My native country, Hungary, is facing elections next year, and without a doubt, the strategies of the political left are also palpable there.
Peter Magyar, 44, who is running against Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, is like a Hungarian equivalent of New York City state assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, 33, who is running for mayor of New York City: performative, savvy when it comes to social media, lacking any real experience and on the younger side. Magyar is ready to trade national interests for favor in the European Union, and it seems like he would bend over backward to be likable in Brussels, even if that would mean stopping our strict policies on (illegal) immigrants.
I have lived in the United States for nearly a decade, and misinformation about Hungary is plentiful. In certain circles, it’s not misinformation but pure hatred. This is also why I empathize with the Jewish community, even though I am not Jewish.
On immigration, the only thing that reaches American readers, if anything, is that Hungary is racist because it said no to the European Union’s immigration quota system, which would force the country to welcome people it does not want. This isn’t because Hungarians are racist. Rather, the country does not want people whose ideologies about how to live in a society are incompatible with its own.
This made me wonder how other European Union member states, such as Denmark, handle refugees and how these policies impact their societies. This topic is especially important 10 years after the large-scale immigration of asylum seekers into Europe has revealed clear and measurable consequences. There is a direct and well-documented correlation between the arrival of immigrants from Muslim-majority countries and an increase in antisemitism across Europe.
Denmark’s immigration policy over the past 10 years is much stricter and harsher than Hungary’s. Yet somehow, its actions are acceptable, while Hungary is treated as a black sheep. After the 2015 European refugee crisis, Denmark significantly tightened its asylum rules. In many cases, they provide only temporary protection instead of granting permanent residency. Refugee status can be revoked if the country of origin is declared safe. In Denmark, there’s no such thing as staying there forever just because life is better in that country.
In 2016, it passed the so-called “jewelry law,” which allows the government to confiscate valuables from asylum seekers to help cover public expenses. The government also tightened the conditions for family reunification, and one needs to speak the language and pass a language test to remain in Denmark. People must also prove their financial self-sufficiency and show stronger ties to Denmark than to a person’s country of origin. These rules apply not just to asylum seekers, but also to those holding permanent residency.
If Hungary had introduced rules similar to those in Denmark, I can’t imagine how much of a fine it would pay each day to the European Union for restricting immigration. The European Court of Justice fined Hungary €200 million (nearly $235 million) outright and an additional €1 million per day, last year, for refusing unchecked immigration inflows and abiding by the E.U.’s asylum laws. In response, Orbán said: “It seems that illegal migrants are more important to the Brussels bureaucrats than their own European citizens.”
Since the 2010s, Denmark has used the term “ghetto” to describe immigrant-dense areas. They introduced a “ghetto plan” in 2018 requiring mandatory preschool starting at just one year of age for children living in these zones.
Criminal penalties are also harsher in these districts, while urban redevelopment projects in these areas must not come at the expense of ethnic Danish residents. By 2030, no more than 30% of residents in a given area may be of non-Western origin. Though Denmark abolished the term “ghetto” in 2021 and now uses the phrase “parallel societies,” the policies themselves remain.
As a result, the number of asylum applications to Denmark has dropped from 21,000 in 2015 to under 2,000 annually since 2020.
What’s striking is that this strict approach enjoys broad support. It doesn’t matter if the government is right-wing, left-wing or centrist; since 2000, immigration restriction has been on the political agenda. Denmark is one of the E.U. countries that accepts the fewest refugees.
How is this possible? The short answer lies in the European Union’s legal setup, where you can ask for opt-outs. Denmark negotiated legal exemptions from specific E.U. rules when it joined the union. In plain terms, Denmark only joined the European Union on the condition that it could stay out of the Eurozone common defense policy, as well as the European Union’s justice and home affairs cooperation, which includes asylum/refugee policy. These opt-outs are legally binding treaties, meaning Denmark is under no obligation to follow the European Union’s immigration and asylum laws.
Yet Denmark loudly supports the E.U.’s immigration policies and joins those who treat Hungary as if it is committing a crime for saying no to mass migration. And here we see how European politics work: Political support does not equal legal obligation. This is Danish-style solidarity.
In practice, Denmark’s approach is far tougher than Hungary’s. Yet Hungary receives far more international condemnation.
Meanwhile, Western media, including American outlets, continue to play along. They call Denmark’s strictness pragmatism, while Hungary’s approach is portrayed as extremism or xenophobia.
How do the European Union’s policies and the actions of its member states manifest in European societies, particularly in their treatment of Jewish communities?
The facts and numbers speak for themselves. While Denmark has a strict asylum and immigration policy, it has nonetheless allowed in a large influx of people. As a result, in the last decade, antisemitism in Denmark has shown a concerning upward trend, particularly in the last two years. Studies also show that a significant portion of these incidents comes from individuals with immigrant backgrounds, especially from Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) countries.
The Jewish community’s security office (AKVAH) officially documented 207 antisemitic incidents in Denmark during 2024—the highest number since reporting began in 2012 and a 71% increase over 2023’s total of 121 incidents. They included violent physical assaults (a knife attack at a Jewish school), arson targeting a Jewish woman’s home, and other serious incidents of harassment or threats.
In contrast, Hungary, where the government rejected the E.U.’s migration policies and maintained a minimal influx of immigrants (most of whom were also vetted through transit zones, later penalized by the European Union), shows a very different trend.
Recorded antisemitic incidents in Hungary remain consistently low and primarily manifest as verbal hate or occasional vandalism, with almost no physical violence. For example, while in 2014 there were around 50 reported incidents, in 2023 that number was between 30 and 40.
Hungary’s overall trend from 2013 to 2021 shows declining antisemitic incidents that, under the current global climate, represent a true rarity.
People can stay politically correct and ignore the palpable (and proven) red flags, but doing so will only result in danger: First for the Jewish communities, and then for the rest of society, which is not prepared to align with the trends of Islamization in our Western democracies.
The signs are there. Leadership in the European Union needs to start listening to reality.
