The contradictions in Hungary’s immigration policy and communication

In his recent speech, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán declared, “By 2035, Hungary must be demographically self-sustaining. There can be no question of population decline being compensated by migration. The Western experience is that if there are more guests than hosts, then home is no longer home. This is a risk that must not be taken.” This reflects the government’s longstanding “no migration” stance, a key ideological pillar since the 2015 migration crisis. However, Hungary’s current migration policy is more complex and contradictory than this message suggests.

In this blog, partly based on the results of our recent study on diverse immigration attitudes towards various immigrant groups, I will trace the contradictions between the Hungarian government’s communication about migration and its policies on migration and demonstrate the risksit poses to social cohesion.

The “No Migration” Message

The anti-immigration rhetoric of Orbán and the Fidesz government has been well-known since 2015. During the height of the European migration crisis, while Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel called for a welcoming approach (“Wir schaffen das!” / “We can do this!”), Orbán continuously expressed opposition to immigration in every possible national and international political forum. The Hungarian government framed immigrants as threats to job opportunities, culture, and public safety, employing language and arguments often associated with far-right parties.

Despite these public statements, Hungary is generally defined as a transit, not a destination country for migrants. The number of immigrants settling in Hungary is minor compared to other Western European countries. Nevertheless, Orbán and his government’s narrative remains unambiguously hostile,  even expressing their unwillingness to deal with immigrants crossing, let alone staying, in the country.

Selective Acceptance: Eastern Migrants vs “Others”

Orbán’s “no migration” stance has shown signs of flexibility, particularly since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  Although Viktor Orbán continuously refers to immigrants as a danger that Western European countries try to force on Hungary, he has started differentiating in his communication between “migrants” from the East and those from other regions, especially from the Middle East and North Africa. The cultural references in his speeches allow us to infer that he associates Muslim immigrants above all else as enemies. Research by Benczés and Ságvári in 2022 highlighted the shift in the Hungarian political and media discourses over time, with migrants increasingly associated with adverse outcomes.

This selective messaging has influenced public attitudes. In a recent study that Attila Farkas and I conducted, we analysed focus group discussions and found that Hungarians also tend to differentiate between Muslim and non-Muslim immigrants, showing the success of Orbán’s immigration frames. When discussing immigration, even though there was no related question, our participants insisted on grouping immigrants as “Ukrainian migrants” and “migrants migrants” – namely, Muslims arriving from the Middle East and North African countries. They would further suggest that immigration is a problem that stems from “migrants migrants.”

Contradictions in Practice: The Reality of Guest Workers

Despite the anti-immigration stance from both the government and the public, in recent years, the Hungarian government has been facilitating the settlement of guest workers, mostly from East-Asian countries (such as South Korea, Vietnam, India, or the Philippines), to address labour shortages. While employing non-Hungarian guest workers can be relatively costly, their number continues to grow in Hungarian companies, driven by their high productivity and dedication.

However, these workers often face poor conditions, including long hours, unsafe conditions, and inadequate housing in guesthouses. Further conflicts between guest workers and Hungarian workers are also common, highlighting a tension between the government’s public narrative and its economic policies.

The clash of civilisations, policy and communication

Orbán’s rhetoric mirrors Samuel P. Huntington’s concept, the“clash of civilisations”: he suggests that there is an irreconcilable conflict between various civilisations of different religious, cultural and social norms. The Hungarian government presents a narrative that portrays Muslim immigrants as threats to European (Christian) homogeneity. Yet, economic realities seem to override ideological stances. When foreign workers can fill labour shortages effectively, the Hungarian government is willing to make concessions, contradicting its general political messaging on immigration.

These contradictory trends in communication and policy risk inducing further ambivalence and division among the Hungarian public. The government’s actions suggest a selective openness that is not consistently communicated, potentially exacerbating tensions between citizens and different migrant groups. If the government fails to address these discrepancies and their social impact, the consequences could affect both citizens’ and immigrants’ daily lives.

Orbán’s government continues to assert that it “defends Hungarian people from immigrants,” yet the complexities and contradictions in its policies suggest a more nuanced reality. The question remains: How sustainable is this selective migration approach in the long term?

Acknowledgements: Several thoughts in this article were formulated during an interview with two students from Corvinus University of Budapest, Meerim Torokeldieva and Ho Thi Minh Anh. Thank you very much for the opportunity and for the inspiring questions!

Eszter Farkas is a PhD Candidate at the Doctoral School of Political Science, Central European University. She was a visiting fellow at the Migration Policy Centre.