Hungary’s new immigration tax: you have to pay if have a different opinion

After the third two-thirds mandate won by the governing party Fidesz, the Hungarian government adopted amendments to various laws, including the Fundmental Law. The amendements – the government argues – intend to tackle illegal migration, while the real intention is making operations overly burdensome for those who don’t share the government’s opinion on migration. Besides the changes to the Fundamental Law and the Penal Code under the name “Stop Soros” (analysed here), the government also adopted a new specal tax, under the name immigration special tax. It is nothing but a severe restriction of the freedom of speech: those that are supporting immigration in a professional way (doing so in an organized framework, as a calling, while using money from supporters) can, from now on, only do so if paying a special, 25% tax. The new “Stop Soros” provision to the Penal Code threatens human rights’ defenders and lobbyists with prison, while this regulation creates an existential threat for organizations active on immigation. The reality is that the immigration special tax puts limitations on the freedom of speech and on the work of NGOs. The new legislation was adopted by the Parliament, signed by the President of Hungary and came into force on the 25th of August.

The regulation

The taxable entity according to the law is the organization providing financial support for “an act which supports immigration.” In the event that the organization providing the support does not pay the special tax, then the one receiving the support is to pay it.

The bill stipulates the amount of the special tax as 25% of the finanical or in kind support dedicated to migration. The income resulting from this special tax may only be spent on border protection.

The law is vague regarding the defintion of what constitutes an act of supporting immigration. According to the law, immigration is any relocation of individuals (meant to be final) from their country of origin into another country – not including the citizens of the European Union and those from member countries of the European Economic Partnership Agreement. In order for an act to be one that “supports immigration,” said act must fulfill certain requirements. First, the act must help immigration directly or indirectly. Second, the program, event or activity must fit into one of the three following categories: media campaigns (including holding and participating in media seminars), network development and operation, and/or advertisements which shed a positive light on immigration.

The enforcement is designated to the National Tax Authority. The law is silent about what aspects the tax authority employees will have to consider in order to determine whether an act fulfills the requirements above. For example: does a press release stating that those who beat up citizens of a third country should face legal consequences qualify as support of immigration?

HCLU analysis

Portraying immigration in a good light is a legitimate opinion – even if this is not in line with the current government’s stance. Naturally, the government has the right to disagree with this, it may even argue against it, but it should not limit the expression of opinions which are contrary to its own. In addition to the protection of free speech, there are other reasons why a wide variety of arguments and their consideration by the desicion-makers would benefit the overall community. A variety of arguments regarding the positive aspects of immigration may be made, including arguments in which immigration can be shown to benefit the economy. It is in the best interest of the community to allow differing opinions to surface, to listen to them, and to incorporate the conversation and the arguments into the decision-making process – simply because the decisions born this way will be more grounded, as they have taken into consideration every. While this new tax law does not forbid the emergence of certain views in everyday conversation, it definitely limits it by envisaging a financial liability for those who argue for immigration. Introducing such a tax makes it possible for these opinions to be silenced. Thus, this tax law is limiting an opinion – an opinion that, in itself, does not injure anybody’s rights – purely based on content. This law is simply the taxation of opinions which do not agree with the government’s official view.

When evaluating this law, it should be noted that the introduction of the immigration special tax is connected to two processes. The government is once again attempting to silence certain opinions by taking steps to limit the activities of NGOs. In 2013, the governing parties and their politicians started a campaign which aimed to discredit NGOs, and which entered a new phase during the refugee crisis: those whose opinion about immigration differed from that of the government were deemed traitors, and a threat to national security. In the government’s communication, UN representatives and opposition politicians, as well as those working for NGOs (since their opinion differs from that of the government), have been presented as being on the payroll of George Soros and receiving directives directly from him. In addition to the discrediting campaign, in 2017, the government started to adopt legislation aiming to silence NGOs: in 2017 they introduced the so-called anti-NGO-law or the law of Transparency of Organizations Supported from Abroad. Although this bill is currently about limiting opinions regarding immigration, it could easily be extended to other activities that attempt to hold the government into account, therefore bother the government. For example, the elimination of segregated schools or provision humane living conditions for all, corruption are current topics in which the government has been criticized.

Share

Related articles

The Constitutional Court Hears the President of the National Judicial Office Behind Closed Doors

According to the Eötvös Károly Institute, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee and the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, the Constitutional Court’s decision to hear the President of the National Judicial Office behind closed doors undermines the transparency of decision-making by a public office, the right to freedom of information and the principle of fair trial.

Superficial amendments - Organization of the judiciary remains inadequate

Last year the Government introduced fundamental changes to the judicial system. Although 30 separate provisions of the relevant regulation were amended in response to the serious concerns raised by the Venice Commission (VC), the organization of the judicial system remains centralized and still endangers the independence of the judiciary and the fairness of court proceedings – according to the Eötvös Károly Institute, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee and the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union.

Venice Commission Reexamines the Hungarian Fundamental Law

The delegation of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional matters, has visited Hungary with the mandate to reexamine and reevaluate the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law of Hungary and its potential consequences.