228 Stateless Syrians in Turkey and Lebanon to a vulnerable position. This study mainly focuses on discussing the legal position of the people who have been immigrated from their country of origin for various reasons and their reflections on social life. In other words, it aims to discuss the statelessness of individuals defined as foreigners, asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants because of staying outside of their own country and to discuss the transfer of this situation to the next generation on a sociological basis. Turkey and Lebanon have many common points in the Syrian migration share, however, some of the main reasons why these two countries are dealt with in the context of this study come to the forefront. First of all, these countries host most of Syrian immigrants. These countries are going through a similar process as there is a lot of Syrian immigrants, which will affect the registration process and use of their basic human rights in a coordinated manner. However, the fact that Syrians are “strangers” allows each country to use different techniques and programs. Turkey has experience in immigration and the coordinated working with the United Nations (UN), which affects its programs, while the sharing of political power in Lebanon according to the religious population and political groups in the country have severely influenced the migration process of Syrians to the country and subsequent programs. At this point, according to the data of 28 February 2019 compiled by UNHCR (2019), Turkey currently hosts the most Syrians as 3,644,342 immigrants. Turkey is followed by Lebanon with 946,291 people in second place. The second reason for the selection of these two countries is that both countries have a border with Syria and allow immigrants to use the borders in case of crisis. The third reason is that both countries initially adopt the open door policy for immigrants fleeing the crisis of Syria. The fact that this policy then allowed the expansion of an unscheduled immigrant in both countries, and the formation of suitable ground for the disruption of the registration process, and the difficulty of the supervision caused these two countries to come together in the context of this study. However, the point that makes this study important and distinctive is that it shows a comparative way of how Turkey and Lebanon are able to manage the migration today, depending on the similar points for the migration from Syria. As explained in detail below, this phenomenon is discussed in the context of the de facto statelessness of Syrians in both countries. The number of people worldwide, who can be defined as stateless, is not known clearly because of their inability to be registered. However, the social, economic and political crises that occur in the World lead to the emergence of different cases of statelessness. The statelessness generally can be examined in two separate categories. The first is “de jure “and the other is “de facto” statelessness. Under normal circumstances, every individual is given the nationality of the region, according to the citizenship of their parents. These rights of individuals ensured by laws are an absolute precaution of the problem of statelessness while minimising arbitrary situations. Depending on where individuals have developed their own citizenship bonds, place transfers the citizenship rights to individuals to be transferred to their descendence. Despite this situation which is fixed by both national and international agreements in theory, it can lead to significant discussions and deadlock in practice. First of all, it is possible to evaluate the persons, who are not defined as citizens by the State which they are born in or by another State, in the category of de jure statelessness. Although such people have known citizenship that is valid in his country but is not active and valid in the international arena, these individuals are also included in the de facto stateless group. Therefore, the de jure and de facto statelessness are essentially assessed considering whether a person has a State or not and whether individuals can obtain this right legally. On the other hand, de jure statelessness can be confirmed as a usual situation with the law and refers that the citizenship, known as the basic human right, is not given to the person by the hosting country. In this respect, BORDER CROSSING