Which Countries are the Most and the Least Hospitable?

by Tom Kando

We hear that the number of “displaced persons” in the world is at an all-time high. Today, I want to talk about the number of migrants. According to a recent issue of   The Guardian (see Number of Migrants) there were in 2013, the last year for which comprehensive data are available, 232 million international migrants in the world;  that is, people who have moved permanently from their country of origin to another.

In this article, I do not address any of the innumerable aspects of the topic of international migration. I wish  to show one thing and one thing only: what proportion of the total number of migrants do various countries take in. Facts are important, especially when accusations of racism and xenophobia are flying in all directions, as they currently do. 

It is not clear whether The Guardian’s number - 232 million -   is an all-time record or not. If it is, it would certainly only be so in absolute terms. There have been times in history when a far greater percentage of the world’s population was on the march.  Think  of the vast  migrations aptly named  Völkerwanderung in German, that took place during and after the collapse of the Roman Empire. More recently, millions were forced or chose to migrate, including for example 14 million Germans from Eastern Europe after World War Two.

Today, millions are driven out by wars in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East, and there are  millions of economic migrants who move from Africa, Latin America and elsewhere to Europe and to North America.

As I said,  I ask one simple question: How do the world’s countries stack up when it comes to admitting foreigners on a  permanent basis? To this end, I will conflate refugees, asylum seekers, legal and  illegal  economic migrants and  other types of “displaced  persons.”

This question is important to me because (1) I was a refugee myself, and because (2) there is a lot of anger and finger pointing in the “receiving” countries, for example  in the European Union and in America.

In the US,  Donald Trump is the ugly xenophobic  voice that speaks for the millions  of Americans who are alarmed by the arrival of foreigners. In Europe, where I just spent several weeks, nativism is also on the rise, in response to the inflow of hundreds of thousands of largely Muslim refugees and immigrants.

Both American and European public opinion range from violent racist hostility towards foreign migrants to generous hospitality. Germany’s Angela Merkel is an example of the latter.  Holland’s Geert Wilders, France’s Marine Le Pen, Germany’s  far-right anti-immigrant party Alternative for Germany,  and Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban represent the former.

The mutual recriminations  come into play when each  receiving  country tries to pass the buck. This “NIMBY” behavior reminds me of the old saying,“Don’t Tax You. Don’t Tax Me. Tax That Fellow Behind the Tree.”

The members of the European Union are trying to do what any junior-high-school student would propose on day one: Allocate a proportional  part of the total number of refugees to each of the 28 members, taking into account each member’s population, economy and other relevant variables.

In one recent negotiation, Hungary was asked to receive 1,300 refugees. It refused.  Meanwhile, the  Dutch  have floated a number, “10,000,” and  Germany has  valiantly accepted  nearly a million refugees. Hungary (my country of birth) should be ashamed.

But my article is not about   the moral and political arguments raging around this issue. I won’t  dwell on such questions as the assimilation of millions of Muslims, or security, or the economic burdens.

I just want to clear up one question: How many foreign people do various countries admit on a permanent basis?

In other words, who IS, in fact, carrying a significant share of the burden, and who isn’t? Table One presents 38 countries and jurisdictions (out of a total of 230) ranked by the number of immigrants living in each. (List of Countries by Immigrant Population).

                                  Table One: 38 countries ranked by number of immigrants living in each, 2013

Country	Number of immigrants	% of total number of immigrants in the world	immigrants as % of national population
1. World	232 million	100	3.3
2. United States	45.8 million	19.8	14.3
3. Russia	11 million	4.8	7.7
4. Germany	9.8 million	4.3	11.9
5. Saudi Arabia	9.1 million	3.9	31.4
6. United Arab Emirates	7.8 million	3.4	83.7
7. United Kingdom	7.8 million	3.4	12.4
8. France	7.4 million	3.2	11.6
9. Canada	7.3 million	3.1	20.7
10. Australia	6.5 million	2.8	27.7
11. Spain	6.5 million	2.8	13.8
12. Italy	5.7 million	2.5	9.4
13. India	5.3 million	2.3	0.4
18. Kuwait	2.9 million	1.3	70.0
19. Jordan	2.9 million	1.3	40.2
24. Japan	2.4 million	1.1	1.9
26. Switzerland	2.3 million	1.0	28.9
28. Israel	2.3 million	0.9	26.5
29. Netherlands	2.0 million	0,9	11.7
31. Turkey	1.9 million	0.8	2.5
33. Qatar	1.6 million	0.7	73.8
35. Sweden	1.1 million	0.7	15.9
38. Austria	1.3 million	0.6	15.7
42. Belgium	1.2 million	0.5	10.4
43. New Zealand	1.1 million	0.5	25.1
47. Greece	988,000	0.4	8.9
51. China	849,000	0.4	0.1
54. Ireland	736,000	0.3	15.9
55. Bahrain	729,000	0.3	54.7
58. Norway	695,000	0.3	13.8
59. Poland	664,000	0.3	0.9
64. Hungary	473,000	0.3	4.7
97. Luxembourg	229,000	0.1	43.3
144. US Virgin Islands	63,000	0.1	59.3
154. Andorra	45,000	0.1	56.9
160. American Samoa	41,000	0.1	71.2
178. Monaco	24,000	0.1	64.2
225. Vatican City	800	0.1	100

Highlights:                             

1. United States: 45 million immigrants. This is  BY FAR the largest contingent. One  out of every five international migrants in the world ends up in the US. 14.3% of the people who live in America are immigrants.

2. Western Europe: The percentage of the population consisting of immigrants ranges from 9.4 in Italy to 28.9 in Switzerland. The average for  Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, Ireland and  Norway is 14.3%, which is PRECISELY the same as the US. (Note: I didn’t weigh these twelve  countries by size, when computing the average, so that is a flaw).

3. Ministates: For this group, the percentage of the population consisting of immigrants ranges from 43.3 in Luxembourg to 100%  in Vatican City. The average for Luxembourg, the US Virgin Islands, Andorra, American Samoa, Monaco and Vatican City is 65.8%

4. Eastern Europe: For this group, the percentage of the population consisting of immigrants ranges from 0.9  in Poland to 4.7 in Hungary, averaging 2.8%.

5. Arab Countries: For this group, the percentage of the population consisting of immigrants ranges from 31.4 in Saudi Arabia  to 83.7%  in the United Arab Emirates. The average for Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar and Bahrain is 59.0%

6. “New” immigrant countries: For this group, the percentage of the population consisting of immigrants ranges from 20.7 in Canada  to 27.7 in Australia. The average for these two countries plus New Zealand is 24.5%.

7. (East) Asia: For this group, the percentage of the population consisting of immigrants ranges from
0.1 in China to 1.9 For an average of 1.0%.

                                   

8. Countries currently in the  limelight: The percentage of the Turkish population that consists of immigrants is 2.5. In Greece, it is 8.9.

Conclusions:

1. By this measure, at least, the United States has to be viewed as a huge part of the SOLUTION. As I said, I am  not addressing any of the moral, economic and political dimensions of international migration. I ask one simple question: What proportion of the total number of migrants do various countries take in. It is important to look at the facts, surprising as they may be.

2. By this measure, Europe and the US are admitting foreigners at exactly the same rate.

3. Ministates are easily flooded by immigrants. In many such countries, the number of foreigners exceeds the number of natives.

4. Eastern European countries are among the world’s least hospitable to foreigners (with the exception of Russia). The rates of immigrants living among the Czechs, the Slovaks and others in this region are comparable to those of Hungary and Poland. One reason may be that these countries are still struggling economically, but another one is xenophobia.

5. In many Arab countries, the number of foreign residents is extremely high, often exceeding the number of natives. This  is contrary to the oft-heard accusation that these countries are not pulling their weight when it comes to receiving displaced  persons from war-torn and other problematic regions of the world.

6. The fact that Australia, Canada and New Zealand  still contain large immigrant populations is in line with their history, and it is as it should be.

7. Proportionally, China has the smallest number of foreigners of any country on the planet. In general, (East) Asian countries are the least hospitable to foreign arrivals, be they rich (Japan, South Korea) or still developing (Indonesia). It may be inappropriate, but I will use the unscientific word “selfish” to describe the behavior of such countries.

8. By 2016, Turkey and Greece  harbor a much larger number of displaced persons than the 2013 statistics indicate. This is because they are the floodgates for the mass exodus caused by the Syrian war.

I look forward to comments pointing out the flaws in this article.  I realize that I am not doing justice to  important distinctions between refugees, migrant workers, displaced persons, etc. But as I said, the purpose of this brief piece  is to set one thing straight: Namely to remind people what the OVERALL numbers look like. This is important, because there is widespread  misperception as to which societies are “open” and which ones are not.  Fleshing out  distinctions and addressing the moral, political and economic aspects of the world’s current refugee problem is a job for another day.

© Tom Kando 2016

 leave comment here