MINORITIES RESEARCH - 3

Pál Péter Tóth

 Deprived of Citizenship

 The first Citizenship Act (Act L of 1879) stipulated that Hungarian citizenship can be acquired by descent, marriage or naturalization and, conversely, that Hungarian citizenship can cease by release, official decree, as a result of absence and marriage. Individuals who lost their Hungarian citizenship for one reason or other could reacquire their citizenship through re-naturalization if certain conditions were met.

   Act L of 1879 was amended twice, first in 1921 and, later, in 1939. The first amendment was related to the peace treaties concluded after the termination of World War 1. According to article 61 of the peace treaty, Hungarian citizens who on July 26, 1921, the day when the Trianon Peace Treaty was signed, resided in areas that had been annexed to another country lost their citizenship-even if they had not been officially released from their citizenship, and even though they had not been asked about this measure and neither had they consented to it-and automatically became citizens of the state on whose territory they happened to reside, without naturalization or any other official procedure. Hungarian citizens living in these annexed territories thus automatically became citizens of Czechoslovakia, Romania, Austria and the Serbo-Croatian-Slovenian Kingdom.

   Act L of 1879 was amended for the second time after Act XIII of 1939 had been passed. According to this law, individuals who had acquired foreign citizenship through naturalization ceased to be Hungarian citizens, as did individuals who had spent ten or more years abroad without interruption and without an appointment from the Hungarian government.

   The Ministry of Interior could also deprive individuals of their Hungarian citizenship (1) if they had been condemned under Act III of 1921; (2) if they had deserted to the enemy and served it by spying, military service, etc., or had joined enemy troops, or had voluntarily departed to enemy territory; (3) if they had accepted a post from the government of a foreign nation or a political post, or an assignment from a foreign political organization, or had become members of a foreign political organization without authorization from the Hungarian government; (4) if they left the territory of Hungary by violating or circumventing the law; (5) if they participated in the work of a foreign political organization.

   According to Act XIII of 1939 individuals could not only lose their citizenship, but could also be deprived of their Hungarian citizenship in certain cases. We can hardly speak of a political motivation in the first two cases. The ‘novelty' of this law were the provisions according to which the Hungarian Ministry of Interior could deprive individuals of their citizenship.

   Act XIII of 1939, promulgated on September 1, 1939, did have certain precedents since Act II of the same year stipulated that individuals who had lost their Hungarian citizenship must be dismissed from the army. The political sanctions concerning citizenship as contained in Act XIII were extended to economic life with the enactment of Act XIV, according to which individuals who had committed economic crimes could also be deprived of their citizenship.

   The first cases of individuals deprived of their citizenship according to these laws were published in the 1941 issue of Budapesti Közlöny.

   The breakdown of emigrants according to gender between 1871 and 1913 shows a predominance of males: the majority of emigrants were men (73.8 per cent). Until 1911, the ratio of males was higher, but later their ratio fell under 50 per cent (in 1913, for example, their ratio was 47.9 per cent). A total of 21 thousand individuals were deprived of their citizenship in compliance with Act XIII of 1939; the overwhelming majority (over 98 per cent) were men, in other words, the breakdown of individuals deprived of their citizenship does not correlate with the breakdown of the emigrants according to gender.

 Table 1. Breakdown of individuals deprived of their citizenship according to gender and year

Year

Male

Female

Total

Male

Female

Total

 

Number

Percentage

1941

  2644

225

  2869

12.9

70.5

13.8

1942

14,445

-

14,445

70.4

-

69.2

1943

  1,679

  2

   1681

  8.2

  0.6

  8.1

1944

  1,761

 92

  1853

  8.6

 28.8

  8.9

Unknown

 

 

    16

 

 

  0.1

Total

20,529

319

20,864

100

100

100

 Table 2. Breakdown of individuals deprived of citizenship between 1941-1944 according to age groups*

Age group

1941

 

1942

 

1943

 

1944

 

 

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

Number

0-14

 11

-

1

-

1

-

-

-

15-19

381

64

2698

-

202

-

 14

-

20-24

895

77

5857

-

756

1

199

 5

25-29

766

38

4279

-

332

-

155

 8

30-34

308

24

1588

-

369

-

345

 9

35-39

137

10

  12

-

  11

-

316

 9

40-44

 87

  5

   1

-

   4

-

258

11

45-49

 33

  3

   2

-

-

-

185

16

50-54

 13

  3

-

-

   3

1

133

 9

55-59

  7

-

   1

-

   1

-

  59

 4

60-64

  3

-

   2

-

-

-

  40

 5

65-69

  2

  1

-

-

-

-

  15

 2

70-X

 

-

   4

-

-

 

   7

89

Total

2,643

   225

14,445

-

1,679

2

1,726

89

Percentage

0-14

  0.4

-

-

-

  0.1

-

-

-

15-19

14.4

28.4

18.7

-

12.0

-

  0.8

-

20-24

33.9

34.2

40.5

-

45.0

50.0

11.5

 5.6

25-29

29.0

16.9

29.6

-

19.8

-

 9.0

 9.0

30-34

11.7

10.7

11.0

-

22.0

-

20.0

10.1

35-39

 5.2

 4.4

  0.1

-

  0.7

-

18.3

10.1

40-44

 3.3

 2.2

-

-

  0.2

-

14.9

12.4

45-49

 1.2

 1.3

-

-

-

-

10.7

18.0

50-54

 0.5

 1.3

-

-

  0.2

50.0

 7.7

12.4

55-59

 0.3

-

-

-

  0.1

-

 3.4

10.1

60-64

 0.1

-

-

-

-

-

 2.3

 4.5

65-69

 0.1

 0.4

-

-

-

-

  0.9

 5.6

70-X

-

-

-

-

-

-

  0.4

 2.2

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

-

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

 *N=20,864, the age of 55 individuals is unknown

    Tables 1 and 2 reveal that over 80 per cent of the individuals who had been deprived of their citizenship in 1941, 1942 and 1943 belonged to the 15-34 age bracket, while those deprived of their citizenship in 1944 belonged to the 20-54 age bracket, suggesting that Act XIII primarily affected individuals who had left Hungary after World War 1. Or, to be more precise, those who were 25 years old or younger were obviously born after 1920. The number of individuals in the over 50 age bracket who were affected by Act XIII was minimal in the first three years. In contrast, individuals who lost or were deprived of their citizenship in 1944 were well represented in the 30-45 age bracket.

   The decisions brought in 1942 and 1943 primarily affected individuals in the 15-34 age bracket (99.8 per cent and 98.8 per cent respectively). In 1941 men were represented by 89 per cent in the 15-34 age bracket, but only by 41.3 per cent in 1944. The ratio of the 0-19 age bracket is more significant in the first three years. The number of minors totalled 3372, of which only 64 were girls. Their Hungarian citizenship was withdrawn in 1941. Only 13 individuals of the under-19 age bracket belonged to the 0-14 age bracket. The ratio of the over 60 age bracket was insignificant.

   Gusztáv Thirring's Emigration from Hungary and Hungarians abroad, published in 1904, noted that in the light of the emigrants' number and their regional distribution, emigration ceased to be an interesting subject.

   The regional distribution of emigrants according to their place of residence shows that-with the exception of a few counties-emigration affected the entire country. The distribution of individuals deprived of their citizenship according to Act XIII of 1939 shows significant regional variation. However, it is impossible to answer the question of why the highest number of affected individuals (41 per cent) came from Bács-Bodrog county without a detailed study of the available archival material. The number of individuals from Máramaros, Baranya, Beszterce-Naszód and Bereg counties was also well above the average. Interestingly enough, the majority of men came from Bács-Bodrog, while the majority of women from Máramaros county.

   There is no reliable data as to the ratio of the emigrants leaving from the areas coinciding with the territory of present-day Hungary during the successive waves of emigration after the 1870s. The studies on emigration have shown that the majority of the emigrants actually came from the minorities living in Hungary. Between 1899 and 1913, the ethnic breakdown of the emigrants was as follows: 26.8 per cent Slovakians, 26.3 per cent Hungarians, 16.6 per cent Croatians, 15 per cent Romanians. The ratio of individual minorities in the Hungarian Kingdom (after World War 1) was less than 5 per cent. The official decisions on the withdrawal of citizenship usually also specify the affected individual's place of birth and residence. It is thus possible determine the number of those individuals who had been born in the area that coincides with present-day Hungary. It would appear that the counties lying in Hungary's ‘heartland' were the least affected. Since the breakdown of individuals deprived of their citizenship according to settlements that remained in Hungary after the conclusion of the Trianon Peace Treaty has not been examined yet, it is only an approximation that about 20 to 25 per cent of the individuals deprived of their citizenship between 1941 and 1944 in compliance with Act XIII resided within the boundaries of present-day Hungary. Very few of these individuals came from Borsod, Heves, Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok, Szabolcs or Zala counties. The situation is entirely different in the case of counties lying near the present-day borders.

   This ratio was 30.5 per cent for men and 26.2 per cent for women. It affected a total of 6337 individuals, of which 83 were women. Individuals from Baranya and Bereg counties were affected most (although it must be noted that some settlements in Baranya, Bereg, Moson and Szatmár counties were not part of Hungary after 1920 and 1945). We may therefore conclude that the loss of citizenship tended to affect individuals who became citizens of the neighbouring countries after the peace treaties ratified in the wake of World War 1, rather than the residents of Hungary. (Interestingly enough, this corresponds to the fact that emigration from Hungary after the 1880s tended to be from the non-central areas of historical Hungary.)

   The last decision based on Act XIII was brought on April 18, 1944. It is entirely unclear how this piece of legislation would have been applied if the war had not interfered with its implementation or if it had been applied after World War 2.

   The stipulations of Act XIII of 1939 according to which individuals could lose or be deprived of their citizenship have already been mentioned in the above. Most individuals lost or were deprived of their citizenship according to article 1 of the law-in other words, they were mostly Hungarian citizens who had continuously resided abroad for ten years without an appointment from the Hungarian government and who thus simply lost their citizenship. About 77 per cent of all those, whose citizenship was withdrawn, lost their citizenship according to the stipulations of this article. In the remaining cases, paragraph 4 of article 8 was quoted: 22 percent of the affected individuals lost their citizenship because they had left Hungary by violating or circumventing the pertinent laws. Very few individuals were deprived of their citizenship either because they participated in the work of a foreign political organization or because they had accepted a political post or assignment from a foreign government or foreign political organization without the authorization of the Hungarian government, or because they became members of a foreign political organization.

   The enactment of this law was no doubt motivated by political considerations. However, the possibilities offered by this law were not ‘exploited'. It has also been mentioned in the above that there were very few women among those who lost their citizenship (only 319!). Only one was actually deprived of her citizenship, the others simply ‘lost' their citizenship after they became foreign citizens through naturalization.

   In other words, the legal framework for depriving individuals of their citizenship with a view to political and economic goals was drawn up before World War 2. After 1947, when the Bolshevik political system was forced onto Hungary, this humiliating form of punishment was applied extensively. We must here note the unique contradictions in the process of how individuals were deprived of their citizenship. Although some articles of Acts XIII and IV of 1939 were remedied by the Provisional Government on September 13, 1945 and, later, by Act LX of 1948, other laws, such as Act X of 1947 and Act XXVI of 1948 (and the decrees on their implementation issued by the Ministry of Interior), the wording of the second citizenship act broadened the grounds for depriving individuals of their citizenship in accordance with the political intentions of the new administration.

   The law enacted in 1947 only affected individuals who resided outside of Hungary and "against whom a criminal investigation was underway for any of the crimes set down in Act VII of 1946 on the protection of the democratic state and the republic, and who had not returned to Hungary and presented themselves to the Hungarian authorities within thirty days if in Europe and within sixty days if overseas following the announcement of the ministry". The stipulations of this law were also applied in the case of individuals who had been summoned to return by the Ministry of Interior or any other ministry before the law was actually enacted.[1]

   According to Act LX of 1948, the second Citizenship Act, Hungarian citizenship could be acquired by descent, by marriage, by naturalization and re-naturalization, while it could be lost by marriage, dismissal and deprivation. According to this law individuals who had lost their citizenship could request re-naturalization if they met the requirements stipulated by the law.[2] In contrast to the first Citizenship Act, however, the government or the Minister of Interior could deprive individuals of their citizenship. According to article 16 of this law individuals who had entered the public service of another country without authorization from the government could be deprived of their citizenship by the Minister of Interior, while article 17 stipulated that the government could deprive individuals who "had accepted a political post or assignment, or had became a member of a foreign political organization or participated in its activity" or who "had left the country by the violation or circumvention of the relevant law" of their citizenship. If deemed necessary, the spouse and children were also deprived of their citizenship. Moreover, the law also stipulated that the properties of individuals deprived of their citizenship be confiscated. Act LX of 1948 thus adopted three separate reasons for the withdrawal of citizenship from Act XIII of 1939.

   The promulgation of this law marked the beginning of over four decades of confinement-the threat of being deprived of one's citizenship coupled with limited possibilities of foreign travel on the one hand, and the special permit needed to travel abroad legally on the other.[3] The possibility of depriving individuals of their citizenship cannot be regarded as a new element of this law since Act X of 1947-enabling the depriving of individuals of their citizenship who were abroad-had been enacted before the second Citizenship Act.[4]

   Act XXVI of 1948, promulgated on May 14, 1948, stipulated not only the conditions under which individuals could be deprived of their citizenship, but also set down the procedures for the confiscation of their properties. In other words, by 1948 the political motivation was complemented with an economic one. It seems likely that the latter law was formulated and enacted as part of the nationalization of industrial plants and companies in order to absolve the state from the need to indemnify the owners of these assets who had fled abroad-in other words, that it prove possible to confiscate their properties ‘lawfully'.[5]

   It would appear that 1947 marks the first year and 1981 the last year when individuals were deprived of their citizenship. A total of 1930 persons were deprived of their citizenship in this period. The year of the decision is not known in the case of 415 individuals (cp. Table 3), and thus only the data for the remaining 1515 individuals can be analyzed. With the exception of five women, all women (473) were deprived of their citizenship before 1953, as were the overwhelming majority of men. The ‘dominance' of men can most likely be attributed to the fact that the positions specified by the law were primarily filled by men. As a matter of fact, most of the women were spouses or employees of a ministry or embassy. This also means that most of these people were highly qualified professionals.

 Table 3. Breakdown of individuals deprived of their citizenship according to gender and year (1947-1981)*

Year

Male

Female

Total

1947

  8

-

  8

1948

  5

  1

  6

1949

303

 83

386

1950

343

138

481

1951

287

218

505

1952

 17

 16

 33

1953

 16

 17

 33

1958

  4

  1

  5

1961

  1

-

  1

1962

-

-

-

1963

  1

  1

  2

1966

18

  2

20

1967

  3

-

  3

1968

10

-

 10

1970

  3

  1

  4

1971

  4

-

  4

1975

  7

-

  7

1976

  1

-

  1

1977

  3

-

  3

1980

  1

-

  1

1981

  2

-

  2

Total

1,037

478

1,515

 *The 415 individuals for whom the year is unknown have not been included in this table

    The three years between 1949 and 1951 saw the highest number of decisions in this respect. Over 90 per cent of the decisions depriving individuals of their citizenship were brought during this period. Most of the affected men and women fell in the 25-54 age bracket. While four times as many men were deprived of their citizenship in the first two years, this ratio was not even its double by 1951. The number of individuals deprived of their citizenship declined considerably in 1952 and 1953. However, the ratio of the above 65 and the 1-19 age bracket was insignificant, except for 1949, when 14.7 of the girls fell in the 1-14 age bracket.

   The breakdown of the individuals deprived of their citizenship between 1949 and 1953 according to marital status is unknown. The available data nonetheless suggest that there were about three hundred couples among them, implying that the overwhelming majority of the women had been deprived of their citizenship because they had followed their spouses abroad or because they had remained with their spouses abroad even after the authorities had summoned them to return to Hungary.

   The couples that had been deprived of their citizenship had a total of 63 children between them. Although a total of 33 individuals were deprived of their citizenship in 1952 and in 1953, this form of punishment was then abandoned for a few years, presumably as a result of the political changes in 1953.

   According to the third Citizenship Act, enacted in 1957, Hungarian citizenship could be acquired by birth, by naturalization or re-naturalization, while citizenship could only be terminated by withdrawal or deprivation. At the same time, this law also broadened the legal titles whereby individuals could be deprived of their citizenship: Hungarian citizens who had committed serious criminal offences or had violated their duty of loyalty to the state could also be deprived of citizenship. According to article 12 of law-decree 55 of 1957, "those who engage in a political activity violating or endangering the interests of the People's Republic of Hungary, or who make a statement defaming and slandering the Hungarian state or its organs, or who enter the service of a foreign country without authorization violate their duty of loyalty to the state." In order to allow the state to rid itself not only of its political opponents, but also of individuals convicted for various criminal offences, this article also stipulated that the decision of whether the criminal offence was indeed as grave as to justify depriving the individual of citizenship be relegated to the president of the Presidential Council of the People's Republic of Hungary.[6] What happened was that articles 16 and 17 of the 1948 citizenship law were ‘generalized' in 1957 to allow a wide scope of application in the definition of individual cases.[7] Even so, the third citizenship law represents an advancement in the sense that disfranchisement was not based on unlawful foreign residence, but-in spite of all its elasticity-on the violation of the duty of loyalty to the state.

   Between 1958 and 1981 this means of reprisal was used in 203 cases. Interestingly enough, not one single prominent person was deprived of his citizenship or forced to ‘request' a revoking of citizenship after the 1956 uprising.

   Act V of 1957 did not extend to citizenship issues after October 1, 1993 since the collapse of the Socialist system and the democratic changes called for the enactment of a fourth Citizenship Act. When drafting of this law, legislators also took into consideration various international norms-primarily the recommendations of the United Nations-that had been disregarded during the years of Socialism. Most important among these is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states that "everyone has the right to a nationality" and that "no-one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality". This principle was considered when the new Citizenship Act was drafted and this is the most important new element of this law.

   According to new Citizenship Act (Act LV of 1993), Hungarian citizenship can be acquired by birth (ius sanguinis), by naturalization and re-naturalization by all individuals who make a statement as set down in article 21 of this law. This law no longer recognizes the option of depriving an individual of his citizenship and, at the same time, contains the provision that a Hungarian citizen residing abroad can renounce his citizenship in accordance with certain conditions set down in this law. Also, Hungarian citizenship can be withdrawn from a Hungarian citizen residing abroad, "if the citizenship was acquired by the violation of legal rules, particularly through the statement of false data, or through misleading the authorities by omitting data or facts."[8] This law no longer recognizes any political intention that allows political élite to deprive any individual of his citizenship in cases that were arbitrarily deemed as violation of the duty of loyalty to the state. The decisions on stripping individuals of their citizenship, based on the laws passed in 1947, 1948 and 1957, were rescinded on April 5, 1990, on the eve of the political changes in Hungary.[9]


 

[1]   A magyar állampolgárságra vonatkozó jogszabályok [Legislation concerning Hungarian citizenship]. Edited by Dr. Mária Parragi and Dr. Mária Ugróczki. Budapest 1993, Vol. I, 88-89.

[2]   Ibid., Vol. I, 113-114.

[3]   Ibid., Vol., 113.

[4]   Ibid., Vol. I, 88-89.

[5]   Ibid., Vol. I, 91-97.

[6]   Ibid., Vol. I, 165-166.

[7]   Ibid., Vol. I, 158.

[8]   Ibid., Vol. II, 21.

[9]   Ibid., Vol. I, 241-243.

Vissza