Hungary’s liberal, inclusive and multicultural refugee strategy

The Orbán government does not appear keen on publicizing what it has done over the years to accept and integrate migrants and refugees, nor has Fidesz shared with the public its strategy, developed in 2013 and submitted to the European Union, that aimed to make Hungarians more tolerant of diversity. According to the government’s Migration Strategy completed in October 2013, and meant to be in effect until 2020, the Fidesz-led government would:

“Encourage the establishment of NGOs focused on migration, develop their capacities and establish a forum for cooperation among these groups. The strategy would support the work of volunteers engaged in the field of integration, it would include programs to enhance a perspective of acceptance among Hungarians, launch informative campaigns and would promote an alignment to cultural diversity.”

To help align the Hungarian population to a perspective that embraces cultural diversity, and for providing refugees with housing and other support, Hungary received 98 million euros from the European Union’s Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, to be used between 2014 and 2020. All of this seems like a bad joke, in light of the endless anti-Soros and anti-migrant billboard campaigns and the “national consultations.”

But the Orbán government, despite its furious rhetoric, has been engaged in the settlement and integration of refugees and has attempted to conceal this from the public. For instance, last year Hungary accepted 1,294 refugees. Kristóf Altusz, deputy state secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that Hungary accepted people fleeing persecution due to political or religious reasons and also those who had to flee due to their sexual orientation. Mr. Altusz confirmed that the government, which at the time was already engaged in its anti-migrant and anti-Soros campaign, chose not to make this public.

Government officials were also silent on the fact that a program in Budapest has been providing subsidized or free housing to refugees. While most refugees who filed a claim in Hungary intended to move on to Austria or Germany, hundreds since 2017 have opted to settle in Hungary and have been receiving aid from the government. A housing program for refugees and migrants was launched in August 2016 and the municipal entity overseeing public housing and homeless shelters in Budapest received 83 million forints in funding from the national government. Fully 75% of the funds come from the EU, while the Orbán government covers 25% of the integration of refugees from the national budget.

Migrants in Budapest. MTI / Szilárd Koszticsák

When it became public that Budapest has had a housing strategy and program for migrants for the past 18 months, journalists were understandably interested in obtaining more information. Budapest’s Fidesz Mayor, István Tarlós and his administration, however, have prohibited the relevant department from answering any media queries on the program.

These efforts on the part of the government–accepting refugees fleeing persecution due to their sexual orientation and providing free or subsidized housing–could nuance the image abroad of a government seemingly lacking all compassion. But Mr. Orbán’s regime has been purposefully quiet on all of these efforts as they would fly in the face of the racist, anti-migrant propaganda that wins votes in Hungary.

Both Jobbik and the Hungarian Socialist Party are calling for an independent inquiry into the Orbán government’s “secret” refugee strategy.

Ultimately it is unavoidable that refugees and migrants will settle in Hungary and that Hungarians will work side-by-side foreigners in a range of sectors that are experiencing a debilitating labour shortage, particularly in construction and the hospitality industry. A lot will have to be done if Mr. Orbán is serious about “promoting an alignment to cultural diversity” in Hungarian society.


  1. How will Europe benefit from diversity? Do the “refugees” make Europe safer? Do they make Europe Europe prosperous? Does their culture conflict with Europe’s? Do they boost tourism? Do they respect the Europeans and their culture? Are they prone to crime and violence? Will they receive entitlements? Why should the be in Europe after their home is made safe?

  2. Why is it the responsibility of any European country to give these “refugees”(most are economic refugees) a better life? Europe has nothing to gain by letting or bringing these people in. Europe, your first and last obligation is to your people. What do the “refugees” have to offer? They bring nothing to the table. Europeans first in Europe, not last.
    Why don’t muslim “asylum seekers” go to Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates , Oman, Saudi Arabia or any of the other rich muslim countries? These are Islamic countries therefore more suitable for them.

    Has there ever been a European country that benefited by opening it’s borders to non-Europeans? If so, name it. Do they make Europe a safer place to live? Have they made Europe great? Are they good for tourism? Do they bring anything positive to Europe? Do they respect the citizens of Europe and the customs? Do they support themselves without burdening the tax payers? Do they burden the judicial system due to high crime rates? Do they want to replace your children with theirs? Do they love Europe or what they can get from her?

    Do they victimize the European people in large proportions to their small numbers? Wouldn’t crimes against the European people foreshadow their true intentions? Do they trash up the areas they inhabit in Europe? If they victimize the host country’s people and trash up their land after they have been given a new start at life, wouldn’t that be like a direct “screw you”? Do they demand you to change your ways and customs so they can tolerate you? Do they respect the peoples government? Your family? Your people? Your culture?

    If they are guilty of three of these questions then It would be safe to say they should not be in Europe. There is more harm than good for Europe and her people.

    If a country don’t let the non Europeans flood their land they are called “far right” “racist” “Nazis” and “xenophobic”. If they let them in, their country, their culture, their lives, their descendants lives will be torn apart. Which one is easier to live with? Which one does the most damage? Which choice is beneficial to the country and it’s people? Hint: Name calling will not destroy a country and it’s people. Europe, wake up and take a stand before it’s too late and you lose everything.

  3. The number of settled refugees is small, but how is that it all could happen in secret? The media has no “nose and ears” ? Due to the language difficulty, how long would it take to integrate those Asian and African ‘refugees’? Just how long might it take before they can be self supporting in a strange world? Can Hungary, I mean the tax-payers, afford to support those refugees on a long term?

    Yes, some are refugees or migrants. Actually Hungarians were originally migrants from the Ural area. So not much has really changed over the time. But the most humanitarian way to solve the refugee crises, as far as the middle-easterns are concern, is to achieve peace there, so they all can go home and rebuild their homes, lives and countries.

    • Hungarians are natives to the land they inhabit in every sense of the word. The Huron in North America also most likely lived in a different land 1000 years ago, than where the European colonists found them. Same is true of most other tribes, and we still call them native, and rightfully so!

  4. With all due respect dear author, do you think that Crazyhorse was a “racist” when he rejected European colonists on his native ancestral land? Hungarians are no less native to the area and country they inhabit than the Sioux were on their lands 150 years ago. Why would you call a native people who reject mass-colonization with a foreign culture that they feel they cannot absorb “racist”? Is the Dalai Lama a “racist” when he rejects colonists sent by Beijing?

    The only aspect that is despicable in my view in all this is that Hungary most likely took in those migrants in order to appease the ethno-cultural suicide zealots in charge of the EU. It is like being a reluctant member of a suicide cult and pretending to be willing to drink the poisoned cool aid, just so you can avoid a bullet in the head (economic extermination as retaliation in the case of Hungary if it would dare to try to leave the EU, or reject its agenda). This is the perfect example of how morally decadent the Western world, with its prevailing ideology has become. Face it, you do not own the moral high ground on this one, even though most Western politicians, MSM and academics think they do and they manage to convince a lot of people of it as well, thanks in large part because they manage to silence or shout down and drown out the voices of dissent. This is perverse!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *