Hungary exhibits some interesting patterns of international migration. Since the late 1980s, it has been a country of destination; however, recently, the net positive migration has been declining. The country has mainly received immigrants of Hungarian origin from neighbouring. Despite the long-term increase in the emigration of Hungarian citizens, the size of the Hungarian population has been positively affected by net migration meaning it could balance part of the population decrease. Within this movement of people, asylum seekers have always played a very small role as even when larger numbers asked for asylum just a few stayed in the country, and few were granted protection. Following the radical restriction of the asylum system in Hungary after 2015, numbers of asylum seekers have further declined from the thousands to the dozens. Among the foreign citizens residing in the country, people who have come for economic or educational reasons have become increasingly significant over the past decade.
Overall, immigration has helped to slow the decline of the population size but has not stopped the population decline due to ongoing low fertility and relatively high mortality. Of all the countries in Eastern Europe, which was the first region to show a massive decline in population size globally, Hungary was one of the most fragile, and started the decline in 1981. Due to massive governmental support and an improvement in the labour market situation in the 2010s, there was a slight increase in fertility, but these gains were lost between 2023 and 2025.
Selective perception of migration
Since 2015, the Hungarian government has claimed to be following an anti-migrant policy, which actually only referred to a fight against the immigration asylum seekers from the Global South. Its attitude towards other migrant movement is selective, but not fundamentally negative. In 2011, it introduced easier access to Hungarian citizenship for those born outside the country but with ethnic and/or historical territorial links to it.
In the second half of the 2010s, the need for extra labour increased. So, the Hungarian government reacted first with the easing of entry for Ukrainian workers, and later with the introduction of a guest worker programme offering tens of thousands of labourers, mainly from East Asia, within a special and very restrictive system. By 2025, the number of Asian citizens residing in Hungary (mostly for employment purposes) had risen to almost 100,000, representing 40 percent of the total foreign citizen group.
Overall, there is the chance of a positive discourse on migration, how it may help a small nation and language community survive. However, this has not been the case due to various historical and social factors, like a longer term relatively high negative public opinion on immigration. Migration was a taboo topic during the socialist times and even earlier historical precedents in which immigration, such as that of Eastern European Jews in the late 19th century, was equated with the arrival of ‘foreign elements’ shaped that negative narrative. A bigger debate on migration only came up in the early 2000s, when the socialist opposition and the subsequent government used anti-migrant rhetoric mainly against incoming Hungarians and the idea of providing double citizenship for ethnic Hungarians living outside the country.
Hungarian migration policy and the impact of 2015
Over the past decade, Hungary has played an important role in the intensifying global debate over migration as an EU member state. Since 2015, the Hungarian government has openly and vocally taken a stance against any form of 'illegal', meaning forced migration in international, EU and local debates. Even before 2015, the government was critical of the idea of migration as a substitute for demographic losses, but this position did not become tightened until then.
It was also in 2015 that the anti-migration discourse was massively instrumentalised for political purposes in order to expand Viktor Orbán's government's power base by maintaining a permanent state of crisis. That was when the dismantling of the asylum system in Hungary began. In 2016, the government organised a referendum opposing the EU's proposed "relocation quotas" among the member states for asylum procedures which would also require Hungary to accept more asylum seekers in order to process their asylum applications.
In 2018, the parliamentary election campaign was based on opposition to the so-called 'Soros Plan'. This is a conspiracy theory which says that the billionaire George Soros, who according to the government propaganda, supposedly proposed the settlement of one million refugees in Europe annually. Since then, the Hungarian government has interpreted all efforts to reform the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) as an attempt to overrule national sovereignty in deciding who the people in Hungary live alongside. It also views this anti-migrant rhetoric as a reaction to previous failures of the asylum system and integration policies in the EU. Also in 2015, the government introduced a state of emergency related to an alleged 'mass migration' to extend its rule by decree by being able to bypass the parliament in law making and this state of emergency has been maintained ever since.
During this time, the Hungarian public became even more receptive to anti-migrant discourse. According to the European Social Survey, since 2002 the Hungarian public, along with many other Eastern European countries, has held extremely negative views on taking in immigrants from non-European countries.
Migration discourses in the Hungarian society
In view of the prevailing social discourse, a change in migration policy can not currently expected. Migration has been a divisive issue in population discourse, creating two competing blocks
The pro-market and managed migration block primarily addresses topics involving Eurocentric perceptions of a common market based a non-nationalist, federal Europe. In these formations, the Western European core countries are seen as representing development and civilisation. These discourses also integrate the idea to promote joint European management of migration, including reform of the common asylum system. In these views this type of management must satisfy liberal humanitarian ideals while also involving certain utilitarian benefits of marketisation,
The following topics characterise this perspective:
The EU's policy stands for ‘normal’ in the sense of unspecified humane migration management and control. The West is seen as civilised and its ways are expected to be followed by Eastern European countries. This also applies to the reform of CEAS, which is both a humanitarian act and a necessity.
Market and labour needs should be met through migration.
Fundamental values such as liberty, human rights, solidarity and civilisation are to be protected, even if this proves difficult in relation to migration.
Europe should defend its borders, interests and values, including in relation to migration, most importantly at its eastern borders.
The nationalist threat is dangerous and appears most significantly in Eastern Europe; it must be contained.
Humanism must be protected and applied to defend the vulnerable.
The inequality and unequal exchange between Western and Eastern Europe leads to the exploitation of Eastern European migrants in terms of wages and working conditions.
The nationalist block promotes ideas and discourses that legitimise state-level control and cultural and historical opposition to market-oriented, open EU-managed migration. This group stokes the imagination of being under attack by migrants, evil actors supporting them and a demand for repressive reaction, particularly concerning non-European (and specifically Muslim) asylum seekers.
Direct intervention into population processes (border fences, legal restrictions, positive incentives for childbirth) is needed to defend and support the “local” and the “normal”. These interventions are required to prevent “unwanted” migration and boost local fertility rates.
There is a need to defend national identity and sovereignty against 'globalist' elites who are supposedly imposing their will on nation-states regarding migration-related issues. This intervention is evident in the reformed CEAS.
The claimed decline and chaos of the West and the EU hinder the emergence of real answers to migration based on 'strength' and 'fundamental' values.
Central or Eastern Europe, is the last bastion of Europe as opposed to the declining West, maintaining historical European values.
Security mechanisms must be strengthened against imminent terrorist and criminal threats arising from migration.
Migration pressure from non-European countries has emerged due to grave economic and ecological problems, as well as overpopulation. Europe does not need to solve these issues within its borders but rather provide assistance outside of Europe.
There is a need to defend “endangered” white Christianity (as a historically important force) from liberal identity politics. This discourse has promoted a more humane approach towards Ukrainian refugees receiving temporary protection. The Hungarian government claimed in the media that Hungary had done all it could in this respect.
Overall, the debate is embedded in an East-West discourse in which the nationalist block sees the West as positioning itself hierarchically above the Eastern European countries. In this perception, the nationalist block is fighting against the second-class status of Eastern European countries, while the pro-European block views Hungary as less European.
Possible outcome: further securitization
There are little but important overlaps between the discursive blocks, meaning different groups may agree even on negative terms. They can agree on the West's decline in terms of values, security, migration pressure, and the need to build a stronger Europe. Co-occurrences of both block’s representatives and possible overlaps show that in Hungary a new European ideal is emerging (where the groups can converge), based on a stronger, more assertive and securitized Europe in relation to the outside world that maintains a certain humanism towards selected groups (whites, Europeans, and Christians); while combatting intra-European inequality and the immigration of people form the Global South.