Viktor Orbán on Italy, Immigration, and the Policies of Donald Trump

Yesterday Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán gave an interview at the EU conference in Malta. Below are excerpts from his remarks concerning immigration into Europe and the policies of President Donald Trump.

Many thanks to CrossWare for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:


1:13   Italy previously represented a different point of view. Now they have a new government and
1:17   a new prime minister, and I see that they are also joining the group of countries,
1:21   to which we also belong, who say the situation is untenable.
1:25   The direction followed by the European Union is wrong;
1:29   The direction Hungary has followed is correct. So instead of
1:33   letting them in and solving their problem, we should
1:37   bring help to them at their location, instead of letting them into our territories.
1:41   Practically speaking, this means — if Italy also joins this club —
1:45   — our club — that means
1:49   we would gain the capability at the coastal waters of Libya
1:53   to prevent the crossing of the [Mediterranean] sea,
1:57   and we would be capable to send the migrants back
2:01   to Libya instead of transporting them into the EU.
2:05   I think that is an important change, a great step forward, a serious chance.
2:40   The USA decided that [travelers from] some states will not receive visas. The United States has
2:44   every right to do this. This is none of European countries’ business,
2:48   and we must concentrate on our problems and solve those,
2:52   and not criticize the decisions made by the United States.

8 thoughts on “Viktor Orbán on Italy, Immigration, and the Policies of Donald Trump

  1. He is correct. To fix any problem one needs to visit the source of the problem and treat it there not when it festers into mass waves of humanity seeking better living conditions.

    And in his assessment, he does not mention the original role of the United Nations in all this mass immigration, and that role was to prevent such catastrophes as we now witness but, the United Nations has now become a political bureaucracy more concerned with implementing Globalist ambitions than in fixing those problems that should never have been left unattended to.

    Let us be rid of the United Nations.

    • Yes – The UN has to go!! I was stunned when I learned of the identity of the new UN Gen Sec – Antonio Guterres. He is one of these mad ‘no-boarders’ lunatics who has set his sights on destroying ‘the west’, by getting millions of invaders from the Third World into western countries. Utterly incapable of seeing the consequences and disregarding rights of the indigenous people – which I thought the UN previously sought to protect.

      Here is a link to an article about this fool:

    • With all due respect, I don’t think it’s the job of Europe or the US to fix problems in other countries, or to provide safe zones for refugees.

      It’s not simply the UN, but the US and NATO who sponsored the overthrow of autocratic, dictatorial governments in the Middle East, causing untold chaos, death and social dissolution. The last thing we need is more outside meddling in the affairs of the region.

      At the least, meddling in the affairs of these countries is going to bring in additional “refugees”. What happens is that there are people assisting the occupation forces, whether out of idealistic or mercenary motives. Inevitably, the occupation fails in its mission, evacuates, and suddenly millions of people who claim to be allied with the occupation forces apply for asylum on the grounds that they will be killed for their “assistance” if left in the country.

      • You are not digging deep enough Ronald because those problems you raise are the result of a deliberate agenda.

        My research has shown to me that the United Nations, and prior to that, the League of Nations, were always meant to be Globalist tools – and on that score, one only need to look back over who championed their setting up as to their original thinking.

        Ask yourself why the United States, a major donor, decided to not be a member of both establishments choosing instead to deal with them through the Council for Foreign Relations.

        Then ask yourself why it is only the West that has been saddled with the United Nations refugee policy, Human Rights laws, Multiculturalism and its fascist enforcer, political correctness, as well as other nation destroying policies that our political elites have been way too eager to sign us up to without our permission.

        My comment stands as a reminder of what the United Nations was supposedly put in place to help prevent not become part of the problem through its promotion of the third world into the first world via borderless countries whose political class were paid by the Globalists to uphold their agenda of destroying the world stability of Western civilization.

        I believe it would be safer for all concerned, easier logistically, more beneficial to both the sender and the recipient to provide assistance through financial, educational and technical means to those countries within the third world to better themselves?

  2. “To prevent the crossing “. Really?

    What happened to all those finger-pointing hypocritical Europeans who sneered when Australia adopted similar policies towards ‘boat people’. It’s easy for countries to assume the moral high ground when they’re not faced with large scale uncontrolled immigration. When they are, the tune changes very quickly.

  3. It has been great reading this Article and it is also my Philosophy: “Put an evil in the corner where it can be controled and delt with rather than allow it to your Teritory.
    This is an Ideal man’s Idea.

  4. Muslims are fleeing the ravages of Islam. What are they bringing to Europe and elsewhere? Those same ravages. These “refuges” don’t suddenly get better once they enter a host country.

  5. Mr Orban is right, absolutly right.
    If you want to help them stay where they are instead of allowing to come to
    your contry and then what?????? Keep them on welfare for 10 years or longer??


Comments are closed.