The 30 Major Immigrant Groups in Norway (2017)

This blogpost will somehow give an overview of the number of immigrants in Norway as of the latest official statistics in the government. A short description follows providing a good perspective of that certain country. There are only 137 countries on the list. Those countries with migrant population comprising less than 0,05% of the total population in Norway are not included in the complete list.

INTRODUCTION

There are some terms that this blogpost utilizes to elaborate on three major types of migrants:

• Category 1. Those with familial relationships in Norway. They are those who were born either by one or both Norwegian parents, regardless of where they are actually born. These group are theoretically the easiest to integrate into the Norwegian society because the connection they have is more personal and comprehensive. The countries with the greatest percentage of their migrants in Norway in this category could have a good relationship with Norway given it might there are less visa restrictions for their citizens to come and stay.
• 
  
• Category 2. Those who are second-generation migrants. They are born in Norway from both migrant parents. These group is actually very crucial for Norway's future. These individuals are raised in Norway, so they have acquired probably both citizenship and the values the country stand for. A high percentage of migrant on this category means there is also significant fertility rate among migrants belonging to a certain country. This would mean more social support and services are used than what was actually gained from their taxpaying migrant parents. Moreover, a high percentage on this category would reflect a challenge with integration as the process would be entirely dependent on how willing both their migrant parents adapt to the Norwegian culture and society. Personally speaking, high percentage means at least 25% of the whole migrant population from a certain country.
• 
  
• Category 3. Those who are first-generation migrants. They come either for work, asylum and other legal reasons to reside in Norway. This group is the most challenging in terms of integration. It would take time before one could eventually learn the language, understand culture and adopt the values the country stands for. The process is more difficult if the migrant came for reasons of seeking for refuge from persecution or war / conflict were they come from. Interestingly, those who attain work permits in Norway become direct competitor of those Norwegians who are currently unemployed. On the other hand, those who come to Norway to seek for asylum would naturally get social benefits that would require utilization of taxes paid by the working segment of the society.

QUESTIONS

These blogpost would like its readers to reflect on the following questions:

• If there is a significant percentage of migrant population (over 15% for example) belonging to Category 2 (second-generation migrants), would a sufficient number of migrants from Category 3 (first-generation migrants) coming from the same country be adequate to support them economically, or would the Norwegian welfare state be more strained because of this? 
• 
  
• If there is a significant percentage of migrant population ( over 50% for example) belonging to Category 3 from a certain country, would that mean that it would be harder for them to integrate themselves and perhaps stick into their cultural identity rather than assimilate into Norwegian society?

The complete list of all countries are found at the end of this blogpost. A personal opinion is also stated after enumerating the top thirty countries.

TOP 30

1. Sweden 

122,411 Swedes have crossed the border to live and stay in its neighboring country Norway. A significant number of Swedes married or have familial connections in the country. Approximately three out of ten Swedes are considered immigrants for a variety of reasons.

2. Poland 

Very High Percent of Polish citizens work in Norway. However, only about nine percent of those Polish staying in Norway are born in the country from Polish parents. The number of individuals with Polish background are almost the same with those from Sweden. Polish population started to swell after it has been admitted to the European Union in the nineties.

3. Denmark 

Over 88,000 individuals with connection to another Nordic country are living in Norway. Just like Swedes, many have familial relationships in the country. 

4. United States 

Surprisingly, many Americans (62,000) have opted to stay in Norway. Many of them have families, and about one out seven persons with American association is considered a regular immigrant. 

5. Germany 

Due to its relative proximity, Norway has become an alternative residence of many Germans. Over half of the Germans have either married or part of a Norwegian family. Approximately, four out five Germans living in Norway have migrated for work, study and etc.

6. United Kingdom

There is a good relationship between the Norwegian and the British people. As a result, over 56,000 British individuals call Norway their home.'

7. Pakistan 

Due to migration wave in the seventies, many individuals from Pakistan migrated into the counrty. Interestingly, there are many from Pakistan about 45% are considered immigrants without any familial association with anyone in the country. Almost one-third of them are second-generation immigrants born in Norway.

8. Lithuania 

Comparing with another land, Lithuania is quite similar to its neighbor Poland in terms of demography and reasons of coming to Norway. However, the number is just one-third in size compared to its larger neighbor.

9. Somalia 

About 42,000 Somalians are living in Norway. Almost 30% are second-generation immigrants from the war-torn state.

10. Philippines 

Almost 35,000 Filipinos call Norway their second home. They comprise the largest migrant group in the Southeast Asian region. About 59% of Filipinos in Norway either work or study as first generation immigrants. Only seven percent are second-generation immigrants. This statistics confirms that Filipinos now is the largest migrant group in Norway, not coming from a conflict-torn developing country.

11. Iraq 

Many individuals from the war-torn country have transferred to Norway. A very significant percentage of them are second-generation immigration, being born in Norway from both immigrant parents.

12. Thailand 

Over 29,000 Thais are living in Norway. They used to be the largest Southeast Asian group of migrants until Filipinos took over in the recent years.

13. Vietnam 

In the advent of the Vietnam War, many refugees sought refuge in the country. Today, 25694 Vietnamese are residents in Norway. Half of them are regular immigrants either for work, study and other reasons.

14. Russia 

The big neighbor in the east and in the Artic region has some its citizens living in Norway. There are about 25,000 of them. One of eight of these Russians are second-generation migrants.

15. Iran 

Almost 24000 Persians are residents in Norway. Seven out of ten are considered immigrants for asylum, work and study reasosn. One out six of them are second-generation immigrants from the conservation Muslim nation.

16. Eritrea 

Not far behind Iran is Eriteria, another country plagued with political turmoils and conflicts with its neighboring country Ethiopia. Over 80% of the Eriterians living in Norway are considered immigrants, mostly who got asylum.

17. Turkey 

22673 individuals with connection to Turkey are living in Norway. There is a significant number of them who are born in Norway from migrant parents.

18. Syria 

In the advent of the refugee crisis and Syrian Civil War last year, many Syrians sought asylum in Norway. Nine out of ten Syrians living in Norway are first-generation immigrants. There are 22668 Syrians in Norway as of the recent statistics.

19. Finland 

There are 19825 Finns living in Norway. Just like other Nordic countries, there are a significant portion of the migrant population with familial ties in Norway. That comprises 64,7% of the total.

20. India 

Over half of the 19818 Indians living in the country are first-generation immigrants. Two out of ten of them are second-generation immmigrants. 

21. Afghanistan 

Another conflict-torn country is part of the major migrant group in Norway. There are 19800 Afghanis living in Norway. Eight out ten are first generation immigrants.

22. Bosnia-Herzegovina 

This conflict-characterized country has the largest migrant group in Norway coming from the Balkan peninsula. Almost nine out ten of them are first- and second- generation migrants.

23. Netherlands 

The Dutch are about 18903 individuals in Norway. Over half of them have familial connection with someone in Norway.

24. Romania 

Similar with Bosnia, Romania another Balkan country has a significant migrant population in Norway. Interestingly, like Bosnia, nine out ten of them are first- and second- generation migrants.

25. Sri Lanka 

16893 Sri Lankans are residents in Norway. 9,4% of this population have familial relationships, while 36,7% are second-generation migrants, and the majority are first-generation migrants. 

26. Kosovo 

After Serbia is Kosovo, another conflict-stricken area. Many from Kosovo have transferred to Norway. There are 16752  residents, with the majority as first-generation migrants.

27. China 

A very little percentage of the entire Chinese population in the world call Norway their residence. Half of them are first-generation immigrants.

28. Iceland 

The last country among the Nordic nations in the list is Iceland. About 14000 Icelandics have transferred to Norway. Over one-third of them have familial relationships with someone in Norway, while approximately half are first-generation immigrants.

29. South Korea 

South Koreans top the list of the countries with the highest percentage of migrants with familial relationships in Norway, comprising over 91%. There are over 13000 of them in Norway. 

30. Chile 

Chile has the largest migrant community among all countries in South America, and those countries speaking Spanish as a main language. Four out ten of them have familial relationships with someone in Norway, while almost  half have come as first -generation migrants.

OPINION

Personally speaking, I believe statistics only would give us a glimpse of what could be happening in a country. When one speak of immigration, one should necessarily associate it with integration and assimilation without unnecessarily putting too much strain to the Norwegian welfare state for the common good. I am more concerned with the percentage of migrant population per country belonging to Category 2. They are indirectly-related to how much social benefits a particular migrant group has received from the national coffers. This should be seen in contrast to how many of those in Category 3 are earning sufficiently to cover all stately expenses to help raise or rear a child in Norway.

I do not suggest trying to discourage a certain migrant group in Norway, but everyone should be conscious enough that maintaining the Norwegian welfare state is a collective effort. Since a human being is a social person, we attempt to identify ourselves as part of a smaller group before a larger society. It would be easier to pinpoint some obeservations in a particular migrant group than see a complicated problem affecting the whole society. It is perhaps natural if a certain group has obtained more than the others, or at least more than they could actually earn and pay for; they should be at minimum working more to cover the deficit, rather allowing oneself to be in situation where getting another type of social benefit is crucial.

For those Norwegians, if you truly think that Norwegians should take control over your own country, so it is appropriate for you study who would actually take that control from you. I honestly think that would not come from migrants coming from Category 3 in this list. That is a long shot after all the hurdles the government to both protect Norwegians from unnecessarily competing with migrants for work. That will not come from Category 1 migrants as well. There exists more commonalities than differences in culture when one has a familial relationship with someone in the country. However, those who would change the political landscape of the country are likely those from Category 2. Those with greatest percentage of migrant population belonging there would have the greater chance of producing a good representative, strong and stern enough to protect the interest of the migrant group he or she is coming from, the values that group stands for, and at least their culture, religion and tradition. Make a list of those countries and imagine a picture of Norway, in its purest cultural form with a little influence of each of the country on that list.

As a migrant myself, I do not like how some narrow-minded Norwegians attempt to generalize the entire migrant population as very negative. That is quite unfair for those who have already struggled enough just to survive all the hindrances the government sets and the challenges one has to accept as part of starting anew in a foreign land. One could not just use the free will argument such that it our choice to stay so it is also up to tolerate all the hardships related to our decisions. The world today is getting smaller. The free will argument would eventually be obsolete as global need would be satisfied by collective effort, rather than doing something individually. This is to say national borders in the future will become just theoretical, but in reality, we shall work hand-on-hand respecting anyone's decision to live anywhere, and helping each other to make it happen, rather than making it difficult for them.

  COMPLETE LIST

	Country	Total	Category 1	Category 2	Category 3
1	Sweden	122411	67,90 %	2,41 %	29,70 %
2	Poland	116680	7,20 %	9,48 %	83,30 %
3	Denmark	88585	75,80 %	2,20 %	22,00 %
4	United States	62437	85,40 %	1,08 %	13,50 %
5	Germany	58783	53,10 %	5,09 %	41,90 %
6	United Kingdom	56468	72,90 %	1,75 %	25,40 %
7	Pakistan	43941	16,50 %	38,07 %	45,50 %
8	Lithuania	43705	2,80 %	11,10 %	86,10 %
9	Somalia	42217	1,80 %	30,24 %	68,00 %
10	Philippines	35029	34,70 %	6,72 %	58,60 %
11	Iraq	33652	4,00 %	29,15 %	66,80 %
12	Thailand	29188	33,10 %	3,05 %	63,80 %
13	Vietnam	25694	11,80 %	34,67 %	53,50 %
14	Russia	25158	18,70 %	12,80 %	68,50 %
15	Iran	24393	12,40 %	17,20 %	70,40 %
16	Eritrea	24319	2,90 %	15,05 %	82,10 %
17	Turkey	22673	19,90 %	30,18 %	50,00 %
18	Syria	22668	1,70 %	6,45 %	91,90 %
19	Finland	19825	64,70 %	3,33 %	31,90 %
20	India	19818	24,70 %	19,73 %	55,60 %
21	Afghanistan	19800	1,20 %	18,05 %	80,70 %
22	Bosnia-Herzegovina	19418	8,90 %	21,08 %	70,00 %
23	Netherlands	18903	54,50 %	4,67 %	40,80 %
24	Romania	17414	10,10 %	10,19 %	79,80 %
25	Sri Lanka	16893	9,40 %	36,70 %	53,90 %
26	Kosovo	16752	8,50 %	31,60 %	59,90 %
27	China	16647	37,10 %	11,96 %	50,90 %
28	Iceland	14214	38,80 %	5,78 %	55,50 %
29	South Korea	13286	91,20 %	0,72 %	8,10 %
30	Chile	13259	40,00 %	13,49 %	46,50 %
31	Morocco	13061	23,80 %	31,84 %	44,40 %
32	Ethiopia	12458	16,60 %	20,06 %	63,30 %
33	France	12413	53,00 %	4,21 %	42,80 %
34	Latvia	11936	7,20 %	8,55 %	84,20 %
35	Spain	11595	44,60 %	3,19 %	52,20 %
36	Canada	9430	78,90 %	1,41 %	19,70 %
37	Brazil	8923	47,90 %	2,73 %	49,30 %
38	Colombia	8607	75,90 %	2,18 %	22,00 %
39	Hungary	8485	46,30 %	8,16 %	45,50 %
40	Bulgaria	8242	11,20 %	7,22 %	81,60 %
41	Italy	8099	46,90 %	2,90 %	50,20 %
42	Serbia	7610	16,00 %	13,60 %	70,50 %
43	Ukraine	6750	19,00 %	8,73 %	72,30 %
45	Croatia	6216	20,90 %	12,76 %	66,30 %
44	Estonia	6216	13,50 %	7,00 %	79,50 %
46	Switzerland	5601	72,30 %	2,89 %	24,80 %
47	Sudan	5150	2,90 %	14,27 %	82,80 %
48	Macedonia	4863	17,00 %	27,66 %	55,40 %
49	Australia	4835	67,00 %	1,14 %	31,90 %
50	Slovakia	4757	8,90 %	9,08 %	82,00 %
51	Austria	4690	70,20 %	2,37 %	27,40 %
52	Portugal	4594	24,40 %	5,70 %	69,90 %
53	Palestine	4505	8,10 %	17,31 %	74,60 %
54	Greece	4337	37,70 %	2,70 %	59,60 %
55	Czech Republic	4280	41,50 %	7,06 %	51,40 %
56	Lebanon	4047	21,20 %	24,04 %	54,80 %
57	Myanmar	4022	2,10 %	18,70 %	79,20 %
58	Belgium	3920	66,80 %	2,70 %	30,50 %
59	South Africa	3796	72,10 %	1,90 %	26,10 %
60	Kenya	3664	42,80 %	8,32 %	48,90 %
61	Faroe Islands	3617	78,10 %	2,60 %	19,40 %
62	Congo	3494	15,60 %	19,92 %	64,50 %
63	Ghana	3369	19,80 %	23,21 %	57,00 %
64	Nigeria	3198	26,60 %	16,95 %	56,50 %
65	Japan	3001	65,50 %	2,40 %	32,10 %
66	Indonesia	2895	47,00 %	9,19 %	43,80 %
67	Peru	2801	48,30 %	5,11 %	46,60 %
68	Algeria	2674	34,10 %	19,56 %	46,40 %
69	Argentina	2665	61,50 %	3,60 %	34,90 %
70	Gambia	2636	33,20 %	21,24 %	45,60 %
71	Ireland	2562	57,90 %	2,03 %	40,10 %
72	Mexico	2442	47,50 %	3,73 %	48,80 %
73	Tunisia	2391	40,20 %	17,15 %	42,70 %
74	Egypt	2195	39,00 %	9,57 %	51,40 %
75	Nepal	2123	11,70 %	8,01 %	80,30 %
76	Uganda	2047	27,40 %	12,65 %	59,90 %
77	Albania	1995	13,00 %	12,88 %	74,10 %
78	Madagascar	1980	87,80 %	1,97 %	10,20 %
79	Hong Kong	1927	45,40 %	12,40 %	42,20 %
80	Israel	1861	59,10 %	4,78 %	36,10 %
81	Bangladesh	1750	27,40 %	18,57 %	54,10 %
82	Cuba	1745	37,00 %	5,44 %	57,50 %
83	Tanzania	1663	45,60 %	8,96 %	45,40 %
84	Venezuela	1577	28,60 %	6,28 %	65,10 %
85	Belarus	1549	21,50 %	10,91 %	67,60 %
86	Burundi	1542	6,20 %	24,06 %	69,70 %
87	New Zealand	1490	66,20 %	1,07 %	32,70 %
88	Liberia	1452	17,40 %	21,14 %	61,50 %
89	Dominican Republic	1433	29,50 %	12,00 %	58,50 %
90	Malaysia	1424	40,50 %	6,74 %	52,70 %
91	Ecuador	1418	59,80 %	4,37 %	35,80 %
92	Cameroon	1390	46,30 %	10,65 %	43,10 %
93	Singapore	1294	66,20 %	3,09 %	30,70 %
94	Kazakhstan	1240	14,20 %	12,34 %	73,50 %
95	Moldova	1239	10,10 %	10,25 %	79,70 %
96	Trinidad and Tobago	1112	76,30 %	1,08 %	22,70 %
97	Cape Verde	1080	51,50 %	12,50 %	36,00 %
98	Saudi Arabia	1039	9,00 %	15,98 %	75,10 %
99	Bolivia	944	63,50 %	4,24 %	32,30 %
100	Sierra Leone	929	26,90 %	18,84 %	54,30 %
101	Rwanda	902	9,10 %	21,73 %	69,20 %
102	Libya	898	11,80 %	15,26 %	72,90 %
103	Jordan	862	16,80 %	25,99 %	57,20 %
104	Zambia	841	43,30 %	4,76 %	52,00 %
105	Guatemala	816	74,00 %	2,57 %	23,40 %
106	Angola	789	28,50 %	9,38 %	62,10 %
107	Uzbekistan	750	9,30 %	11,60 %	79,10 %
108	Azerbaijan	722	10,70 %	16,62 %	72,70 %
109	Cambodia	717	18,80 %	22,73 %	58,40 %
110	Montenegro	684	12,00 %	23,25 %	64,80 %
111	United Arab Emirates	676	26,30 %	17,46 %	56,20 %
112	Taiwan	658	53,20 %	5,17 %	41,60 %
113	Kuwait	653	15,20 %	23,12 %	61,70 %
114	Slovenia	652	29,00 %	8,59 %	62,40 %
115	Yemen	622	2,10 %	20,26 %	77,70 %
116	Greenland	595	63,90 %	2,52 %	33,60 %
117	Côte d'Ivore	586	37,70 %	10,41 %	51,90 %
118	Costa Rica	560	73,20 %	1,43 %	25,40 %
119	Zimbabwe	531	48,40 %	6,78 %	44,80 %
120	Uruguay	507	54,20 %	4,73 %	41,00 %
121	Senegal	502	28,90 %	16,33 %	54,80 %
122	Mauritius	499	53,70 %	9,62 %	36,70 %
123	Cyprus	464	60,80 %	1,08 %	38,20 %
124	Guinea	428	12,40 %	21,50 %	66,10 %
125	Bhutan	423	4,30 %	9,46 %	86,30 %
126	Georgia	420	12,60 %	10,95 %	76,40 %
127	Armenia	418	11,00 %	13,40 %	75,60 %
128	Jamaica	386	56,50 %	4,66 %	38,90 %
129	Congo-Brazzaville	380	20,30 %	15,79 %	64,00 %
130	El Salvador	371	30,20 %	14,02 %	55,80 %
131	Nicaragua	366	50,00 %	3,55 %	46,50 %
132	Mozambique	337	45,70 %	4,75 %	49,60 %
133	Paraguay	310	60,70 %	2,90 %	36,50 %
134	Kyrgyzstan	302	15,90 %	11,59 %	72,50 %
135	Guyana	275	68,00 %	2,18 %	29,80 %
136	Honduras	274	52,90 %	8,03 %	39,10 %
137	South Sudan	272	9,20 %	27,57 %	63,20 %