If you have lived in Hungary in the last 10 years, you sure have gotten used to living with the constant presence of fear by now. We are afraid of Soros, afraid of the Brussels bureaucrats threatening our sovereignty, afraid of the “pro-war liberals” and most importantly, we are afraid of “migrants”.
There were several enemies introduced to the Hungarian population by the governing Fidesz-KDNP party alliance, including “migrants”. We have been constantly told that they would “steal our jobs,” increase the chance of terrorist attacks, and even “pose a threat to our women and daughters.” After a decade of the never-ending anti-immigration narratives, it perhaps comes as no surprise at all that the attitude of the Hungarian population towards immigrants worsened.
Because it has indeed worsened. Hungarians have always carried traces of xenophobia within them – we have never been a welcoming nation towards foreigners (see below). So, what is the role of the strong anti-immigration campaign conducted by the Fidesz?
Fidesz-KDNP now has a far-reaching practice of finding the most vulnerable minority groups (members of the LGBTQ community, immigrants) and using them as scapegoats. From their perspective, this is brilliant – it gives a vision of the enemy for the majority society and most of the time, these minority groups are unable to defend against the smear campaign.
This all started at the end of 2014, by which time the popularity of Fidesz dropped dramatically due to numerous scandals – just after winning the parliamentary elections with 45% of votes, a few months later only 25% would have voted for them if the elections had been held again. Fidesz, however, found a rapid solution to its popularity problem and launched the anti-immigrant campaign, marked by PM Orbán’s announcement on public television:
“We [Hungarians] do not want to see minorities of significant size with different cultural characteristics and backgrounds among us. We want to keep ‘Hungary as Hungary’.”
The interesting thing about this is that this statement came well before the major outbreak of the migration crisis in 2015. This means that the strong anti-immigration stance that the governing party has been taking was not (or not merely) a reaction to the emerging migration crisis, but rather a tool to gain popularity by creating an enemy image for the Hungarians. Facebook posts, statements, billboards, and videos; all started to broadcast propaganda messages rejecting immigration.
But how many immigrants actually came here? And, more importantly, how many stayed?
It is true that in 2015, Hungary was the second European Union country (behind Greece) with 411.515 recorded crossings at its external borders. In certain periods throughout 2015, the average number of registered arrivals in Hungary reached 7.000 people per day. This, however, soon changed drastically. In 2016, only 1% of asylum applications were accepted, which was the lowest acceptance rate in the EU. After January 2018, due to the completion of the fence, the implementation of the transit zones system and new revisions to Asylum Law, only 1 person/day was allowed to enter Hungary in each transit zone. In 2021, only 30 applications were submitted in total.
We can clearly see, therefore, that the number of immigrants was dramatically pushed down after the ‘first shock of 2015’. This did not mean, however, the decline of strong anti-immigrant narratives. The fact that Hungary is generally rather a transit, not a destination country for migrants has not stopped the government from repeatedly and loudly campaigning against refugees ever since.
The most visible tools of this campaign may have been the billboards placed all across Hungary. The gist of the messages did not really change over the years, however, these have become more and more simplified. At first, in 2015, it seemed that the billboards were addressed to the migrants arriving here, however, all of them were written in Hungarian, suggesting that the target audience was rather the Hungarian population. Billboards from this first generation included messages such as:
“If you come to Hungary, you cannot take away Hungarians’ jobs.”
“If you come to Hungary, you must respect our culture.”
“If you come to Hungary, you must obey our laws.”
A year later, these messages may have become even stronger, and due to the emerging conflict between the European Union and Hungary’s government over the handling of the migration crises, Brussels appeared as “The Enemy”. Some of 2016’s billboards included:
“Did you know? Brussels wants to resettle a city’s worth of illegal immigrants in Hungary.”
“Did you know? Last year, 1.5 million illegal immigrants arrived in Europe.”
“Let’s send a message to Brussels so they understand!” – was the slogan of the referendum in 2016.
By 2017, it seemed that sending a message to Brussels was not forceful enough anymore, and the new billboards started to signal “Stop Brussels!”. The messages of the billboards became so simply defined, such as: “99% no to migrant ghettos!” (2024).
It is important that the government started to differentiate in their communication between migrants based on their home country. This narrative suggested that immigration is indeed a serious problem which stems from “migrant migrants” – that is, those arriving from the Middle East and North African countries. This selective messaging proved successful, as the Hungarian population started to make a distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim immigrants, with increasing hostility towards nationals with Muslim religion.
Before the emergence of the anti-immigration campaign, when in 2012 Hungarians were asked ‘To what extent do you think Hungary should allow people from poorer countries outside Europe to come and live here?’, 38.1% of respondents answered ‘allow none’. By 2016, two years well into the anti-immigration campaign, anti-immigration attitudes peaked in Hungary. The country took pole position, with an outstandingly high 62.4% saying ‘allow none’. By 2023, as the migration crises eased off, 45.5% of Hungarian respondents answered ‘allow none’, still ranking the highest among the European countries included in the survey.
Do these numbers reflect the true picture? Were we really that hostile towards immigrants? To gain a deeper understanding of this issue, I asked a 20-year-old Afghan boy, who spent 2 years in Hungary with his family since 2021.
Attaie Ahmad Seyar arrived in Hungary in August 2021, after his family decided to flee their home country, Afghanistan, due to “war, persecution, and instability”, as he listed the main reasons.
“My family decided to stay in Hungary initially because it was one of the first places where we felt a sense of security after leaving behind everything we knew” he explained.
But soon enough they had to realize that the long-term perspectives may be far from the best in Hungary, and eventually they decided to move to Germany, where they have been living since.
“We came to Hungary because it was one of the few accessible countries where we could seek asylum” he says as he starts explaining their story. “My family initially hoped for a peaceful and stable life there. At first, Hungary felt like a place of hope. The architecture, the culture, even the atmosphere in Budapest were fascinating to me.”
“However, as time passed, I started noticing a divide between how refugees were treated compared to locals, which slightly altered my perspective” – he adds, and I ask him to explain what life was like as a refugee in Hungary. “Life as a refugee in Hungary was not easy. Hungary’s immigration system is highly bureaucratic, and, many times, discouraging. The asylum process was slow, and there was a general lack of resources for refugees. Access to proper legal representation and social services difficult, making integration much harder.”
But what shapes everyday life even more than institutional questions are people. If people had been supporting and welcoming, that could have made this incredibly new and, I believe, terrifying situation immigrants had to face a lot easier. More endurable. But well before hearing the answer, I fear that it was not the case.
“While there were kind and supportive people, there were also moments when I felt unwelcome. There were instances where people treated me differently because of my background, and I occasionally experienced hostility, both in public and within institutions” he says and it makes me wonder whether there might be a difference between different groups of society in how they approach refugees. “Acceptance in Hungary depended on individuals rather than the society as a whole. But yes, younger generations and those who had personal experiences with refugees tended to be more understanding and welcoming. On the other hand, older generations, particularly those who were more influenced by government narratives, were often more skeptical and hostile.”
And with that, we arrive at another important aspect of the life of a refugee in Hungary. Media narratives.
“The government’s rhetoric made living as a refugee even more challenging. The media often portrayed refugees negatively, which contributed to public hostility. There were times when I felt unsafe simply because of how people viewed us. Walking in public places or speaking my native language in certain areas sometimes invited unwanted attention.”
This, unfortunately, shows just how much government narratives influenced public attitudes. But it is not as if many Hungarians actually interacted with refugees, and Seyar confirms that.
“I believe many Hungarians have never personally interacted with refugees in person, which makes them more susceptible to government narratives. Unfortunately, the political discourse in Hungary has painted refugees as threats rather than people in need. However, those who have personally met and engaged with refugees often develop a more compassionate and nuanced perspective. There were instances where people who initially seemed distant or wary became more accepting after having a conversation with me.”
“Once they saw that I was just a regular person with hopes and struggles like them, their perceptions changed.”
All these experiences were enough to make the family reconsider their long-term stay in Hungary. Having spent just 2 years there, they moved to Germany, realizing that long-term opportunities as refugees are limited in Hungary.
“I wanted to be in a place where I could truly belong and build a future without constant fear or uncertainty. Initially, we considered staying in Hungary, but over time, it became clear that integrating fully would be difficult. Eventually we moved to Germany in search of better opportunities and a more welcoming environment.”
When I ask him about his experience in Germany in contrast with Hungary, the mood brightens up a little.
“There is a stronger support system for refugees, both legally and socially. People are more open to diversity, and the government provides better assistance for integration.”
“In Hungary, the dominant narrative often framed refugees as outsiders, making it harder to feel like part of the society.”
Lastly, I ask him what message he would give to Hungarians who fear or reject refugees.
“I would ask them to look beyond the political rhetoric and try to understand refugees as individuals. Behind every refugee there is a story of hardship, loss and resilience. No one leaves their home and loved ones willingly unless they are forced to. Empathy and understanding can bridge the gap between fear and acceptance.”
The case of this family demonstrates well how strong anti-immigrant sentiments and narratives were still present, still felt in 2021 and 2022. There was and still is a strong differentiation between “migrants and migrants,” the relevance of which is only now coming truly to the surface.
To address labor shortages, the Hungarian government (the same that was so strongly campaigning against immigrants) has been actively supporting the inflow of guest workers, particularly from East-Asian countries (South Korea, Vietnam, India or the Philippines). It seems that economic realities can overwrite the ideological stances stating that immigrants pose a threat to Hungary and to “Christian Europe”. It appears that when economic interest dictates so, the government is willing to make compromises, even if these contradict their general political messages on immigration. The messages they have been articulating for so long and so loudly.