Comparing European countries that host the fewest migrants requires choosing an indicator. The gross number of residence permits issued, the immigration rate relative to the population, and the recorded asylum applications do not refer to the same states. This distinction conditions any reliable reading of the available data.
Immigration rate and absolute number: two different rankings
A country can rank among the lowest in terms of arrival volumes while showing a higher rate relative to its population than expected. France, for example, has a significant immigrant population in volume due to its overall demographics, but its immigration rate relative to the population remains moderate compared to other Western European states.
To better understand the data, several approaches coexist. It is useful to understand immigration and the migration crisis in Europe through these different lenses before comparing member states.
Central and Eastern European countries generally combine a low volume and a low rate. Their geographical position, labor market, and migration policies contribute to these disparities.
European countries with the lowest immigration rates: comparative table
The table below groups member states regularly identified as hosting few migrants, according to Eurostat data and available comparative analyses. Exact values vary from year to year, but the hierarchy remains stable.
| Country | Migration profile | Main explanatory factor |
|---|---|---|
| Romania | Net emigration country | Labor market unattractive for non-Europeans |
| Bulgarian | Very low stock of foreigners | Among the lowest wages in the EU |
| Slovakia | Few asylum applications | Restrictive reception policy, no maritime facade |
| Hungary | Low rate of resident foreigners | Migratory policy hardened since 2015 |
| Poland | Historically low extra-European immigration | Mass reception of Ukrainians changes recent profile |
| Lithuania | Emigration exceeds immigration | Small economy, large diaspora abroad |
| Croatia | Long negative migration balance | Recent EU membership, catching-up economy |
This table shows that the Baltic states, the Visegrád group, and the Western Balkans concentrate the lowest rates. Most are themselves emigration countries: their nationals leave to work in Western Europe.
Why some member states receive so few extra-European migrants
Three mechanisms combine to explain these persistent gaps between the west and east of the continent.
- The average wage level remains the primary filter. A migrant worker rarely chooses Bulgaria or Romania when Germany or Spain offer several times higher wages and already established diasporic networks.
- The absence of a colonial language limits historical ties with the regions of origin of migration flows. France, the UK, or Portugal attract migrants from their former areas of influence. Slovakia or Hungary do not have this heritage.
- Deliberately restrictive migration policies play a complementary role. Hungary has tightened its asylum procedures and reduced its reception capacities since 2015.
Economic attractiveness weighs more than migration policy in most cases. Countries that receive few migrants often do not need deterrent measures: candidates for settlement spontaneously head towards other destinations.
The Polish case: a recent shift
Poland illustrates the fragility of these rankings. Historically counted among the countries hosting few migrants, it has seen its profile transform with the massive arrival of Ukrainian displaced persons under temporary protection. Temporary protection significantly alters the comparison between countries, as shown by Eurostat data reported by The Brussels Times in October 2026.
This status does not always appear in the classic immigration statistics. A country may thus seem unwelcoming in residence permit figures while hosting a considerable number of protected individuals.
Stock of resident foreigners versus annual flows: a frequent confusion
Public comparisons often mix two concepts. The stock refers to the total number of foreign nationals residing in a country at a given date. The flow measures entries over a period, usually a year.
The Central and Eastern European countries mentioned above are well below the European average, sometimes under 2% of resident foreigners.
A low annual flow does not mean that the foreign population is decreasing. Naturalizations, births, and departures modify the stock independently of new arrivals. Comparing countries requires specifying whether one is talking about flows, stock, or asylum applications.
Asylum applications, for their part, represent only one component of overall immigration. Spain issues a large number of residence permits for professional reasons, placing it high in total reception rankings. A ranking based solely on asylum would give a very different picture of the actual distribution among member states.
The answer to the initial question thus entirely depends on the chosen indicator. By the stock of resident foreigners and by the immigration rate relative to the population, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and the Baltic states consistently rank at the bottom of European rankings. This constancy reflects less a political choice than an economic and geographical reality that shapes flows long before they reach a border.
