With migration dominating debates across Europe and the US, it is an important endeavour to contrast prevailing views in the migration discourse in other regions to see how people’s perceptions of immigration may vary region to region. In the Arabic-speaking world, there is great variance in how migrants are viewed and this work fleshes out some of the main themes related to host populations living among migrants

In a study conducted by the Arab Barometer,(1) and synthesised further by the International Organization on Migration (IOM), the differing attitudes were deeply analysed and its was determined that the majority of the Arabic-speaking world retained neutral attitudes towards immigration and immigrants.(2) Specifically, the majority of Arabic-speakers were neutral towards having an immigrant or foreign worker as their neighbour. With the current climate on immigration issues in the world, this may come as a shock to some.

In the US and Europe (among other Western states) attitudes to immigration and immigrants are more diverse and polarised with some believing that countries should close their borders and stop immigration altogether, while others believe open borders are the most efficient means possible for tackling the problems that are occurring from mass migration.

Looking closer at Jordan, Yemen, and Iraq, there were differing views in the study on the idea of having an immigrant as a neighbour. In the year 2019, a small number of respondents in Jordan strongly disliked (9%) and strongly liked (1%) this idea, where the majority were neutral (67%). In Yemen there was a similar pattern where smaller numbers of respondents strongly disliked (12%) and strongly liked (7%), with a larger number being neutral (38%). Iraq also had similar results with 15% strongly disliking and 34% responding as neutral. However, a larger percentage strongly liked the idea of having an immigrant as their neighbour (23%), which was a different view than those adopted by Jordan and Yemen.(3)

These different, yet similar, responses could be for a number of reasons. The history of each country largely contributes to the population’s views on certain global issues. If a country has a good history with immigration, citizens may be more inclined to be welcoming to immigrants and assist their assimilation into the country. However, if a country has a history with immigration — or a political climate that is not conducive to the influx of immigrants — this can change the population’s views and their openness to ‘outsiders.’

Many migrant workers are moving to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries – who are oil-rich – and have begun to make-up around 70% of the work-force.(4) These wealthier Arabic-speaking countries have been seen to have similar views as the aforementioned countries on immigrants. In 2011, a different Arab Barometer survey also asked how the population would feel if an immigrant or foreign worker was their neighbour. Respondents from Saudi Arabia showed a majority would not object (65%), with others who would not want (32%), and a small percentage not knowing, or refusing to answer (3%). The country of Bahrain, however, had vastly different views. Majority of respondents did not want an immigrant as their neighbour (60%) with a smaller portion not objecting (35%).(5) This shows that even among countries that could be considered wealthier, attitudes on immigrants still vary.

Jordan serves as a good example for the conflicting migration phenomenon that is occurring around the world. As mentioned, the majority of Jordanians in the Arab Barometer study were neutral towards having an immigrant or foreign worker as their neighbour. The percentage of respondents that were neutral was also larger than both the percentages in Iraq and Yemen. Jordan has had a history of taking in immigrants and refugees from other areas in the region, making the population well-versed in the idea of having immigrants in their country—possibly contributing to this increased neutrality. Consider that Jordan has taken in more than 2.3 million registered Palestinian refugees, making every one in five people in Jordan, Palestinian.(6) In addition, the country has offered refuge to around 632,000 Syrians and 62,000 Iraqis.(7) The Arab Barometer study also surveyed Jordanians and others’ thoughts specifically on refugees living in their home country. Jordanians tended to have more positive views towards refugees, but throughout the years this opinion has waned and is now more negative.

After the US-led invasion of Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2003), and the 2005 Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) terror attacks in Amman, the country implemented stricter immigration policies. This was aimed mainly towards Iraqis who could be denied entry to Jordan or sent back home when their permit expired, despite international treaties which should allow for neighbouring countries to house and protect people fleeing war. Similarly, the Jordanian population began to view Syrian refugees as financially burdensome. Syrian refugees started to make up around nine percent (9%) of the population, which hurt the country financially, costing Jordan around 4.2 billion USD (USD) in 2016.(8) This was in addition to the costs obtained from the closing of the Nassib border in 2015 (reopened in 2018), cutting off a vital trade route for the country.(9) These costs hurt some of the locals financially as competition in the labour market rose and rents doubled and tripled in the real-estate market. Some of the locals who originally welcomed Syrian refugees into their home became more aggressive towards them, as a result of the increased economic pressure. Eventually, calls for protections in the labour market came about, with some jobs being offered only to native Jordanians.(10)

The shift in opinion in Jordan captures the complexity of immigration. While citizens may feel neutral towards having an immigrant or foreign worker as their neighbour, when they feel it starts to affect their personal lives or national security issues, attitudes can shift. In other words, attitudes toward migration are as fluid as the migration waves themselves.

*****

Greater analysis into attitudes on personal security is needed to gauge more accurate opinions on this topic, however further discussions relating to security are a necessary steppingstone to discover the true, underlying feelings towards immigrants within the region. Does the Arabic-speaking world feel neutral towards immigrants because they have experience with internal conflict and therefore have more empathy towards those who are displaced or migrating? Have attitudes towards refugees become increasingly negative in some countries as a result of the population feeling that their personal security is being attacked? Or have attitudes shifted because of the political discourse that is circulating the globe? All of these topics could be at play. With world views becoming increasingly polarized on immigration, it is time to start paying attention to non-Western states, and more importantly, the Arabic-speaking world. With world views becoming increasingly polarized, achieving a greater understanding of how regions react to those that are not native to their country is more necessary than ever.