The Brussels-Capital region counted over **** million people in 2023, of which approximately ******* were Belgian and ******* were non-Belgian. Both Belgians and non-Belgians have contributed to the growth in population of the Belgian region in the past two decades.

On the basis of the population of Brussels in 2012, a projection of the evolution of the population of the City until 2024, taking into account the natural increase (births - deaths) and net migration (immigration - emigration).

Belgium has a multicultural landscape; a variety of nationalities coexist in the country. Brussels houses most of the European Union institutions. This is the reason behind the nickname "capital of Europe". In 2020, over one million foreigners were living in the country. Of the variety of nationalities in Belgium, three main origins were present on its soil. In 2020, around 485,340 people originated from France, Italy, or the Netherlands.

The migration flow in Belgium

Migration has always been part of human history. However, it is still one of society's most controversial topics. Nowadays, immigration within the European Union is primarily influenced by economic reasons. In 2020, the migration flow amounted to about 117,500 people coming to Belgium. Meanwhile, 55,769 nationals emigrated abroad.

Belgian’s views on immigration

Although Belgium has known many migration waves in its past, views on the matter still divide. In 2017, opinions in Belgium on immigrants coming from outside the EU were varied. Nonetheless, the fifth most common origin of foreigners in Belgium was Moroccan. In recent years, more than 60 percent of Belgians believed too many immigrants lived in the country. However, Belgians regarded EU citizens immigrating to their country positively.

The statistic displayed above shows the migration flow for Belgium in 2022, by region. In 2022, about 52,500 people migrated to Brussels, while approximately 16,000 migrated from Brussels.

In 2022, the migration balance (number of immigrants minus number of emigrants) was just over 64,600 in Flanders and was about 31,700 for the Brussels-Capital Region. In 2014, the migration balance for the Flemish Region was 18,000, and the migration balance for the Brussels-Capital Region was 16,100.

The results of the analyses concerning preterm births are broadly similar to those of LBW. (XLSX 13 kb)

For the moment, the project collects regional-level immigration opinions data for three countries, namely Belgium, France and Great Britain. The operationalisation of ‘regions’ largely corresponds to the NUTS 1 scheme designed by the European Union. More specifically, - Belgium: Brussels, Flanders and Wallonia. - France: Nord, Bassin Parisien, Île-de-France, Est, Ouest, Centre-Est, Sud-Ouest and Méditerranée. - Great Britain: North East, North West, Yorkshire and the Humber, East Midlands, West Midlands, East of England, London, South East, South West, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

Urban areas with a long history of immigration, known as ‘arrival areas,’ provide a variety of resources for newcomers through what is termed ‘arrival infrastructures.’ Arrival infrastructures can be described as concentrations of actors, institutions and organisations which facilitate migrant arrival. They can be specifically targeted to newcomers or form part of a broader social infrastructure ecosystem that fosters wellbeing and community integration among all residents.

This data encapsulates findings from a three-year research project titled Arrival Infrastructures and Migrant Newcomers in European Cities (AIMEC). The AIMEC project studied migrant arrival and settlement processes in London (UK), Brussels (Belgium), and Dortmund (Germany), examining how newcomers in these cities obtain settlement information and how long-established residents support them.

Through qualitative, ethnographic research including interviews and participant observation, and engagement with local stakeholders through volunteering, the research engaged with recently arrived residents and those providing support to them. This included individuals in both institutional and everyday settings, including public spaces, local businesses, civil society organisations, and state-funded institutions.

While primary data cannot be shared due to ethical concerns, summaries of interviews are available.

Key findings of the project include: Challenges on arrival - key challenges faced by participants upon arrival included: • Difficulties in accessing information about resources such as affordable housing and legal status, navigating a complex web of organizations and intermediaries. • Limited awareness of their rights to welfare support, leading to non-engagement with services. • Low digital literacy that hinders access to essential information despite efforts by local organizations to provide digital support. • Long waiting times for legal status applications that create uncertainty, preventing newcomers from planning for the future and impacting their mental wellbeing. • No access to state welfare that prevents people from accessing welfare benefits. Those who are not permitted to work therefore tend to depend on peer networks and informal social infrastructures for support. • Difficulties in finding services due to language and digital barriers and the limited visibility of services in public space.

Supportive infrastructures - newcomers access a variety of support infrastructures: • Commercial spaces serve as crucial social support hubs. Local business owners often act as 'arrival brokers,' providing information about essential services such as housing, employment, and healthcare. For instance, shopkeepers, pharmacists, and restaurant owners often offer guidance and support, creating informal networks that assist newcomers in navigating their new environment. • State-funded infrastructures, though less pervasive, also play a vital role. Public institutions like libraries and primary schools offer resources such as language classes and citizenship courses. • Civil society organisations and religious spaces complement these efforts by offering a wide range of services, including foodbanks, legal advice, language classes, and mental health support. Despite their crucial role, these organisations often struggle with capacity issues due to limited funding and rely to an extent on the dedication of individuals who go ‘above and beyond’ their role to provide support. While formal channels – that is, institutionalised support structures with an explicit support function – are commonly presumed to be the primary sources of settlement assistance, our findings underscore the crucial role of informal support, often provided by longer established migrant residents who share their local knowledge or ‘arrival expertise.’

The role of individuals in arrival infrastructures- individual efforts within the local support ecosystem play an important role in extending the capacity of arrival infrastructures, developing them, and unlocking access through advice and handholding. • Role of Individuals: Individuals, such as staff members, volunteers, and community workers, play a crucial role in arrival infrastructures by acting as brokers who facilitate connections and support newcomers in adapting to their new environment. • Personal Efforts: Despite limited funding, arrival infrastructures continue to support newcomers largely due to the extra efforts of individuals who go beyond their official roles to assist and guide them. • Newcomers as Active Participants: Newcomers are not just passive recipients but active contributors to the social infrastructure ecosystem. They connect different spaces, contribute to the development of infrastructures, and help others in the arrival process.

Abstract (en): Transatlantic Trends: Immigration, 2009 examined attitudes and policy preferences related to immigration in Europe, Canada, and the United States. The survey concentrated on issues such as: general perceptions of immigration and immigrants, perceptions of legal and illegal immigrants, the impact of immigration on society, admittance of immigrants, immigration policies, immigration and integration, decision-making level, socio-political rights, welfare, government evaluation and number of immigrants, interaction with immigrants, and economic crisis. In addition, a list experiment was implemented in this survey. Several questions were also asked pertaining to voting and politics including vote intention, political party attachment, whether candidate parties' agendas on immigration will influence their vote, and left-right political self-placement. Demographic and other background information includes age, gender, ethnicity, citizenship, origin of birth (personal and parental), religious affiliation, age when stopped full-time education and stage at which full-time education was completed, occupation, type of locality, region of residence, and language of interview. Please refer to the "Technical Note" in the ICPSR codebook for further information about weighting. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Created online analysis version with question text.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. Response Rates: The total response rate for all countries surveyed is 13 percent. Please refer to the "Technical Note" in the ICPSR codebook for additional information about response rate. The adult population aged 18 years and over, with access to a landline telephone in eight countries: Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United States. Smallest Geographic Unit: country (1) Stratified multi-stage random sampling (3 steps selection) was implemented. Sampling points were selected according to region and urbanization, and then random routes were conducted within these sampling points. (2) Random-digit dialing was implemented in all countries. Up to eight callbacks were used for each telephone number. The closest birthday rule was used to randomly select respondents within a household. computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI)The original data collection was carried out by TNS Opinion and Social -- Brussels, on request of the German Marshall Fund of the United States.The documentation and/or setup files may contain references to Poland, but Poland was not a participant in this Transatlantic Trends: Immigration survey. This collection contains no data for Poland.A split ballot was used for questions Q6, Q8, Q15, Q19, and Q25 in this survey. The variables Q6_SPLIT, Q8_SPLIT, Q15_SPLIT, Q19_SPLIT, and Q25_SPLIT define the separate groups for each of these questions. Additional information on the Transatlantic Trends Survey is provided on the Transatlantic Trends Web site.

Sampling Procedure Comment: Probability Sample: Multistage Stratified Random Sample

Yearly citation counts for the publication titled "Le traitement de la virginité chez les migrants pentecôtistes à Bruxelles".