The Government of Hungary has proposed a new bill to tackle illegal immigration
Illegal immigration poses a real threat to the safety and security of EuropeRead more
The latest edition of Freedom in the World, an annual survey published by the Soros-funded Freedom House, places Hungary among a group of “states that a decade ago seemed like promising success stories” but are now “sliding into authoritarian rule.”
This week’s shameful example of anti-Hungary bias and ignorance comes to us – I regret to report – from the hallowed halls of the United States Senate. On January 10th, the minority staff – I’ll come back to that in a moment – of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee published a report entitled, “Putin’s Asymmetric Assault on Democracy in Russia and Europe: Implications for U.S. National Security.”
Hungarians have expressed their will and they do not want Hungary to become an “immigrant country” and they do not want the mandatory resettlement quota or any other elements of the “Soros plan” either, Fidesz spokesman Imre Puskás said
János Lázár, the minister heading the Prime Minister’s Office, said that Hungary investigated the ‘Soros files’, which was necessary to protect the Hungarian border and guarantee sovereignty, and were matters of national security
The government decided to extend the deadline because the public were still sending in their responses, but most importantly to allow for last week’s vote by the European Parliament to launch the EU's migrant relocation scheme
As I wrote last week, the European Parliament approved a regulation that would introduce a permanent and mandatory migrant quota system without an upper limit on the number of migrants to be admitted. What’s more, it says that the evaluation of asylum claims will no longer be carried out by the country of first entry, and all member states will have to accommodate migrants on an involuntary basis. Countries that don’t cooperate would be politically and financially penalized.
Antal Rogán said that the European Commission states that immigration via the Mediterranean has slowed with the onset of winter, therefore 50,000 immigrants should be “brought in” from Turkey and distributed across central Europe
Echo chambers – the lack of different opinions on a certain issue – are threatening people’s right to information in the modern age. In today’s world of social media saturated with fake news and sensational, online media fighting for page views, the echo chamber effect is growing, and those media outlets that pride themselves on professional journalism have a special obligation to restore a little reason to the discourse.
At the request of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, an intelligence assessment has been completed concerning Soros’s activities in Berlin and Brussels and the extent to which Soros has succeeded in influencing opinion against Hungary
Last week’s decision by the LIBE Committee of the European Parliament to propose a limitless resettlement quota scheme and the EP’s newest Hungary-bashing report all point in one, disturbing direction: a concerted effort to push a pro-immigration agenda that would accept an unlimited number of migrants into Europe and to strong-arm any member states that dare to oppose.
In his regular Friday morning interview on Kossuth Radio’s program 180 Minutes, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán spoke about the latest European Council meeting and the machinations of the Soros network to aggressively drive a pro-immigration agenda.
Over the course of the last two weeks, the Financial Times has run no fewer than four – yes, four – articles maligning the Orbán Government for our opposition to George Soros’ pro-immigration agenda and for the usual charge of undemocratic behavior. We must have got under their skin.
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán says “immigrant countries” constitute the biggest threat to European values and migrants coming to Europe endanger the freedom of religion, women’s equality and the fight against anti-Semitism
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has made a number of references to a Soros plan to bring one million “refugees and migrants” into Europe each year. Some are skeptical, but the doubters haven’t familiarized themselves with the facts. The plan is real.
A number of Soros-funded NGOs in Hungary have declared that they will not comply with the new NGO law and will instead boycott out of civil disobedience. There’s nothing valiant in their cause, just hypocrisy. The fact that the same NGOs have no problem abiding by even stricter rules and regulations in Germany, Austria, Israel, and the US speaks for itself.
“[O]r even if it exists today,” said Prime Minister Orbán, “it will vanish.” The prime minister, speaking during his regular radio interview this morning, was referring to the dangers of unchecked, illegal migration into Europe and the realization of the “Soros plan.”
“Hungary is taking determined action against the organisations funded by George Soros, and so is Israel, according to news reports”, according to a statement issued today by the Cabinet Office of the Prime Minister.
The heritage of a particular American billionaire speculator is not relevant to his agenda. Criticizing the radical policies he’s pushing all over the world – completely lacking any democratic mandate or accountability – is not anti-Semitism. Suggesting otherwise amounts to a cheap tactic to silence his critics and support the far-from-mainstream Soros agenda.
PM Orbán highlighted that illegal immigration is bringing a culture of intolerance and growing anti-Semitism into Europe. The prime minister wrote that “I do not expect either thanks or recognition for our fight against illegal migration, but a modicum of assistance from your community would be appreciated”
"The most recent statement by the US Department of State is another stark example of double standards, since the regulation in force in the USA is much stricter than that in Hungary. In the United States, Soros organizations could never do what they are doing in Europe," Hungary's International Communications Office said
“There is only one important and significant element of Hungarian public life that is not transparent,” said Prime Minister Orbán in the Friday morning radio interview, “and that’s the Soros Mafia network and its organizations that cannot be considered civic organizations but agents working for the pursuit of George Soros’ goals.”
Soros’s network and its "agencies" were “a significant and non-transparent component of Hungary’s public life”. Soros and “his supporters in Hungary” were seeking to implement “a program to allow migrants into the country," the prime minister said
Tamás Deutsch said that it had become apparent from a speech where Soros compared Hungary to a mafia state that he was ready to take any anti-democratic step to ensure the Hungarian government’s defeat
Democracy means first and foremost accountability and the people’s right to participate in the decision making of their lives and futures. Governments, including the Hungarian government, are held accountable and can be voted out of power. The shadowy power networks of the “open society” are accountable to no one.
Browse the international media coverage of Hungary over the last several weeks and a handful of keywords stand out: migration crisis, NGOs, transparency, media, Central European University and George Soros. While much of the coverage lacks balance, the keywords themselves can be instructive, shedding light on a far-reaching, ideologically driven and wholly undemocratic network that pushes George Soros’s “open society” agenda.
Once again, Hungarian left-wing politicians have taken domestic affairs to the stage of the European Parliament, hoping to gain traction in their political campaign against the Hungarian government. Their timely intervention intersects neatly with the interests of an American billionaire whose extreme ideas about an open society aim to undermine Europe’s external border.
Hungary's chief security advisor made the remarks in light of more than eighty people who have started demonstrations in the locality of Röszke. Bakondi said that a "Soros organization” arrived at the scene with organized transport
The Hungarian government is not closing down any universities, and that includes the Soros university. All the Hungarian government would like is for every university to enjoy a level playing field, and if someone would like to enjoy special privileges, such as issuing a diploma from outside Europe, then there must be an international agreement concerning that fact
Members of the European Parliament are so worried about the activities of certain foreign-funded NGOs that they’re calling for the EU to cut public funding for NGOs "demonstrably disseminating untruths". Others question "democratic legitimacy" of NGOs.
Something strange is happening with Transparency International. The international NGO that made a name for itself for its “global coalition against corruption” has remained rather tight-lipped about why it decided in January to strip accreditation from its US affiliate, denying it the use of the TI name and logo.
Amnesty International has just released its annual report called “The State of the World’s Human Rights.” This once-lauded international human rights organization was founded in 1961 as an advocate for the prisoner of conscience, those “imprisoned, tortured or executed because [of their] opinions or religion.” Amnesty is a far cry from that today.
The foreign minister said there was a clear demand for politics to be transparent. He argued that in this case transparency should be demanded of all organizations that influence public affairs, including NGOs, “because the people have a right to know whom these NGOs, whom these organizations actually represent”
In what is becoming an annual tradition, POLITICO Europe has published a list of 28 people “who are shaping, shaking and stirring Europe.” Each of the 28 representing an EU member state, it’s a thoughtful and provocative list and no less so with the editors’ pick this year from Hungary.
International relations has its political dimension. Certain interests will support a government or oppose it motivated by a political agenda. That’s understandable. But when purely partisan politics becomes the most important driving force behind bilateral or multilateral relations among sovereign, independent countries, then we’ve got a serious problem.
Internationale Beziehungen haben eine politische Dimension. Gewisse Interessengruppen unterstützen eine Regierung oder lehnen sie ab – je nach der politischen Agenda. Das ist verständlich. Aber wenn reine Parteipolitik zur treibenden Kraft hinter bilateralen oder multilateralen Beziehungen zwischen souveränen, unabhängigen Ländern wird, haben wir ein ernsthaftes Problem.