By Viktor Marsai
There is an EU member state that has opposed the new Migration and Asylum Pact from the outset—particularly the part concerning the distribution of asylum seekers. This country responded to increasing illegal migration pressure by closing its borders: first with a physical barrier, then with legal ones, deploying not only border guards but also the army. It introduced legislation that significantly restricted access to the border area for NGOs and journalists. The measures went so far as to suspend the acceptance of asylum applications along a section of the country’s border, effectively reducing access to the asylum system to zero, while automatically applying pushbacks (forcing irregular migrants back across the border) to anyone attempting to enter.
No, this country is not Hungary—but Poland. And that is where the parallels end. While Hungary is paying a one-time fine of €200 million and an additional €1 million per day for introducing similar measures, the European Commission—and Ursula von der Leyen personally—congratulated Warsaw for its effective actions. The Commission President even posed for photos by the Polish border fence, emphasizing its legitimacy.
According to the Commission’s communications, Poland’s actions are justified as measures to defend Europe from the Russian hybrid threat (which is real). In contrast, Hungary—whose territory is by no means as tightly closed to asylum seekers, given the policy allowing declarations of intent to be submitted in Belgrade—is accused of serious violations of EU norms and punished accordingly. Hungary, the argument goes, is violating the fundamental human rights of asylum seekers. Yet fundamental human rights are universal and inalienable; from this perspective, it is irrelevant whether the Iraqi man on the Poland–Belarus border arrived there with the help of a human trafficking network or the Belarusian state. Except, apparently, it is relevant—at least according to the Commission.
How is Hungary guarding the gates of Europe? Conference and book launch in Rome in cooperation with the @InstituteDanube @mri_hungary, @Heritage and @MachiavelliIT. Europe needs strong border regimes, clear system for repatriations and more cooperation with third countries. pic.twitter.com/ra670PX3XT
— Viktor Marsai (@VMarsai) October 22, 2025
It is also worth noting that by controlling its southern borders, Hungary is protecting Europe from people approaching from another direction—whose journeys are equally organized, often with the help of smugglers guiding them through multiple safe third countries, including, in all likelihood, EU member state Greece. Nor is Hungary’s decision to protect its border merely its own; it is an obligation under Schengen rules.
Another striking difference is that irregular migrants arriving in or being pushed back to Serbia are not subjected to persecution, and Serbia’s asylum system continues to function. The same cannot be said of Belarus, where, according to reports, migrants were threatened with being sent to the Ukrainian front if they failed to reach the EU.
This alone raises questions about double standards and political pressure—especially since the Commission’s stance toward Warsaw softened after the right-liberal Tusk government came to power. The Commission’s decision to exempt Poland from the provisions of the Migration and Asylum Pact is, without doubt, an unprecedented political move.
The justification offered is that Poland took in one million Ukrainian refugees—a commendable humanitarian act. To suggest that this was done for employment or labor policy reasons would be disheartening, so let us take the explanation at face value. But by that logic, Hungary should also qualify for leniency: it opened its doors to millions of Ukrainian refugees, provided billions in aid to Ukraine, and continues to offer asylum and employment to an estimated 100,000–200,000 Ukrainian citizens—even if many did not apply for temporary protection status, making the exact number uncertain (especially since many commute between the two countries).
Or perhaps not. It seems that Hungary’s assistance was not taken into account by the Commission. Hungary has been tried and found wanting. We are still subject to the strictest provisions, must pay the fine, and must accept that our aid to Ukraine and Ukrainian refugees has been dismissed out of hand—as if it were worthless. And, of course, we remain bound by the Pact we did not support—but which will nevertheless be imposed on us.
Thank you for the opportunity to give an interview to #GBNews on Hungarian immigration policy https://t.co/VdCgklz1bQ
— Viktor Marsai (@VMarsai) August 17, 2025
Linking the issue of Ukrainian refugees with the Migration and Asylum Pact is also questionable. The former is a humanitarian matter; the latter, a legal framework. No substantive explanation has been given as to how the two are connected. For instance, could Hungary be exempted from the Pact because the Hungary Helps program carries out humanitarian work in regions of origin? Or because the country accepts thousands of Stipendium Hungaricum scholarship students from those same regions every year? Logically, yes—but such an outcome seems unlikely.
Unfortunately, it appears that the application of EU law is increasingly becoming a political weapon in the hands of the Commission and other EU institutions, used to pressure governments with whom relations are strained, while conveniently overlooking violations by those considered friendly. This paints a rather bleak picture of how the EU currently operates.
Viktor Marsai is the Director of the Migration Research Institute at the Mathias Corvinus Collegium in Budapest, Hungary
Disclaimer: www.BrusselsReport.eu will under no circumstance be held legally responsible or liable for the content of any article appearing on the website, as only the author of an article is legally responsible for that, also in accordance with the terms of use.
