however (Čapková-Frankl, 2008).

The restrictive approach was fully enforced after the Munich Agreement, at the time of so-called

Second Republic. The state aid was stated only to Czech re-settlers. According to the prevailing

public opinion, the country could not extend help to fugitives from other countries and from occupied

borderlands. As wrote the famous journalist Milena Jesenská, help for refugees was „beyond our

power”: „It is not our fault that they have had to put up with such bad experiences. As long as our

home stood firm, we were hospitable and kindhearted. Now all we can do is to wish them the new and

good life, somewhere far away." (Jesenská, 1997) Several papers distinguished between refugees

from Russia and Germany . Negative attitude towards foreign refugees was newly shared also by

Left-wing parties. After the Munich even the Social Democrats newspapers required a deportation of

the „unwanted foreigners”. (Duch času). In the time of the Second Republic Czechoslovak authorities

only continued in some of the tendencies of the previous period. A strict approach towards Jewish

refugees, whose numbers rocketed after „Cristal Nacht” in November 1938, is documented in the

directions given by the Zemský úřad v Brně/Lands Authority in Brno (ZÚB): Ministry of Interior

ordered ZÚB to enact a decree by which frontier guards would strengthen protection of borders and

prevent further influx of Jews from abroad. The ZÚB later on received information that some of the

guards had not acted vigorously enough and had been too considerate towards the refugees.

Therefore, frontier guards were to be properly instructed and to be rid of any benevolence towards

fleeing German Jews because „influx of strange elements to Czechoslovakia is absolutely

undesirable”. (Provincial Archive in Opava).

After Second World War Czechoslovakia was newly construed as the national state of Czechs and

Slovaks. About 2,820,000 Germans were banished and transferred from Czechoslovakia to Germany

or Austria. The typical emphasizing of “purification” expressed the determination to create

a homogeneous society, free of all unwanted foreign ethnic groups and their domestic accomplices.

(Uherek, 2011) According to Spurný (2011) efforts to eliminate everything which was foreign and

threatening to this homogeneity were „the other side of the coin of constructive optimism, and an

essential part of the engineering approach to the society”. Aspirations to establish an ethnically

homogenous society also influenced the Jewish community already affected by the Holocaust. Jews

in Czechoslovakia were criticized for the continuing use of German (or Hungarian) and they were de

facto encouraged to assimilate, which was supposed to be an expression of their national reliability.

(Nové Slovo) The new trend was ethnically selective immigration policy. Inland and depopulated

area of the Sudetenland in 1947 and 1950 were settled by about 202 526 returnees from Ukraine,

Romania, Bulgaria and also from non-European countries (USA, Canada, Argentina, Brazil etc.).

The largest group was 33 000 Volhynian Czechs. To a lesser extent there have come also the foreign

immigrants – namely 12 000 Bulgarian agricultural immigrants. (Drbohlav, 2010). Czechoslovakia

became a refuge for about 13 000 Greeks who left their war-torn country. Greek community in

Czechoslovakia was one of the largest in the Soviet bloc - more Greek emigrants (14 000) lived only




ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3




-458-

in USSR. (Králová- Tsivos, 2011). At the end of 1940´s, Czechoslovakia was offering them so called

hospitality which supposed to be only temporary. Only later this „hospitable stay” had changed into

political asylum. (Botu-Konečný, 2005) Asylum right was codified only in the constitution of 1960 as

well as labour migration, which was limited to eastern bloc countries. Later on, efforts to deepen

economic cooperation between socialist countries found their expression in immigration of several

thousands of Polish, Vietnamese and citizens of other socialist countries.

3. Changes of asylum policy in the European and Czech context

3.1 Postwar immigration to Europe - the past and the present

Migration became an increasingly important phenomenon in postwar Europe. According to

American authors Castles and Miller migration in the end of 20th century characterise four general

tendencies – globalisation, accelerations (rapid growth of immigrants), differentiation (most

countries have experience with different types of immigration) and feminisation of migration

(Castles-Miller 1993, 8). The numbers of immigrants in the EU member states rose from 3.7 million

in 1950 to 16 million in 1990 (Bade 2004) and as a consequence, migration became an increasingly

important phenomenon. After the war was also create new definition of refugee incorporated in the

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugee of 1951. According to the Convention a refugee is

person who „owing the well-founded fear for being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,

nationality, membership of particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his

nationality is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that

country..“ (Convention Relating to the Status of Refugee).

European policies regulating immigration were very liberal in 50th and 60th years. The

consequences of the economic crisis in 1970s contributed to the shift in the labour immigration

policy. Immigrants have since been considered a threat to the „welfare state“, a problem, and the

welcoming immigration policy has been openly criticized. At the same time, immigrant communities

have begun to (per)form an important component of local population. In many West and North

European countries the proportion of immigrants and asylum seekers in the 1990s reached 5-10 % of

total population. This demographic development thus only deepened the negative impact of

immigration. As a consequence, immigration policies have been increasingly influenced by economic

downturns, rising unemployment rates and unsuccessful attempts at integrating foreigners. Problems

with the integration of immigrants opened up a room for a public discussion about the sustainability

of immigration policies. Since 1990s, the previously enhanced concept of multiculturalism has been

heavily criticized.

Barša and Baršová (2008) distinguish several phases of European migration policy:

Migration connected with reconstruction of postwar Europe and labour immigration

(1945-1974)

Changes of migration policy after economic crisis (1975)

Diversification of receiving countries and growth of asylum seekers (1989-1999)

Return to work migration with preference of skilled worker (since 1999)

Continuing of European integration created conditions for coordination new asylum policy. As its

main goal was declared the development of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). The

directions for harmonization of European asylum policy were determined in several EU documents

(EU Council Conclusion from Tampere in 1999, The Hague Program from 2004, The Green Paper

2007 and Policy Plan on Asylum introduced by European Commission in 2008. (Ministry of the

Interior of the Czech Republic.) The main milestone in the European asylum policy becames Dublin

Convention which was entered into force in 1997.




ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3




-459-

New conflicts, political instability in the Middle East and Africa lead to growth of number of

political refugees heading to Europe. Number of asylum applicants in 2014 was the highest number

of asylum applicants within the EU since the peak in 1992 (672 thousand applications in the EU 15).

Trends in the numbers of refugees see in the Tab. 1. Asylum seekers originate prevailly from Kosovo

(48 900 first time asylum applicants), Syria (29 100) and Afghanistan (12 900). One of the most

important factor in the current refugee crisis is the Syrian civil war. The Office of the United Nations

High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and Government of Turkey registered 4 089 023

refugees from Syria - 1 938 999 in Turkey, 1 113 941 in Lebanon, 625 245 in Jordan, 250 408 in Iraq,

132 375 in Egypt (UNHCR).

Tab. 1 Asylum and new asylum applicants - annual aggregated data - EU and chosen country

2009 2011 2013 2014

EU 28 266,395 309,820 432,055 626,710

Czech Republic 1,245 755 710 1,155

Germany 33,035 53,345 126,995 202,815

Greece 15,925 9,310 8,225 9,435

Spain 3,005 3,420 4,495 5,615

France 47,625 57,335 66,265 64,310

Italy 17,670 40,355 26,620 64,625

Hungary 4,670 1,695 18,900 42,775

Poland 10,6 6,890 15,245 8,025

Slovakia 820 490 440 330

Sweden 24,260 29,710 54,365 81,325

United Kingdom 31,695 26,940 30,820 31,945

Source: Eurostat

Last data show differences in the situation of the individual member states of EU. Most of refugees

applied for asylum in Germany and in Hungary. In the case of this country increased number of first

time asylum applicants significantly in the comparison with previous quarter - in Germany (+32 %) in

Hungary (+17 %). All numbers see in the Table 2. But Hungary is not target country for this kind of

migrants, their goal is evidently get themselves to the rich states in Western and Northern Europe. On

the other side, only 2 610 applied for asylum in Greece. This unbalance deepened critic addressed to

South European countries. Efforts of European Commission to strengthen principles of solidarity

aroused very contradictory reactions in member states of EU.




ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3




-460-

Tab. 2 First time asylum applicants in the EU (First quarter 2015)

First quarter 2015 Share in EU total (%)

EU 28 184 815

100

Czech Republic 355

0,2

Germany 73 120

39,6

Greece 2610 1,4

Spain 2035 1,1

France 14770 8

Italy 15 245

8,2

Hungary 32 810

17,8

Austria 9 705

5.3

Slovakia 50 0

Sweden 11 415

6,2

United Kingdom 7 335

4

Source: Eurostat

3.2 Asylum policy in Czech Republic and its specifics

As a consequence of opening the country’s borders after 1989 and developing European integration,

the Czech society has to face more complex migration trends. The Czech Republic has gradually

become a target country for increasing numbers of refugees and immigrants whose presence is often

considered as threatening. In the first half of the 90’s, the program of foreigners’ integration was

focusing only on refugees. From 1994, its specific expression was the National Assistance Program

for Integration which was to provide rental housing for refugees, and later also counseling and free

courses of the Czech language. The Act No. 326/1999 Sb. established three basic categories of

foreigners - citizens of the EU and EES member states and Switzerland, citizens of countries outside

EU („third country nationals“) and other foreigners (applicants for international protection,

applicants for temporary protection, foreigners staying illegally in the CR). Czech legal system use

the term „foreigners“ (not „immigrants“). The change in the relationship to refugees was brought by

the new Asylum Act of 1999 which incorporated the EU legislation – the Dublin Convention and the

London Resolution of 1992. This Act also introduced new terminology. A person recognized as a

refugee was newly called „an asylee, and people applying for the refugee status were defined as

asylum seekers”. The Act greatly expanded some rights of asylees. They were allowed to reside

outside the asylum facilities and also enter the Czech labor market without the need of work permits.

Asylees were also entitled to financial support up to the subsistence level. The Act also addressed the

program of integration which had previously been delimited by government regulations. In 2002, an

amendment to the Asylum Act was adopted. It introduced new restrictive elements in response to the

growth in applications for asylum in the previous years. The growth peaked in 2001 when 18,094




ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3




-461-

applications were submitted. The aim of the amendment was to reduce the abuse of asylum as an

instrument to be granted legal residence in the country and get a job. Asylum seekers were not able to

get a job for the period of one year after the beginning of the asylum procedure anymore. Refugees

who were situated in detention centers for foreigners (in the so called detention facilities) had to apply

for asylum within seven days after being admitted there. Another change occurred in 2006 when the

possibility of obtaining asylum was extended by the so called subsidiary protection. It was focused

for foreigners who did not meet the conditions for being granted the asylum, but they would be in

great danger if they returned to their country of origin.

Tab. 3 Asylum applicants and asylum granted in Czech Republic

Year Number of applicants for

international protection

Number of asylum

granted

2000 8788 133

2001 18094

83

2002 8484

103

2003 11400 208

2004 5459 142

2005 4021 251

2006 3016

268

2007 1878

191

2008 1656

157

2009 1258 75

2010 833

125

2011 756 108

2012 753 49

2013 707

95

Source: Foreigner in Czech Republic. Czech statistical office

According to citizenship prevailed among applicants for international protection asylum seekers from

Ukraine, Syrian Arab Republic, Vietnam, Russia and Armenia. (Foreigner in Czech Republic. Czech

statistical office) Decreasing numbers of asylees and applicant for international protection show

rather restrictive character of Czech asylum policy. The cause of significant decrease in 2002 is

amendment to the Asylum Act. Czech Republic has no strong experience with long-term residence of

culturally different asylees. This fact and low number of refugees influence possibilities of their

integration.

At the end of the nineties the state began create the conception of integrating foreigners into

society. As the first, the Interior Ministry started to handle the integration of immigrants and the

agenda was later committed to the Ministry of the Labour and Social Affairs. Foreigners from third




ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3




-462-

countries make up more than a half of foreigners with a residence permit (67 %); citizens from EU,

EES and Switzerland make up one third. The main source countries are Ukraine, Slovakia, Vietnam,

Russia and Poland. The government concept from the beginning of 21st century is inspired by the

European trends and in line with that it supports the individual integration, which is based on solid

legal basis.(Baršová 2005). The new established Centers for the support of the integration of

foreigners (Centra pro podporu integrace cizinců - CPIC) were opened by Refugee Facilities

Administration of the Ministry of Interior first in four regions (Moravian-Silesian, Pardubice, Plzeň

and Zlín region) in 2009. Later the same centers were established in further regions of the Czech

Republic. CPIC presents the third-country nationals who are staying in the Czech Republic under

long-term or permanent residence permit as their target group. According to the official presentation

of the centers the goal of the project „is to create opportunities for long-term strategic support of

integration of foreign nationals.“ CPIC cooperates with the regional and municipal offices, the

Foreign Police, employment agencies, tax authorities, trade license offices and with others entities.

These new regional centers emphasize teaching the language of the majority population in their work.

Adoption of the language is considered as one of the key preconditions for successful integration.

Centers provide also other services (advisory and information activities, legal counselling,

social-culture courses, internet point and library). This services are provide free of charge. The

important point for the formation of the Centers was the possibility to use the European Fund for

Integration of Third Country Nationals 2007–2013 for their financing. Basic organizational units of

the Ministry of the Interior responsible for asylum policy in Czech Republic are: Asylum and

migration policy department, the Refugees Facilities Administration and Foreign Police Service. The

Refugees Facilities Administration (Správa uprchlických zařízení - SUZ) was established in 1996 as

the budgetary organisation of the Ministry of the Interior. SUZ provides the detention of foreigners

and also created the CPIC in county towns. SUZ is in charge of two Reception centers (Praha airport,

Zastávka u Brna), two Residential centres (Kostelec nad Orlicí, Havířov), three Integration Asylum

Centers (Brno, Jaroměř, Předlice) and Facilities for Detention of Foreigners (Bělá pod Bezdězem).

(The Refugees Facilities Administration) Czech Republic became the target country for thousands

applicant for international protection.

Czech society remains ambiguous towards immigrants. According to opinion polls majority of

Czech society negatively evaluates the presence of foreigners in the country. But part of the Czech

population agree that foreigners solve problems with labour shortages in some sectors. (See Tab. 4)

Czechs show more sympathy towards immigrants who choose an assimilation model of adaptation.

Tab. 4 Public opinion in Czech Republic (Spring 2014)

Definitely

agree (%)

Rather agree Definitely

disagree

Rather

disagree

Too much foreigners work

in CR

34 43 20 3

„Foreigners take our jobs“ 38 35 23 4

Foreigners solve

problems with labour

shortages in some sectors

9 32 37 22

Zdroj: STEM (Centre of empirical research)

Migration newly becames subject of public discussion and topic for politicians. Czech political

parties had mostly pragmatical approach to the legal migration in the past. Anti-immigrant rhetoric

was rare. For example populist Dawn of Direct Democracy in the election to the European




ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3




-463-

parliament obtained 3,12 % and no mandate. But in the connection with refugee crisis and with rise of

terrorism immigration have changed into acute political topic in Czech Republic too. All important

political parties opposed immigration quota in member state of the EU. The refusal of quota is also

official standpoint of the Czech government. Czech politicians and majority of the society prefer

foreigners who will be able to integrate. We can see many parallels between present asylum policy

and approach to refugees in the era of First Czechoslovak Republic. Emphasizing of possible social

and security consequences of immigration determines character of public discussion.

4. Conclusion

The First Czechoslovak Republic was the most important country for asylum seekers in Central

Europe. The relationship between Czech society and refugees was characterised by opposing

tendencies – developing civic society promoted solidarity but the non-existence of a concept of

immigration policy and certain elitism weakened it. In the inter-war period there was practically not

used the human capital of immigrants. Czechoslovakia used to be an asylum for political refugees and

there was consistently suppressed the labour migration. In the pre-War Czechoslovakia, generosity

towards foreigners was, therefore, limited. This proved true after the Munich Agreement. Facing

huge pressure brought about by the Agreement, proclaimed tolerance towards „foreign emigrants”

was replaced by a belief that it is necessary to promote national interests.

The economic aspects of immigration became dominant in Czech Republic after 1989. Tolerance

and openness thus seem to have been pushed into recess by the influx of culturally distinct immigrant

groups as well as economic crisis in West Europe too. The underlying problem in Europe is the

conflict between a secular definition of Europeanness with an identity that is primarily understood in

religious terms. To interpret this solely as a conflict between a secular European society and a

religious one would not be accurate, however. Integration policies have failed and new generations of

immigrants have radical and uncompromising interpretation of religious practices and traditions

which deviates sharply from the religion of their parents. The influx of immigrant leads to the search

for a new national and cultural identity which is often defined in an opposition to the distinct world of

the „others. In the Czech Republic there is a clear effort to inspirate by the experience of Western

countries Prevailing approaches confirm the trends towards the consolidation of individual

integration. The main tendencies of Czech asylum policy in the present time are influenced by

specific historical development including postwar national homogenization of the country and

emphasizing of potential negative social and security impacts of migration. The solution of current

refugee crisis on the European level should be the consistent differentiation between economically

motivated immigration and political asylum. Political representations should analyse experiences

from asylum policy in the past and should evaluate possible perspectives and risks of its further

development. One of first step in this process should be public factual discussion involving the debate

conception of European and national identity and values.

Acknowledgment: This paper was supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports Czech

Republic within the Institutional Support for Long-term Development of a Research Organization in

2015.

References

[1] Asylum Act, n. 325/1999. [online] [cit. 2015-06-10]. Available from Internet:

http://www.mvcr.cz/mvcren/article/asylum-migration-integration-asylum.aspx.




ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3




-464-

[2] Bade, K. J. 2004. Evropa v pohybu, Evropské migrace dvou staletí. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové

noviny.

[3] Barša, P., Baršová, A., 2005. Přistěhovalectví a liberální stát. Imigrační a integrační politiky

v USA, západní Evropě a Česku. Brno: Masarykova univerzita v Brně, Mezinárodní

politologický ústav.

[4] Baršová, A., 2005. Integrace přistěhovalců v Evropě: od občanské integrace od

multikulturalismu a zpět? [online] [cit. 2015-06-20]. Available from Internet:

http://aa.ecn.cz/img_upload/79a33131c9c4293e0fcefb50bfa263ef/ABarsova_Integrace_pristeh

ovalcu_v_Evrope.pdf.

[5] Botu, A.-Konečný, M. 2005. Řečtí uprchlíci. Kronika řeckého lidu v Čechách, na Moravě a ve

Slezsku 1948-1989. Praha: Řecká obec Praha.

[6] Castles, S.-Miller, M. J., 1993. The Age of Migration. International Population Movements in the

Modern World. New York: The Guilford Press.

[7] Cizinci v České republice. Foreigners in the Czech Republic. 2014. Český statistický úřad. ISBN

978-80-250-2582-6. [online] [cit. 2015-06-20] Available from Internet:

https://www.czso.cz/documents/10180/20556725/29002714_uCJ.pdf/469a6663-fc5a-4dab-a7da

-56f0674667cd?version=1.0.

[8] Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of the Refugees. Office of the United Nations

High Commissioner for Refugees. [online] [cit. 2015-06-15] Available from Internet:

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html.

[9] Convention of 28 October, 1933 relating to the International Status of Refugees.[online] [cit.

2015-06-20] Available from Internet: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3dd8cf374.html.

[10] Čapková, K., Frankl, M., 2008. Nejisté útočiště. Československo a uprchlíci před nacismem

1933-1938. Praha: Paseka.

[11] Drbohlav, D et al.. 2010. Migrace a (i)migranti v Česku. Kdo jsme, odkud přicházíme, kam

jdeme? Praha: Sociologické nakladatelství.

[12] Duch času. November 15th 1938.

[13] Eurostat Asylum and new asylum applicants - annual aggregated data [online] [cit.

2015-06-20] Available from Internet:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tps00191&pl

ugin=1.

[14] Eurostat. Asylum in the EU in the first quarter 2015 [online] [cit. 2015-06-25] Available from

Internet:http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/6887997/3-18062015-CP-EN.pdf/445

7b050-26f9-4cf1-bf27-9ffb73ff8c7b.

[15] Jaeger, G. 2001. On the history of the international protection of refugees. International Review

of the Red Cross. Vol. 83 [online] [cit. 2015-06-1]. Available from Internet:

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/727_738_jaeger.pdf.

[16] Jesenská, M. 1997 Nad naše síly. Češi, Židé a Němci 1937-1939. Olomouc: Votobia.

[17] Honusková, V. 2011. Definice uprchlíka a jejií výklad a aplikace v současném mezinárodním

právu. Praha: Univerzita Karlova, Právnická fakulta.

http://aa.ecn.cz/img_upload/79a33131c9c4293e0fcefb50bfa263ef/ABarsova_Integrace_pristehovalcu_v_Evrope.pdf

http://aa.ecn.cz/img_upload/79a33131c9c4293e0fcefb50bfa263ef/ABarsova_Integrace_pristehovalcu_v_Evrope.pdf




ISBN 978-80-248-3796-3




-465-

[18] Králová, K.,Tsivos, K. et al., 2012. Vyschly nám slzy...Řečtí uprchlíci v Československu. Praha:

Dokořán.

[19] Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic. Asylum, migration, integration. [online] [cit.


http://www.mvcr.cz/mvcren/article/asylum-migration-integration-asylum.aspx.

[20] National Archive in Prague (a), f. Ministry of Social Affairs, cart. 2931, sign. E 4200. Request of

the Ukrainian associations to Ministry of Social Affairs (1934).

[21] National Archive in Prague (b) f. Ministry of Social Affairs, cart. 2931, sign. E 4200. Resolution

of National Czechoslovak Council (1933).

[22] National Archive in Prague (c) f. Ministry of Social Affairs, cart. 2932, sign. E 4200.

Interpellation of Agrarian member of Parliament (1933).

[23] National Archive in Prague (d) f. Ministry of Social Affairs, cart. 2932, sign. E 4200. Complaint

of National Unity of Northern Bohemia (1933).

[24] Nové Slovo, 16th October 1945, n. 136.

[25] Provincial Archive in Opava, f. Policejní ředitelství Moravská Ostrava – prez. spisy, cart. 459,

sign. 8639 and sign. 8884. Decrees of ZÚB from November 11th

and 25th

, 1938.

[26] Spolu a lépe. Centra na podporu integrace cizinců v České republice. Together and better.

Centres to support the integrations of foreigners in the Czech Republic. 2013. Ministry of the

Interior of the Czech Republic. [online] [cit. 2015-06-20] Available from Internet:

http://www.icpraha.com/theme/Icp/files/Spolu%20a%20l%C3%A9pe%20-%20Centra%20na%

20podporu%20integrace%20cizinc%C5%AF%20v%20%C4%8CR.pdf.

[27] Spurný, M. 2011. Nejsou jako my. Česká společnost a menšiny v pohraničí (1945-1960). Praha:

Antikomplex.

[28] STEM. Views on the employment of foreigners. Opinion poll from spring 2014. [online] [cit.


http://www.suz.cz/en/our-centres/what-we-do/http://www.stem.cz/clanek/2943.

[29] The Office of the United Nations High Commisioner for Refugees (UNHCR). [online] [cit.

2015-08-25] Available from Internet: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php.

[30] The Refugees Facilities Administration. [online] [cit. 2015-06-5] Available from Internet:

http://www.suz.cz/en/our-centres/what-we-do/.

[31] Uherek, Z. 2011. Ethnic (national) Diversity in the Czech Republic: Invariables and New

Development. In: Uherek, Z. Migration, Diversity and their Management. Praha: Institute of

Ethnology of the Academy of Science, pp. 63-87.

[32] Veselý, J. 1983. Československo – azylová země. In: Azyl v Československu 1933- 1938. Praha:

czech asylum policy and its social aspects …...the international status of refugees). after rise...

Documents