TOP 10 Countries by Share of Foreign-Born Population (2025)
Foreign-born share of the population: why a small group of countries looks radically different from the rest of the world
The global foreign-born share remains modest at roughly 3.7% of world population, yet the distribution is highly uneven. In a small set of destination countries, the foreign-born population is not a marginal group but a central part of the resident base. In the most extreme cases, people born abroad account for a majority of everyone living in the country.
This ranking focuses on the top countries by share of foreign-born residents using the UN DESA International Migrant Stock 2024 revision, interpreted through the latest country-level data for 2023–2024. The result is not a list of countries with the biggest immigrant populations in absolute numbers. It is a list of places where the resident population structure itself has been transformed by migration.
The world hosted roughly 304 million international migrants in 2024, but most countries remain far below the top-tier destination shares.
At the upper edge of the ranking, the foreign-born share is many times higher than the global norm and often reflects structural labour demand.
The top of the table is dominated by Gulf economies, compact high-income hubs, and a smaller number of mixed labour-and-refugee destinations.
Why share matters more than headline migrant totals
Countries such as the United States and Germany host very large numbers of foreign-born residents, yet immigrants still make up less than one fifth of the total population. In contrast, in the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait or Luxembourg, the foreign-born population represents a far larger fraction of everyone who lives there. That distinction is crucial. The share measure captures how deeply migration shapes labour markets, housing demand, public services, language use and long-run political debates.
A very high foreign-born share usually reflects one or more structural drivers: heavy reliance on temporary labour migration, open regional labour mobility, an outsized role for finance and logistics, or long-running refugee inflows relative to a small national population base.
Top 10 countries by share of foreign-born population
The list below corrects the near-tie at the bottom of the original ranking by placing Australia ahead of Switzerland because 31.5% is above 31.0%. All values remain rounded estimates based on the source material.
A classic labour-importing Gulf economy where the resident base is overwhelmingly shaped by foreign workers rather than natural increase.
The share is exceptionally high because a small citizen population sits alongside a very large imported labour force concentrated in construction and services.
Kuwait fits the same broad Gulf pattern: foreign workers form the backbone of many sectors and materially change the population balance.
Small size amplifies the impact of labour inflows, pushing the foreign-born share above the halfway mark.
A European financial centre where open labour mobility and cross-border integration have produced one of the highest foreign-born shares outside the Gulf.
Singapore combines regional labour inflows with high-end global talent attraction, making migration central to both low-wage and high-skill segments of the economy.
Jordan stands out because refugee hosting and regional mobility matter alongside labour-market demand.
Saudi Arabia combines a very large migrant stock with a lower share than the smaller Gulf states because its total resident population is much larger.
A classic settler economy where the foreign-born share reflects long-run skills-based migration, family migration and deep integration into Asia-Pacific mobility.
Switzerland’s high share comes from decades of labour demand inside the European economic space rather than a Gulf-style temporary-worker model.
| Rank | Country | Foreign-born share of population | International migrants |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United Arab Emirates | ≈ 89% | ≈ 10.0 million |
| 2 | Qatar | ≈ 78% | ≈ 2.3 million |
| 3 | Kuwait | ≈ 67% | ≈ 3.2 million |
| 4 | Bahrain | ≈ 52% | ≈ 0.8 million |
| 5 | Luxembourg | ≈ 51% | ≈ 0.35 million |
| 6 | Singapore | ≈ 45% | ≈ 2.3 million |
| 7 | Jordan | ≈ 41% | ≈ 4.7 million |
| 8 | Saudi Arabia | ≈ 32% | ≈ 13.0 million |
| 9 | Australia | ≈ 31.5% | ≈ 8.6 million |
| 10 | Switzerland | ≈ 31% | ≈ 2.7 million |
Source base: UN DESA International Migrant Stock 2024 revision plus complementary national statistics. Values are rounded estimates for the latest available 2023–2024 country-year observations.
Chart 1. Foreign-born share of population, Top 10 countries
The bar chart visualises just how concentrated extremely high foreign-born shares are. Outside the first few countries, the world quickly moves back toward much lower population shares.
Methodology
This article measures the foreign-born share of the population, not the number of non-citizens and not the annual number of arrivals. The core concept is simple: what share of current residents was born abroad. The ranking is built around the UN DESA International Migrant Stock 2024 revision and then read together with the latest national statistics where those provide more current country context.
The reference year is effectively a 2023–2024 snapshot used for a 2025 analytical view. Values are rounded because the source material itself mixes stock estimates, revised country files and national statistical releases with slightly different reporting calendars. The article prioritises comparability over false precision.
There are also important limitations. “Foreign-born” is not the same as “foreign citizen”; naturalised residents may still be counted as foreign-born, while some labour or refugee populations may be recorded differently across national systems. Very high shares in Gulf states reflect temporary-worker systems; high shares in countries like Jordan can also reflect refugee hosting; and in countries like Australia or Switzerland, long-settled foreign-born communities are part of the explanation. The indicator is therefore powerful, but it always needs interpretation.
Key insights
The top of the ranking is structurally concentrated. Countries above 40% foreign-born are not simply “popular destinations.” They are places where migration is woven into the operating model of the economy or the regional political setting.
There is no single migration model behind high shares. The Gulf economies rely heavily on labour-importing systems tied to employer demand. Luxembourg, Singapore and Switzerland reflect open or specialised labour-market integration. Jordan reflects a mixed labour-and-refugee dynamic.
Small populations magnify the effect. A few hundred thousand or a few million foreign-born residents can transform the population structure of a microstate or city-state much faster than in a large continental economy.
Share and stock can point in different directions. Saudi Arabia has a lower share than UAE or Qatar but a much larger migrant stock. That is why analysts should never treat the ranking as a substitute for absolute numbers.
What this means for the reader
If you are comparing countries for relocation, the foreign-born share tells you something practical about how internationalised everyday life may feel: labour markets, service languages, school systems, housing demand and political debates can all look very different in countries where one third, one half or even more of residents were born abroad.
If you are reading the data as an investor or policy watcher, the indicator helps explain structural dependence on migrant labour, the sensitivity of some economies to border rules, and the tension between economic openness and citizenship policy.
If you are simply trying to understand migration headlines, this ranking is a reminder that “top immigrant countries” can mean very different things depending on whether you measure absolute population size or the share of the resident base.
FAQ
Why is the United Arab Emirates at the top?
The UAE combines a relatively small citizen base with a very large imported labour force. That makes the foreign-born share extraordinarily high even compared with other migration destinations.
Why are the United States and Germany not in this top 10?
Because this ranking is about population share, not total immigrant numbers. Large countries can host tens of millions of foreign-born residents and still have a lower share than smaller states.
Does foreign-born mean the same thing as foreign citizen?
No. A foreign-born resident may later naturalise and become a citizen, but the person still counts as foreign-born in this indicator because the measure is based on place of birth.
Do refugee populations affect the ranking?
Yes. In some countries, especially Jordan, refugee hosting materially shapes the foreign-born share. That is one reason the same headline percentage can reflect very different realities across countries.
Is a high foreign-born share good or bad?
Neither by itself. It signals a structural pattern. The real questions are about labour rights, integration capacity, housing, public services, demographic pressures and long-term political sustainability.
Why do Australia and Switzerland look different from Qatar or Kuwait even with high shares?
Because the migration systems are different. Australia and Switzerland have more permanent-settlement and long-term integration features, while Gulf systems are more tightly linked to temporary labour migration.
How the top destinations differ once you look below the headline percentage
High foreign-born shares do not all come from the same process. Some countries depend on temporary labour migration, some are compact high-income hubs inside open labour markets, some have strong settler traditions, and some combine labour migration with major refugee-hosting roles. The same percentage can therefore point to very different social realities.
Interactive comparison table
Search and sorting work on pre-written HTML rows only. With JavaScript disabled, the full table stays visible.
| Country | Foreign-born share | International migrants | Model |
|---|---|---|---|
| United Arab Emirates | ≈ 89% | ≈ 10.0 million | Gulf labour-importing state |
| Qatar | ≈ 78% | ≈ 2.3 million | Gulf labour-importing state |
| Kuwait | ≈ 67% | ≈ 3.2 million | Gulf labour-importing state |
| Bahrain | ≈ 52% | ≈ 0.8 million | Gulf labour-importing state |
| Luxembourg | ≈ 51% | ≈ 0.35 million | High-income hub |
| Singapore | ≈ 45% | ≈ 2.3 million | High-income hub |
| Jordan | ≈ 41% | ≈ 4.7 million | Mixed labour and refugee destination |
| Saudi Arabia | ≈ 32% | ≈ 13.0 million | Gulf labour-importing state |
| Australia | ≈ 31.5% | ≈ 8.6 million | Settler economy |
| Switzerland | ≈ 31% | ≈ 2.7 million | High-income hub |
A high share does not automatically imply a large migrant stock. Saudi Arabia and the UAE illustrate the difference clearly: the UAE has the higher share, while Saudi Arabia has the larger number of migrants.
Chart 2. Foreign-born share vs international migrant stock
This scatter chart separates two dimensions that are often conflated. The horizontal axis shows how deeply migration penetrates the resident population. The vertical axis shows the size of the migrant stock in absolute terms. Countries high on both axes are rare.
The chart is useful precisely because rankings by share and rankings by migrant totals can tell very different stories.
Three different models behind very high foreign-born shares
Labour-importing Gulf states
UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia rely heavily on imported labour. In these systems, migration is tightly connected to employer demand, sectoral staffing needs and sponsorship-style arrangements.
Small high-income hubs
Luxembourg, Singapore and Switzerland illustrate a different pattern: strong labour demand, open or semi-open mobility channels, compact population size and specialised finance, logistics or high-skill service sectors.
Mixed labour and refugee destinations
Jordan shows why the foreign-born indicator cannot be reduced to labour-market economics alone. Refugee-hosting pressures and regional instability can materially raise the foreign-born share.
Selected migrant-origin profiles
Origins matter because they shape integration patterns, language use, labour-market segmentation and political debate. The same foreign-born share can look very different depending on whether inflows are mainly regional workers, long-settled settler communities or people displaced by conflict.
| Country | International migrants | Main origins |
|---|---|---|
| United Arab Emirates | ≈ 10.0 million | India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Philippines and other Asian countries dominate the foreign-born population. |
| Qatar | ≈ 2.3 million | India, Nepal, Bangladesh and the Philippines supply much of the construction and service workforce. |
| Saudi Arabia | ≈ 13.0 million | Large communities from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt and other Arab and Asian states. |
| Switzerland | ≈ 2.7 million | Germany, Italy and Portugal stand out, reflecting long-running European labour mobility. |
| Australia | ≈ 8.6 million | United Kingdom, India, China and New Zealand are central to the foreign-born population profile. |
These examples are indicative rather than exhaustive. They are included to show how different migration systems produce different social outcomes even when headline shares look similarly high.
How to read the ranking without oversimplifying it
A high foreign-born share is not a verdict on a country. It is a structural signal. It tells you that migration is central to how the population and the economy are organised, but it does not by itself tell you whether integration is working, whether rights are protected, or whether the migration model is socially sustainable.
Interpretation
The top of the ranking is dominated by countries where migration is part of the operating system rather than a side trend. In Gulf labour-importing states, the foreign-born population is tied directly to business demand and sectoral staffing. In small high-income hubs such as Luxembourg, Singapore and Switzerland, foreign-born residents are more closely connected to open labour markets, specialised skills and cross-border integration. In countries such as Jordan, refugee hosting and regional instability are part of the story.
That is why comparing countries only by the headline percentage can be misleading. A 45% foreign-born share in Singapore does not mean the same thing as 41% in Jordan or 52% in Bahrain. The social, legal and political implications are different because the underlying migration systems are different.
The ranking also shows why small countries can look extreme. When the total resident population is limited, a few hundred thousand or a few million foreign-born residents can change the entire national population profile. In larger countries, even a very large migrant stock may leave the foreign-born share much lower.
Policy takeaways
- Labour-market dependence is the first policy issue. Countries with very high shares need resilient migration systems because a sudden drop in inflows can disrupt construction, logistics, health care, hospitality and household services.
- Rights and long-term status matter. Where most foreign-born residents are treated as temporary workers, labour protections, access to justice and employer power become central questions.
- Integration policy matters more in high-share democracies. Language access, schools, housing, anti-discrimination policy and pathways to permanent residence affect whether high migration shares remain socially stable.
- Refugee-hosting countries need a different lens. In places where forced displacement shapes the indicator, burden-sharing, external support and infrastructure capacity are as important as labour-market policy.
- Share should always be paired with stock and origin data. A country can have a higher share but a smaller migrant population, or a huge migrant population but a lower share. Both dimensions are needed for serious analysis.
Reading the metric correctly
A foreign-born share above 30% does not mean that one third of residents arrived recently. In countries such as Australia or Switzerland, large parts of the foreign-born population have lived there for many years and are long-term contributors to the economy and society. Time since arrival, naturalisation, age structure and labour-market participation all matter.
The indicator is also not a full measure of social cohesion, inclusion or prosperity. It tells you something important about population structure, but it cannot tell you on its own whether migration outcomes are broadly positive, uneven or politically contested. That requires institutional context.
What to watch through 2025–2030
Over the rest of the decade, the countries at the top of this ranking will face overlapping pressures: tighter global competition for labour, climate-linked displacement, demographic ageing in rich economies, stricter politics around identity and citizenship, and the long-run question of whether temporary migration systems can remain economically flexible and socially durable at the same time.
For analysts, the most important question is not simply whether these countries stay near the top. It is whether the composition of their foreign-born populations changes: more high-skill inflows, more family migration, more refugee pressure, or a sharper rotation through temporary-worker systems. That is where the next phase of the story will be written.
Sources
-
United Nations DESA — International Migrant Stock 2024
Core source for global migrant stock estimates and foreign-born population shares.
https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/content/international-migrant-stock -
IOM Migration Data Portal
Reference source for migration definitions, stock concepts and international comparisons.
https://www.migrationdataportal.org/ -
Our World in Data — Share of population born in another country
Useful country-series context for comparing foreign-born shares over time.
https://ourworldindata.org/migration -
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Country-specific validation for Australia’s foreign-born population profile.
https://www.abs.gov.au/ -
OECD — International Migration Outlook
Comparative context on migration systems, labour-market integration and destination-country patterns.
https://www.oecd.org/migration/international-migration-outlook/
Values in the article are rounded and harmonised for readability. For formal analytical or policy use, the underlying databases and country statistical releases should always be checked directly.
