The first joint regulation of foreign workers was included in the Labour Protection Act of 1922. It is revealing which law this provision was embedded in. In addition to the eight-hour workday, the right to a break, childcare for children, maternity leave, insurance, and other labour rights, the act included a paragraph stating that the employer must first obtain permission from the Ministry of Social Policy, which must first consult the local employment offices, to employ a foreigner. Permission from the Ministry was also required to recruit employees on behalf of foreign employers. “Zakon o zaščiti delavcev,” Uradni list pokrajinske uprave za Slovenijo, No. 74, 13 July 1922, 485–92. Two years later, the Ministry added an ordinance to the law that defined more precisely how to apply for the permit. The local work inspection office issued permits for up to three months, while for longer periods, the Ministry had to issue them. It also acted as the second-instance authority, deciding on appeals. “Pravilnik o zaposlovanju inozemskih delavcev,” Uradni list ljubljanske in mariborske oblasti, No. 71, 2 August 1924, 425-426. That same year, the Ministry issued a special ordinance stating that Russian refugees should be treated as local workers. “Odločba, da je smatrati ruske begunce glede zaposlovanja na našem ozemlju za enake domačim delavcem,” Uradni list ljubljanske in mariborske oblasti, No. 93, 9 October 1924, 563.

Aleksandar R. Miletić’s research shows that legislation in the early 1920s was used to expel as many foreign workers as possible. The First Yugoslavia had both formal and informal procedures, all aimed at restricting labour immigration based on labour needs and ethnicity. However, due to consular interventions, many of these decisions were reversed, as Yugoslavia feared retaliatory measures. The only firm stance was taken against Austrian citizens. Even those who had lived and worked in the territory of Yugoslavia for years were denied extended visas and work permits unless they applied for citizenship. In March 1925, the Austrian representative in Belgrade complained in official correspondence about the expulsion of their citizens and the tightening of labour regulations.Aleksandar R. Miletić, “(Regular) immigration controls in the interwar (semi-)periphery? East-central- and southeast European policy patterns,” in Kamil Ruszała, ed., Refugees and Population Transfer Management in Europe, 1914–1920s (London, New York:Routledge, 2024): 261, 273, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003472742.

In addition to other international regulations, this was probably one reason the Ministry issued the new ordinance at the end of that year. It introduced a new category: foreign workers who had begun working in the kingdom before the Labour Protection Act came into force. These workers had to submit a new request and provide firm evidence of their living and working circumstances to obtain a certificate confirming they were not subject to the Labour Protection Act. If granted, they were allowed to stay and work without having to make regular extension requests. However, this applied only if they remained with the same employer and did not leave the country for more than one month, unless the absence was work-related. “Pravilnik o zaposlovanju inozemskih delavcev,” Uradni list ljubljanske in mariborske oblasti, No. 108, 7 December 1925, 777. Another important exception was added: for the first time, a bilateral treaty of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (the Kingdom of SHS) with another country was mentioned. For foreign workers from countries with such a treaty, including a special agreement on the workforce, the law was obsolete. Ibid. This coincided with new bilateral trade and economic treaties that Yugoslavia began to sign with other countries. Previously, only those signed by the Kingdom of Serbia before the war were valid. France Kresal, “Avstrijski kapital v industriji stare Jugoslavije,” Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino 27, No. 1–2 (1987): 34.

New bilateral and multilateral agreements on migrant labour became increasingly common during the interwar period. States were no longer merely regulating the movement of people across borders – they also began acting as mediators in the international labour market. Rass, “Temporary Labour Migration,” 192. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) was established in 1919 as part of the League of Nations, and Yugoslavia joined the same year. Ratko Pešić, “International Labour Standards, and Yugoslav Legislation,” International Labour Review 96, No. 5 (1967): 443. The ILO also set standards and recommendations for the treatment of migrant workers, covering wages, social welfare, and, ideally, equal treatment with domestic workers, but these recommendations were not binding. Rass, “Temporary Labour Migration,” 200–01. Until 1935, Yugoslavia had signed four treaties (with Italy, Germany, Czechoslovakia and Romania) that included provisions on the workforce. “Nova naredba o zaposlitvi tujcev,” Trgovski list, 2 April 1935, 2.

Such agreements were primarily designed with receiving countries in mind, and Yugoslavia was not one of them. Nevertheless, as a country of origin, Yugoslavia had an interest in protecting its workers abroad. Within this framework, reciprocity became a key principle shaping the treatment of foreigners, including in broader legislation. For example, citizens, refugees, and foreigners were all eligible for unemployment support – though for the latter group, an additional condition applied: the benefit was available only if the worker’s home country extended the same support to Yugoslav citizens abroad. “Uredba (Pravilnik) o organizaciji posredovanja dela, dajanja neposrednje podpore brezposelnim delavcem in dajanja cenenih posojil za zidanje delavskih stanovanj, in sicer v breme sredstev, nabranih na podstavi pooblastitve v členu 110. finančnega zakona za leto 1922./1923,” Uradni list ljubljanske in mariborske oblasti, No. 127, 22 December 1927, 854. However, as Marjeta Keršič-Svetel has shown, reciprocity in social insurance and welfare benefits was not consistently enforced in practice, posing a significant problem for foreign workers. Marjeta Keršič-Svetel, “Češko-slovenski stiki med svetovnima vojnama (2. del),” Zgodovinski časopis 49, No. 3 (1995): 429. Combined with the bureaucratic burden of obtaining and renewing work permits, this led many to pursue citizenship instead. Ibid., see also Mira Kolar-Dimitrijević, “Statistički pregled stranih radnika i članova njihovih porodica u Jugoslaviji 1933. godine.” Časopis za suvremenu povijest 4, No. 3 (1972): 124.

During the economic crisis, when many countries adopted more protectionist policies, Yugoslavia did the same. Yet a new law regarding foreign labour was passed after the crisis in 1935. The “Regulation on the Employment of Foreign Citizens” introduced stricter conditions for obtaining work permits and increased bureaucracy. “Uredba o zaposlovanju tujih državljanov,” Službeni list kraljevske banske uprave Dravske banovine, No. 36, 4 May 1934, 276–80. The employer had to include, among other documents, a report from the local labour exchange on unemployed domestic workers in the relevant branch, as well as a list of foreign workers already employed. One of the conditions was that an employer who had received approval to hire foreign workers must, if possible, employ domestic workers or train them for these jobs. Reciprocity remained an important factor, but it also had a negative side. If the country of origin of the foreign workers limited the number of Yugoslav workers, Yugoslavia did the same for them, and if that country taxed Yugoslav workers there, Yugoslavia did so as well.

The regulation allowed applications only from employers for skilled workers, provided the local labour market permitted it or their skills were important to the country’s economic progress, and for temporary workers who came to assemble or repair imported machines. Applications could also be granted to individuals: independent workers (who did not require a business licence under crafts or similar legislation), foreign citizens of Yugoslav nationality, foreigners who had lived in Yugoslavia before 1922, and other groups determined by the Ministry of National Health and Social Policy. The latter were named in the decree adopted a few months later and included Russian war-disabled persons, other Russian refugees, and foreign citizens of other nationalities with asylum and a valid work permit. The first group was exempt from all regulations. Other Russian refugees (if they had arrived in the country before the regulation) had the same advantages as foreign citizens of Yugoslav nationality (as detailed in this decree). This meant that they could obtain a permanent work permit and were not tied to one employer; in employee personnel lists, they were counted as nationals (but had to indicate their citizenship), yet they had to register every year with the local police office. “Pravilnik za uporabo uredbe o zaposlovanju tujih državljanov,” Službeni list kraljevske banske uprave Dravske banovine, No. 83, 16 October 1935, 783–98.

The Minister of National Health and Social Policy, Drago Marušič, explained that the purpose of the new regulation was to reduce the number of foreign workers, but exemptions remained that could not be overlooked. First, there were international contracts; Yugoslavia had to proceed with caution regarding foreign workers from countries where more Yugoslavians worked (with the option of retaliatory measures), and from friendly states such as the Little Entente. Even some companies had special permission to employ foreigners. Yet there were still some improvements: only skilled workers could apply for a work permit, there were sanctions for violations, and the decree foresaw equal treatment of domestic and foreign workers. Finally, the regulation itself allowed for the re-examination of all already issued work permits. “Nova naredba o zaposlitvi tujcev,” Trgovski list, 2 April 1935, 2.

On 9 August 1929, the Slovenski narod newspaper published a query for its readers: “How to Eliminate the Housing Misery, Unemployment, and the Industrial Crisis?” The newspaper reported that unemployment among both unqualified and qualified workers was rising, and that many factories and industrial enterprises were limiting their operations or were forced to cease them altogether. After a sombre view of the issue, there was a call for readers’ ideas on how to fix it. The only instruction was to consider the extreme population growth that affects all of the above subjects. “Kako odpraviti stanovanjsko bedo, brezposelnost in industrijsko krizo?,” Slovenski narod, 9 August 1929, 2. Slovenski narod published 21 answers by the end of the year, when they started a new query about the celibacy of the women clerks. The majority of respondents suggested accelerating housing construction, which would also help to reduce unemployment and alleviate the economic crisis. Among other suggestions, some raised the question of whether unemployment insurance should be enacted or whether the number of children among poor people should be limited. Others simply elaborated on their views regarding the causes of the problems. Some blamed unemployment on either too many or too few skilled (educated) workers, arguing that everyone wants to be a clerk or is simply lazy, while others saw the problem in underdeveloped industry and low wages. “Kako odpraviti stanovanjsko bedo, brezposelnost in industrijsko krizo?,” Slovenski narod, 17, 21, and 27 August; 2 and 7 September; 4 and 12 October 1929. One-third (seven) of all respondents mentioned the problem of foreign workers or foreign capital. Most listed this among several issues, but two devoted their entire letters to this topic. One complained that foreigners are taking better-paid jobs and are seen and presented as experts, yet they were sent abroad because they were not considered good enough in their own countries. They are employed simply because of their connections and, as foreigners, are placed above the domestic population. “Kako odpraviti stanovanjsko bedo, brezposelnost in industrijsko krizo?,” Slovenski narod, 18 November 1929, 3. The second focused more on foreign capital. It presents foreign investors as the problem because they work for themselves and their own country, using Yugoslavia’s resources for their own profit. “Kako odpraviti stanovanjsko bedo, brezposelnost in industrijsko krizo?,” Slovenski narod, 3 September 1929, 2. Between the lines, there are many comparisons with colonialism.

Yet not everyone agreed with this narrative. One of the respondents to the query believed that the foreign workforce is a minor problem, as their numbers are negligible. Moreover, without foreign capital, the situation would be even worse. They argued that the problem began after nationalisation: banks sold companies back to foreigners because local capital was deposited in banks rather than invested in industry. “Kako odpraviti stanovanjsko bedo, brezposelnost in industrijsko krizo?,” Slovenski narod, 7 September 1929, 2. One reader, nicknamed Lajik (layman), on the other hand, saw migration as a solution. They proposed that the whole of Europe, along with Russia, should devise a plan to relocate people across the continent from overpopulated to less-populated areas that still have sufficient natural resources to utilise. Yet they did not believe it was possible, since capitalism preferred a sedentary population. “Kako odpraviti stanovanjsko bedo, brezposelnost in industrijsko krizo?,” Slovenski narod, 4 October 1929, 2.

The first two mentioned letters represented the general discourse, in its different forms and manifestations, on foreign workers and capital in Slovenian-language newspapers since the late 1920s, and this discourse persisted until the war. As in most other countries, xenophobia increased during the economic crisis. Marjan Drnovšek, “Velika gospodarska kriza in slovenski izseljenci,” in Neven Borak and Žarko Lazarevič, eds., Gospodarske krize in Slovenci (Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino and Zveza ekonomistov Slovenije, 1999), 123, 124.

Although legislation allowed work permits to be granted in cases of shortages of domestic workers, and during the 1930s only skilled workers could obtain permits, most newspapers argued that too many foreigners were employed and that there were enough local experts to replace them. They did not believe foreign workers were better trained, and if they were, that domestic workers should be trained rather than have the foreigners’ work permits extended. “Pri nas gospodarijo tujci,” Delavska pravica, 26 September 1934, 3. “Tuji nameščenci,” Pohod, 16 April 1935, 3. “Poglavje o ‘strokovnjakih’ in tujcih,” Večernik, 24 April 1940, 4. Franjo Bulc, “Karteli,” Pohod, 20 May 1933, 1. “O tujih strokovnjakih,” Prelom, 19 April 1934, 2. “Brezposelni tehniki in naša industrijska podjetja,” Jutro, 16 July 1932, 2.

The other problem was the foreign capital invested in the companies and the people they brought with them. The press portrayed them as hostile to Yugoslavia, accused them of exploiting domestic workers and the country’s resources, and of generally treating foreigners better. “Tujci imajo prednost pred domačinom,” Trgovski list, 25 October 1934, 2. “Nepotrebni tujci,” Slovenski delavec, 24 May 1940, 1. “Tuji nameščenci,” Pohod, 16 April 1935, 3. “Še vedno pereč problem,” Mariborski večernik ‘Jutra’, 7 May 1936, 2. It also raised security concerns. Foreign companies could sabotage the economy and the country. During the second half of the 1930s, calls for caution grew as the international situation worsened, since foreigners and their capital could be the internal enemy in the event of war. “Pri nas gospodarijo tujci,” Delavska pravica, 26 September 1934, 3. “O tujih strokovnjakih,” Prelom, 19 April 1934, 2. “Zdramite se ob dvanajsti uri,” Delavec, 15 September 1938, 1. “Nepotrebni tujci,” Slovenski delavec, 24 May 1940, 1. The Ženski svet newspaper also published an opinion that Holland’s immediate capitulation was caused by the betrayal by the foreigners (Germans) already living there. “Najgrozovitejša vojna, kar jih je doživelo človeštvo,” Ženski svet 18, No. 6 (1940): 139. Foreigners were presented as enemies, “as leeches and parasites”, feeding on the body of the nation. They were not seen as people who came to work in Yugoslavia, but rather as exploiters of Yugoslavia and its people, even during peacetime.

Several parts of the relevant legislation were criticised, but the most prominent complaint concerned its implementation. There were many calls to revise issued permits and to strengthen inspection controls, as many individuals were allegedly operating without permits. “Pri nas gospodarijo tujci,” Delavska pravica, 26 September 1934, 3. “Proti zaposlovanju tujcev,” Mariborski večernik ‘Jutra’, 3 May 1933, 2. “Poglavje o ‘strokovnjakih’ in tujcih,” Večernik, 24 April 1940, 4. Allegations also came from the Chamber of Commerce. “Zaposlitev tujcev v našem gospodarstvu,” Obrtni vestnik, 6 September 1940, 1. Less frequently, articles expressed concern about groups receiving special treatment. Foreigners who had come to the country before 1922 but had not accepted Yugoslav citizenship were seen as the most problematic. “Pri nas gospodarijo tujci,” Delavska pravica, 26 September 1934, 3. “Poglavje o parazitih na našem narodnem telesu,” Mariborski večernik ‘Jutra’, 6 May 1933, 1. Granting citizenship based on a work permit was also unacceptable. “Poglavje o ‘strokovnjakih’ in tujcih,” Večernik, 24 April 1940, 4.

The discourse of many newspapers suggests that insufficient legislation and "manipulative colonising foreigners" were not the only problems identified. The press often also blamed the public. Through (auto)stereotypes of Slovenian “serfdom”, it was often highlighted that Slovenians bowed to foreigners. In 1940, the Slovenski delavec newspaper wrote that Slovenians endured this “shameful yoke” because they were “too soft and lenient”. “Nepotrebni tujci,” Slovenski delavec, 24 May 1940, 1. Another writer commented that even the Chinese or Japanese could settle “here” without learning the language, because Slovenians were so “soft at heart and so lukewarm” that even workers would learn their language in just a few days, as they believed this demonstrated the highest level of culture. “Narodna zavednost in naše delavstvo,” Pohod, 10 September 1932 The Ženski svet magazine even published an article on how to interact with foreigners. One piece of advice was always to try to speak Slovenian first, and only if that did not work, try something else. The idea was that Slovenians must first respect themselves so that foreigners will respect them too. Pavla Hočevar, “Pokažimo se svetu,” Ženski svet 17, No. 7/8 (1939): 158. In economic terms, it was not just about pledging to buy only domestic goods, but also about criticising the mentality that the foreign is always better. The foremost example was the Trgovski list journal, which stated in 1934 that the public was also guilty of the legislation on foreign labour not being fully enforced because people continued to respect foreigners. The public “still cannot shake off its deference towards foreigners, especially those who work among us and are paid better here than any of our own people. And it is this deference that is to blame for the fact that every regulation regarding the employment of foreign workers is enforced extremely loosely – so loosely that, in practice, it carries no weight at all.” “Tujci imajo prednost pred domačinom,” Trgovski list, 25 October 1934, 2.

The state remained caught between its aspirations and the realities of economic needs and international obligations. Legislation tightened the conditions for work permits, while exceptions proliferated. Regarding the issuance of trade licences, Pejić wrote that the authorities remained largely legalistic, thereby satisfying neither the public nor the legislator. Oliver Pejić, “Dometi i ograničenja pripadnosti državnom narodu u Kraljevini Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca: iskustva iz ‘prečanskih krajeva’,” in Natalija Dimić Lompar, Ognjen Tomić, and Nikola Koneski, eds., Nova istraživanja jugoslovenske prošlosti: perspektive sa postjugoslovenskog prostora (Beograd: Institut za noviju istoriju Srbije 2025), 173, https://doi.org/10.31212/2025.nova.istrazivanja.pej.159-180.

It was precisely these exceptions, based on citizenship, national or international treaties, or fear of retaliatory measures, that created differences in employment opportunities among various categories of foreigners. A second axis of differentiation was nationality: members of the SHS national enjoyed certain employment advantages over others. They also had an easier path to citizenship, even within the relatively technical first-decree process, which determined citizenship based on pertinency. Under the new law, certain advantages were extended to Slavs and Russian refugees of Slavic origin as well, thereby influencing employment opportunities.

In public discourse, foreignness is a far more fluid and elusive concept. The influence of legal definitions and assigned nationality is evident, yet foreignness was also tied to the very act of migration – a rural dweller seeking work in the city, a migrant from another Banovina, or a refugee could all be perceived as foreign, regardless of their nationality. Notably, the latter groups were more frequently associated with lower social strata, whereas foreigners, defined by citizenship and/or nationality, were more commonly linked in the discourse to better-qualified, higher-skilled positions.

The research was conducted as part of the infrastructure program Research Infrastructure of Slovenian Historiography (I0-0013), funded by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency (ARIS) from the state budget.