Human rights organizations have criticized Hungarian Prime Minister Péter Magyar and his government for employing rhetoric on migration that they argue closely resembles the language used by former prime minister Viktor Orbán and Fidesz over the past decade, despite the government’s promise to break with many aspects of the previous administration’s political culture.
The criticism follows parliamentary sessions earlier this week, during which MPs debated the controversy surrounding secret government plans to establish a migrant camp in Vitnyéd in 2024. Over the weekend, Péter Magyar’s administration released internal documents which it says prove that the Orbán government secretly prepared plans for a migrant reception facility near the Austrian border while publicly denying any such intention and campaigning against migration.
Magyar accused the former government of deceiving the public and argued that the papers revealed one of the Orbán administration’s ‘biggest political lies’. Among the documents was a summary of a government meeting stating that ‘for 2026 it is necessary to escalate the political conflict related to migration’, which the Tisza government interpreted as evidence that Fidesz intended to further politicize the issue ahead of the parliamentary election.
However, the language used during the government’s attacks on Fidesz and Orbán has itself drawn criticism from rights groups.
In a statement published during Monday’s parliamentary debate, Amnesty International Hungary argued that Magyar and several Tisza politicians had ‘maxed out the exclusionary anti-migrant rhetoric that Hungarians have become accustomed to and grown to hate from Viktor Orbán and Fidesz over the last ten years.’ The organization said it understood the political motivation behind exposing what it views as Fidesz’s contradictions, but argued that the government should be able to do so while speaking about migrants and asylum seekers ‘with respect for their rights and human dignity’.
‘Amnesty International Hungary argued that Magyar and several Tisza politicians had “maxed out the exclusionary anti-migrant rhetoric”’
According to Amnesty, a ‘functioning and humane Hungary’ should be a country where governments are capable of discussing complex social issues without resorting to exclusionary language and where vulnerable groups are not used for political purposes. The organization pointed out that Tisza had previously distanced itself from what it described as Fidesz’s rhetoric towards sexual and gender minorities and called on the government to show similar courage regarding migration.
The criticism echoes concerns that human rights organizations have raised for years regarding the migration policies and communication of the Orbán governments. Amnesty International, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, and several European institutions regularly accused Fidesz of portraying migrants and asylum seekers primarily as security threats, linking migration to terrorism, crime, and cultural decline through government campaigns and political messaging.
Critics argued that such rhetoric contributed to fear and social stigmatization, while measures including border pushbacks and restrictions on asylum applications have undermined refugee rights. Orbán and Fidesz consistently rejected those accusations, arguing that their policies reflected the will of Hungarian voters and were necessary to protect Hungary’s sovereignty, public security, and external borders.
The Hungarian Helsinki Committee issued similar criticism, arguing that refugee policy should not be reduced to political slogans but should instead focus on practical problems, human lives, and lawful solutions. The organization said one of the key tests of whether Hungary is truly ‘moving beyond the Orbán era’ will be whether ‘fear-based messaging and political manipulation’ are replaced by ‘fact-based policymaking and honest public debate’.
The organization further argued that Hungary requires an asylum system capable of simultaneously guaranteeing border security, respect for the rule of law, and protection for those fleeing persecution. It maintained that none of these objectives can be achieved without the others. Referring to the European Court of Justice ruling that led to the country’s €200 million fine and ongoing €1 million daily penalty, the organization argued that the core problem is not a lack of migrant camps but the absence of lawful and accessible asylum procedures.
The backlash highlights the increasingly delicate position Péter Magyar and the Tisza Party are being driven into. The party won a landslide victory on 12 April, ending the 16-year rule of Viktor Orbán and Fidesz with a promise of full-scale regime change and a reform of Hungary’s political culture. However, in an effort to attract as many voters as possible under the anti-Orbán umbrella, the party has maintained positions on several issues that are similar to those previously held by Fidesz, particularly on migration.
Interior Minister Gábor Pósfai recently reiterated that the government rejects the EU Migration Pact in its current form and will not submit a national implementation plan unless the framework changes. This was one of the main political confrontations between the European Commission and Viktor Orbán in recent years.
‘Budapest also continues to oppose mandatory migrant relocation quotas’
Budapest also continues to oppose mandatory migrant relocation quotas and financial contributions in exchange for not accepting migrants, while insisting that migration challenges should primarily be addressed outside the European Union.
At the same time, the government has sought to distance itself from certain aspects of Orbán-era migration policy. It has opposed proposals to restrict temporary protection for certain categories of Ukrainian refugees and has repeatedly stated that it wants to eliminate the daily EU fines imposed over Hungary’s asylum system.
At the time of writing, neither Péter Magyar nor the Tisza Party had publicly responded to the criticism, which is itself noteworthy, as the prime minister has usually been quick to respond criticism coming from opposition parties.
Related articles: