(i) country of birth, and (ii) country of citizenship, either of which could potentially be used as a proxy for migrant status.

We start first by presenting in Table 1 the distribution of individuals aged 16 years and older interviewed in each EU country by country of birth and citizenship. As the table shows, the sample of observations in each country is in general fairly large, thereby permitting results derived from the dataset to be presented at a fairly high level of disaggregation. However, in much of the analysis presented in the paper, we focus mainly on presenting and comparing results for two main groups of interest: (i) the EU13 (i.e. EU 15 member countries prior to the 2004 enlargement, minus Germany and Luxemburg), and (ii) the EU4 (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, and Slovakia).<sup>5</sup> Wherever possible (and of special interest), we also present results for some individual EU countries.

**Table 1: Number of Observations in the 2006 EU-SILC**

||**1.**<br>|**Total numbe**<br>**Country of Birth**<br>|**r of observatio**<br> <br>|**ns(individuals**<br>**2. Cou**|**aged 16years a**<br>**ntry of Citizens**<br>|**nd older)**<br>**hip**<br>||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**COUNTRY**|**Within**<br>**Country**|**Other EU**<br>**country**|**Non-EU**<br>**country**|**Country**|**Other EU**<br>**country**|**Non-EU**<br>**country**|**TOTAL**|
|Austria|10,477|510|1,023|11,163|228|584|12,010|
|Belgium|9,833|702|772|10,382|614|303|11,307|
|Cyprus|7,670|420|667|7,796|516|445|8,757|
|Czech Republic|14,283|413|160|14,704|83|69|14,856|
|Denmark|10,822|160|385|11,086|91|190|11,367|
|Estonia|11,190|-|1,814|11,399|-|1,608|13,004|
|Spain|26,600|274|1,265|27,070|159|910|28,139|
|Finland|21,527|250|333|21,789|146|195|22,110|
|France|17,309|652|1,540|18,382|377|621|19,501|
|Greece|11,789|134|683|12,071|71|463|12,606|
|Hungary|16,030|117|353|16,432|14|69|16,500|
|Ireland|10,326|861|291|10,853|424|201|11,478|
|Italy|43,678|551|1,701|44,833|131|1,011|45,930|
|Lithuania|9,562|37|620|10,123|14|82|10,219|
|Luxemburg|4,028|3,127|654|4,044|3,378|392|7,809|
|Latvia|7,527|-|1,544|7,344|-|1,727|9,071|
|Netherlands|16,370|246|637|17,041|125|73|17,253|
|Poland|34,417|199|277|34,847|16|30|34,893|
|Portugal|9,895|103|150|9,968|40|140|10,148|
|Sweden|11,859|597|1,019|13,014|254|207|13,475|
|Slovenia|24,670|-|2,265|-|-|-|26,935|
|Slovakia|12,411|179|40|12,590|27|13|12,630|
|United Kingdom|16,810|192|1,552|17,717|179|656|18,554|
|**Total**|**359,083**|**9,724**|**19,745**|**344,648**|**6,887**|**9,989**|**388,552**|

The “country of citizenship” and “country of birth” can be seen to represent relatively narrow and broad bands respectively defining migrant status: almost all would agree that foreign nationals currently in the country are indeed migrants, with the possibility that many recent migrants have by now acquired citizenship of the country in which they are currently living, so are therefore missed using the relatively narrow “country of citizenship” criterion. On the other hand, while many foreign-

> 5 **EU4 countries:** Of the EU10 countries (i.e. EU member countries that joined during the 2004 enlargement), Cyprus is excluded on account of it’s relatively small size, while Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovenia are excluded because prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union, all these countries were part of larger political entities, which renders problematic the use of country of birth and citizenship as the main criteria for forming our five main analytic groups. **EU13 countries:** Data for Germany was excluded from the EU-SILC data set we received from Eurostat. In addition, we also exclude Luxemburg from the analysis because we suspect that migrants in Luxemburg are fundamentally different from migrants in the other EU countries. As Table 1 shows, the share of migrants in Luxemburg is several times higher than in other EU countries.

6