I- Introduction

The European Union (EU) crises process, which started in 2008 with the global economic and financial crisis, peaked in 2015 with the desire of the United Kingdom to leave the union. In the same year, the increase in the flow of migrants from Africa and the Middle East enabled the different voices to be heard in the union and the migration crisis arose. With the crisis, it is seen that the far-right parties have been on the rise among member states, and anti-migration, racism, Islamophobia and discrimination have increased in the discourses of the parties and in the actions of the citizens.

In this paper, the immigrant policy of far-right parties in the government in Hungary and Poland will be examined. From 2015 to 2020, some decisions and actions of national actors representing both parties will be analyzed by the Liberal Intergovernmentalism theory. In line with the analysis of the actions, an estimate will be made on how the crisis will affect the position and future of the EU. The European Migration Crisis is significant, as a common solution has not yet been reached and directly affects the future of the EU. It is assumed that the rise of far-right parties will negatively affect the EU's authority over member countries. Another assumption is that member countries will not act separately from the domestic factors of their countries.

II- The European Migration Crisis

The protests that started in the Middle East under the name Arab Spring since 2011 have turned into regional conflicts and caused civil war in Syria. For this reason, hundreds of thousands of people from the continent of Asia and Africa have begun to migrate to Europe in order to reach better opportunities and a safe location. According to Eurostat data, the number of citizens who migrated to the EU from non-EU countries in 2015 is 2.4 million. The member countries that immigrants migrated most were Italy, Slovenia, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Austria and Bulgaria (Eurostat, 2017). The increasing number of immigrants created the migrant crisis in the EU. In fact, the crisis is not a new phenomenon for Europeans in 2015 due to the high number of migrations to Europe at different times in history (Holmes & Castaneda, 2016).

The fact that the crisis in Europe is full of terminological and descriptive dilemmas in international migration, international protection, asylum, refugees, asylum seekers and related issues complicates the resolution of the process (Pachocka, 2015). The Geneva Convention, the first legal agreement, was signed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1951 to protect refugees and provide solutions to their problems. This Convention defines the refugee as “a person who is afraid that he will be persecuted because of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political thoughts, and therefore leaves his country and cannot return or want to return.” (The UN Refugee Agency, n.d.). Therefore, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraqis, which are common information about the war in their countries, are eligible candidates for refugee status. Another initiative was the creation of the Common European Asylum System in 1999 in order to further harmonize EU asylum legislation among member states, create an area for cooperation, and develop a sense of solidarity and responsibility (Sopariwalla, 2017).

The fact that the problems caused by the increased migration flow in the Mediterranean region after 2010 reached its peak in 2015 forced the EU to offer a solution to the member countries to change the location of refugees and relocate the refugees (Ugarte, 2018). On 20 April 2015, the European Commission (EC) announced its ten-item migration plan to take urgent action in response to the crisis in the Mediterranean region created by the flow of migrants (Pachocka, 2015). Following the proposal by the Commission, member states have committed to take a quick step in a Council of Europe statement of 23 April 2015; On 28 April, the European Parliament Resolution followed this commitment. On May 13, 2015, the Commission reorganized its agenda and made four decisions to ensure better management of migration: first, the reduction of incentives for irregular migration, the second, the safeguarding of external borders, the third, strong common asylum policy and the fourth, taking steps to create a new policy on legal migration (European Council, n.d.).

III- Liberal Intergovernmentalism Theory

The shifting process of the values, interests, and activities of existing national actors and institutions that have the authority to demand and apply on political actors towards the institution overtime is defined as political integration (Haas, 1958). This process has also been experienced in the EU and many different theories have been produced since the 1950s to explain European integration. In 1988, Robert Putnam's article titled “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: the Logic of Two-Level Games” talks about the two-level game where states' national and international policy dynamics are discussed (Cini, 2013). In 1993, Andrew Moravcsik developed the theory of Liberal Intergovernmentalism (LI) by placing the European integration on the theoretical framework through the “two-level game” metaphor. As such, LI offers a revision of the intergovernmental theory developed by Stanley Hoffman in 1966, containing both realistic and liberal elements.

The LI theory makes three assumptions about international politics. First, states constitute a liberal national choice for international cooperation. The pressures (demand) from the national governments determine the political reactions (supply) of the EU; The interaction of supply and demand shapes the foreign policy process of states. Second, states that tend to pursue a mutual bargaining relationship with governments, not decisions made by a centralized authority, are critical actors in international anarchy. However, it positions domestic interest groups as the main actor and it is argued that the preferences are determined specific to the issues (Schimmelfennig & Moravcsik , 2004). Another point in which the LI differs from its predecessor is that, by including the international political economy in the mutual bargaining process of states, Hoffman's rejection of the idea of ​​zero-sum games, which he argues that state interests provide zero profit (Hooghe & Marks, 2019). In this process, states are rational, albeit limited, by handling an event from alternative perspectives and making a satisfactory decision under circumstances. However, LI rejects the idea of the ‘black boxes’ in which the internal affairs of the state, which the realist theories advocate, are ignored. Instead, it argues that states pursue a foreign policy according to demands from their country's social groups in the international arena. The LI, which differs from its predecessor by this assumption, explains the differentiation of foreign policy decisions for three reasons: the difference between preferences, institutions and power between countries (Moravcsik, 1993). Third, it is the creation of European institutions to secure agreements (Hooghe & Marks, 2019).

Although LI explains how international institutions balance international cooperation, it does not disclose feedback on national preferences and bargaining power; moreover, it does not claim that the state will predict or prevent a crisis that may affect or contradict its minimal rationality assumption (Schimmelfennig, 2018). On the other hand, the perspective of integration crises involves a tripartite analysis that includes national preference formation, intergovernmental negotiations and institutional selection, as in the integration process.

IV- The Current Situation of the Far-Right Parties in European Union

Far-right political parties are seen in many EU member states such as Fidesz and Jobbik Party in Hungary, Party for Freedom in Holland, Danish People's Party in Denmark, Sweden Democrats in Sweden, Vlaams Belang in Belgium, Freedom Party of Austria in Austria, Alternative for Germany and Die Freiheit in Germany, and the Golden Dawn Party in Greece. The policy objectives of the right parties include maintaining the country's majority culture and not losing ethnicity homogeneity (Rydgren, 2017). The transformation of the far right in Europe after the Cold War can be explained in three aspects: First, the votes of the far-right parties rose in the various local, national and European Parliament elections. Second, there has been an increase in connected events in far-right organizations. Second, there has been an increase in events connected to far-right organizations. Third, the far-right political discourse has normalized and spread (Öner, 2014).

The view of the migrant crisis, which has become an important problem for far-right parties in recent years, has caused parties to want to restrict migration to their countries (Arzheimer, 2018). Far-right parties often benefit from the issue of migration and portray migration as a threat to the well-being, social, cultural and even ethnic characteristics of nations (Kaya, 2017). Moreover, their voters are acted with an exclusionary attitude towards migrants, xenophobia, and racism with the far-right parties' emphasis on the idea of ​​ethnic nationalism (Rydgren, 2017). It is not only migration that supports the rise of far-right parties; there are also other factors such as unemployment, poverty, inequality, and injustice.

This attitude is also reflected in EP elections. For the first time in 2015, the first far-right group called Europe of Nations and Freedom was established under the roof of the EP (Euobserver, 2015). Until 2019, the group had 36 seats and 5 percent of the total number of seats in the parliament, while the group that changed its name as Identity and Democracy in 2019 doubled its voters by taking approximately 10 percent of the total number of seats with 73 seats (European Parliament, n.d.)

IV.I.  The Migration Policy of Law and Justice Party

According to the program of the Law and Justice Party (LJP), it states that protecting respect for the dignity of every person is the main mission and rationale for the existence of a political community, and therefore the right to life, the right to liberty and the right to equality arising from human solidarity are important. The party therefore rejects the opposition of security and freedom, which is prevalent in both history and politics. The LJP adds that they believe that the social life model built on traditional values can have a significant impact, but they reject all activities aimed at cultural unification. In line with the party program, the party says it opposes EU refugee policy and multiculturalism policy; moreover, it supports the idea of strengthening the role of nation states and increasing Christian values in the EU (Kulesza & Rae, 2017). He also adds that it wants the concepts of freedom, equality, solidarity and justice to be throughout Europe. The LJP reports that they reject interventions on many Europeans who are not only restricted by cultural aggression but also by administrative actions and criminal pressure.

According to Adam Folvarčný and Lubomír Kopeček's article, LJP emphasizes national homogeneity and unity when culturally and ethnically evaluated, and minorities are said to be tolerated. In terms of foreign policy, It is underlined that there is strong support for NATO membership and an emphasis on the alliance with the USA, but it has more reservations about EU integration. In religious terms, it provides a privileged domination of the Catholic Church in society and public life (Folvarčný & Kopeček, 2020).

IV.II. The Migration Policy of Fidesz Party

According to the Fidesz Party (FP) mission, it believes in freedom, democracy, a business-based society, supporting and defending families, and European cooperation based on sovereign nation states. Also, it rejects Marxist and progressive ideologies by considering freedom, democracy and Christianity as core values. Considering European integration as a Christian democratic project, the party wants to strengthen strong and peaceful European visions based on the cooperation of nation-states (Fidesz Party, n.d.).

Hungary, with the exception of a Chinese diaspora, most of the migrants who have settled in the country since 1989 have been ethnic Hungarians, mainly Romania, Slovakia, Serbia and Ukraine (Juhász, Hunyadi, & Zgut, 2015). In other words, although the country receives migration, its ethnic structure has not changed. On the party's website, defending the Hungarian and Schengen borders after the 2015 immigration crisis is equivalent to maintaining national independence and calls it a 'natural decision'. The party also adds that it respects the decisions of other European countries, adding that they will continue to defend the borders of the country, use smart wire mesh at the southern border and limit illegal entry into both their countries and the EU (Fidesz Party, n.d.). Based on the experience of Western societies in general, not only on immigration, the party states for the second time that they do not want to follow Hungary's open border immigration policies.

V- Application the Theory to the Case

First of all, the attitude of both parties during the European Migration Crisis after 2015 will be examined. In Hungary, the FP clearly opposes the immigration process (Fidesz Party, 2019). It followed a similar policy in the following years; Foreign Minister Szijjarto “If the agreement between the EU and Turkey on stopping illegal immigration in the future to provide protection if a time when hundreds of thousands and millions of people will come to Europe” has said. The Minister also said that the EU's immigration policy and Brussels' attitude should be changed, and that they should focus on stopping migration rather than promoting migration as a solution (Fidesz Party, 2019). On the other hand, the LJP underlines that the number of ‘foreigners’ has increased rapidly, and that they do not comply with the law and traditions, and then they want to impose these attitudes in an aggressive and violent manner (Law and Justice Party, 2015). Therefore, it believes that the immigration process should be resolved outside the EU (Law and Justice Party, 2015).

In May 2015, the EC developed the idea that refugees who arrived in Europe by sea, such as Italy and Malta, should be calculated according to the GDP, population and unemployment levels of the member countries and distributed to the member countries by quota system  (Euronews, 2015). This system was put into vote by majority vote by EU interior ministers and was adopted on 23 September despite the objections of four member states, including Hungary (BBC News, 2015). Poland, which initially opposed the quota system, later changed its mind and vote positive votes (The New York Times, 2015). Later, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who launched a petition campaign against the quota system, states that the EU only discusses secondary issues such as human rights, progress, peace, openness and tolerance, but freedom, Christianity, nation and pride are fundamental issues (Euronews, 2015).

Hungary started building a fence on the border with Serbia in 2015 to protect the country's borders against the flow of immigrants in 2015 (Politico, 2015); the construction process was completed in September (BBC News, 2015). In the following process, the controversy arose that human rights were violated or important in terms of security perspective. In a statement made by the Foreign Minister in 2019, he explained that Hungary is clearly on the security side as Hungary's strong, strict border protection provides less maneuvering space for criminals, including human traffickers (Fidesz Party,  2019). Another initiative of the Hungarian Government is to approve “Stop Soros Law” paving the way to punish aid for illegal immigrants on June 20, 2018 (Euractiv, 2018). The Firstly, the EC declared the law illegal, saying the draft “Stop Soros” introduced rules that penalize activities that support asylum applications and further limit the right to seek asylum (Euractiv, 2018); then it filed a lawsuit against Hungary (Euractiv, 2019).

Secondly, it will be also examined domestic factors of countries, as the theory of Liberal Intergovernmentalism indicates the importance of focusing on the Two-Level Game. Parliamentary elections in Poland on October 25, 2015 are one of the internal factors that directly affect the migration process. To the Polish Government, which changed the opposition attitude and approved the quota system, Beata Szydlo, the leader of the right opposition, described it as scandalous, stressing that the decision was against national security and the will of the citizens (The New York Times, 2015). Szydlo's opinion was confirmed and as a result of the election, Ewa Kopacz lost her seat to her opponent (Reuters, 2015). Security threat, which is one of the domestic factors, was one of the factors that caused the Polish Government's decision to stop the migration intake after the terrorist attack in Brussels in March 2016 (Deutsche Welle, 2016).

On the other hand, the Hungarian Government, which voted negative for the quota system, decided to hold a referendum on 2 October 2016 to learn the opinion of its citizens and show that it has a social counterpart. 98 percent of the election voted “No” to the question “Do you approve the placement of individuals who are not citizens of Hungary without the approval of the EU's Hungarian National Assembly?”; However, the voter threshold was not exceeded as 50 percent for the voting to be accepted (Politico, 2016).

VI- Conclusion

The European Migration Crisis is significant as it is still unresolved and has a direct impact on the future of the EU. The opposition of both the Fidesz Party and the Law and Justice Party against EU Migration Policy and regulations is considered as a challenge to EU institutional strength and, moreover, a threat to EU integration and solidarity. In the process, Hungary perceived the quota system as an attitude towards national sovereignty and shaped its discourses accordingly.

It is seen that both governments do not ignore the internal factors and, when necessary, reshape their decisions and actions. The election defeat of the Polish government, which voted positively on the quota system before the parliamentary elections in 2015, shows this situation. Therefore, Justice and Law Party, which inherited this legacy did not ignore the thoughts of its citizens on the migrant crisis. Similarly, Hungary relies on the support of the people for the negative position towards the migration crisis. In the referendum held in 2016, it was revealed that the public supported the idea that the EU should not be involved in the internal affairs of Hungary.

As a result, the European Migration Crisis is observed to be negatively affected in terms of the EU's supranational feature, because Hungary and Poland have not implemented some EU decisions. It is claimed that the far-right parties' participation in national governments and putting into practice their rhetoric will cause the crisis to continue.

REFERENCES

Öner, S. (2014). Avrupa'da Yükselen Aşırı Sağ, Yeni 'Öteki'ler ve Türkiye'nin AB Üyeliği. Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, 13(1), 163-184.

Arzheimer, K. (2018). Explaining Electoral Support for the Radical Right. In J. Rydgren. The Oxford Handbook of the Radical Right, 143-165. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

BBC News. (2015, September 23). Migrant crisis: EU splits exposed as talks take place. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34332759

BBC News. (2015, September 14). Refugees 'exhausted' after Serbia-Hungary border closes. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-34250092/refugees-exhausted-after-serb...

Cini, M. (2013). Intergovernmentalism. In M. Cini, & N. Pérez-Solórzano Borragán, European Union Politics, 86-102. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Deutsche Welle. (2016, March 23). Poland abandons promise to take in refugees after Brussels attacks. Retrieved from https://www.dw.com/en/poland-abandons-promise-to-take-in-refugees-after-...

Euobserver. (2015, June 15). Retrieved from Le Pen announces formation of new EP group: https://euobserver.com/tickers/129125

Euractiv. (2018, July 20). EU raps Hungary for ‘Stop Soros’ law, steps up legal battle. Retrieved from https://www.euractiv.com/section/future-eu/news/eu-raps-hungary-for-stop...

Euractiv. (2018, June 21). Hungary approves ‘STOP Soros’ law, prohibits ‘resettlement of alien population’. Retrieved from https://www.euractiv.com/section/future-eu/news/hungary-approves-stop-so...

Euractiv. (2019, July 25). EU takes Hungary to court over ‘Stop Soros’ migrant law. Retrieved from https://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/eu-takes-hung...

Euronews. (2015, May 13). EU unveils quota system plans to tackle migration crisis. Retrieved from https://www.euronews.com/2015/05/13/eu-unveils-quota-system-plans-to-tac...

Euronews. (2015, October 13). Hungary's prime minister suspects "masterplan" is behind refugee crisis. Retrieved from https://www.euronews.com/2015/11/13/hungarian-prime-minister-talks-about...

European Council. (n.d.). Timeline - response to migratory pressures. Retrieved from https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/migratory-pressures/history-...

European Parliament. (n.d.). 2019 European election results. Retrieved from:  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/election-results-2019/en/european-results...

Eurostat. (2017, 12 15). Immigration in EU Member States. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-eurostat-news/-/EDN-201712...

Fidesz Party. (2019, June 17). A migráció támogatása helyett a megelőzése a cél. Retrieved from https://fidesz.hu/hirek/a-migracio-tamogatasa-helyett-a-megelozese-a-cel

Fidesz Party. (2019, September 28). Az embercsempészet ellen a migráció megelőzésével lehet leghatékonyabban küzdeni. Retrieved from https://fidesz.hu/hirek/az-embercsempeszet-ellen-a-migracio-megelozeseve...

Fidesz Party. (2019, March 09). Meg kell változtatni Európa migrációs politikáját. Retrieved from https://fidesz.hu/hirek/meg-kell-valtoztatni-europa-migracios-politikajat

Fidesz Party. (n.d.). Our Mission. Retrieved from https://fidesz.hu/int/add-tovabb/our-mission

Folvarčný , A., & Kopeček, L. (2020). Which conservatism? The identity of the Polish Law and Justice party. Politics in Central Europe, 16(1), 159-188.

Haas, E. B. (1958). 1968: The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economic Forces 1950-1957. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.

Holmes, S. M., & Castaneda, H. (2016). Representing the “European refugee crisis” in Germany and beyond: Deservingness and difference, life and death. American Ethnologist, 43(1), 12-24.

Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2019). Grand theories of European integration in the twenty-first century. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(8), 1113–1133.

Juhász, A., Hunyadi, B., & Zgut, E. (2015). The refugee crisis. Focus on Hungary: Refugees, Asylum and Migration. Prague.

Kaya, A. (2017). Avrupa'da Popülizm: Çeşitlilik ve Birlik İçinde Kaybolmak.

Kulesza, C., & Rae, G. (2017, January). The Law and Justice Party and Poland’s Turn to the Right. transform! europe, 2-8.

Law and Justice Party. (2015, September 16). Mamy prawo bronić naszej suwerenności. Retrieved from: http://pis.org.pl/aktualnosci/mamy-prawo-bronic-naszej-suwerennosci

Law and Justice Party. (2015, December 18). Program migracji powinien być rozwiązany poza granicami Unii Europejskiej. Retrieved from: http://pis.org.pl/aktualnosci/program-migracji-powinien-byc-rozwiazany-p...

Moravcsik, A. (1993). Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach. Journal of Common Market Studies. 31(4),  473-524.

Pachocka, M. (2015). The European Union And International Migration in the Early 21st Century: Facing the Migrant And Refugee Crisis in Europe. 531-557. E. Latoszek, M. Proczek, A. Kłos, M. Pachocka, & E. Osuch-Rak In Facing The Challenges in the European Union. Warsaw: Polish European Community Studies Association.

Politico. (2015, July 14). Hungary builds fence, Commission watches and waits. Retrieved from https://www.politico.eu/article/hungary-builds-fence-commission-watches-...

Politico. (2016, October 02). Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán leaves a polling station in Budapest, on October 2, 2016 | Attila Kisbenedek/AFP via Getty Images Voters back Viktor Orbán’s rejection of EU migrant quotas. Retrieved from https://www.politico.eu/article/hungary-referendum-eu-migration-viktor-o...

Reuters. (2015, October 27). Poland's Eurosceptics win outright majority in parliament. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-poland-election/polands-eurosceptics-...

Rydgren, J. (2017). Radical right-wing parties in Europe:What's populism got to do with it?. Journal of Language and Politics, 16(4), 1-12.

Schimmelfennig , F., & Moravcsik , A. (2004). Liberal Intergovernmentalism. 64–84. In T. Risse, A. Wiener, & T. A. Börzel, European Integration Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schimmelfennig, F. (2018). Liberal Intergovernmentalism and the Crises of the European Union: LI and the EU Crises. Journal of Common Market Studies,  56(7), 1578-1594.

Sopariwalla, R. J. (2017). The Evolution of the European Union's Asylum Policy Through the 2015 Migrant Crisis. Claremont- UC Undergraduate Research Conference on the European Union, (12), 131-146.

The New York Times. (2015, September 23). Opposition to Refugee Quotas Softens in Europe’s Old Communist Bloc. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/world/europe/opposition-to-refugee-qu...

The UN Refugee Agency. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10

Ugarte, B. A. (2018). The Far Right in Western Europe:“From the Margins to the Mainstream” And Back?. Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto, (59), 75-97.