20 October 2020, NIICE Commentary 6309
Samprity Biswas
The disintegration of the Soviet Union accompanied by the emergence of 15 new sovereign, independent states characterized a paradigm shift in the international system. The Russian Federation, which emerged as the largest of those states, was confronted with the challenge of restructuring its relations with these new states. Psychologically, this seemed unnatural and bizarre because the Russian nationalists could not come in terms with the fact that the boundaries that were previously interior have now become international borders. However, as the realization dawned on them that the former vassals were indeed now independent states, Russia began to charter its independent course with regard to various issues vis-à-vis these states. Among the various issues at hand that demanded deliberation, the issue of migration emerged as one.
In the post-Soviet space, the first migration legislation promulgated by Russia was devoted to issues of displacement. Russia signed the 1951 United Nations Convention related to the status of Refugees and its 1967 protocol in 1992. Subsequently, in 1993, Russia codified elements of these in new laws on refugees and internally displaced persons. In 1993, a law was passed on freedom of movement and choice of residence creating opportunities for internal migration. In 1996, law on procedures for entry and exit to the Russian Federation enshrining liberal changes was promulgated. However, the legal status of foreigners was still regulated by a 1981 Soviet law that was no longer compatible with the rapidly changing circumstances. As comprehensive rules on residence and work for foreigners in Russia were lacking, the leaders began to implement a set of commonly used migration management tools that included work permits, entry visas, visa to attract foreign employees, permit for residence, etc.
Migration Regime of the Russian Federation in the Post-Soviet Period
In the post-Soviet period, the focus of the migration regime was on the origin of migrants, as a result of which the nationals of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) benefitted. Visa free entry and the right to a 90- day stay helped these migrants who were trying to escape ethnic violence and a resulting economic decline in their home countries. On the contrary, non-CIS nationals were subjected to greater administrative scrutiny. For example, companies willing to recruit foreigners had to submit to the relevant state authorities, the number of such workers they would need. Additionally, employers needed to obtain permission for the recruitment and work engagement of such migrants. And permits of such workers had to be renewed on an annual basis. This discrepancy between nationals of CIS and non-CIS nationals soon created various problems. Firstly, CIS migration became the most common, accounting for 93 percent of the total migration balance in 2013. Secondly, concentration of single ethnic communities from Central Asia emerged. Individuals of these communities had low level of educational qualification, often below the average qualification of Russians. Subsequently as these communities got access to employment opportunities with lower qualifications, the ethnic Russians started developing xenophobic tendencies. For instance, a survey conducted in 2011 showed that 28 percent of those questioned supported the slogan, “Enough feeding the Caucasus”, while 34 percent supported it to some extent. Moreover, the migrants from the CIS had little or no command over the Russian language that resulted in these migrants suffering from rampant discrimination and other unlawful activities. Thirdly, liberal migration regime for nationals of the CIS have resulted in the problem of illegal migration. In a survey conducted in 2005 revealed that 74 percent of those interviewed indicated that they received salaries without being registered in the Employers Accounting System while 20 percent of those interviewed further confirmed that they lacked a written contract with their employers. Additionally, the survey revealed that these workers worked in extremely difficult conditions, they were coerced to work overtime and often there were long delays in payments.
Government Response to the Challenges of the Migration Regime in the Post- Soviet Period
The emphasis on ‘origin’ as a criterion for migration presented an array of challenges before the Russian government. As CIS nationals overflooded the labour market and illegal migration arose, the Russian government attempted to reform the rules under which migrants could remain and work in the country. Firstly, it introduced annual work permits and quotas for work permits starting from 2007. This was replaced by patents in 2015, according to which the right of a foreign citizen to employment was confirmed. Secondly, the government also expanded the prospect of compatriots living abroad to return and settle in Russia. Thirdly, the government in 2015 made new regulations that laid down the rule for all potential employees to pass Russian language and history examinations. The State also required migrants to undertake health insurance and pay the government an annual fee in lieu of the employment opportunity.
These reforms were aimed at curbing the overflow of illegal migrants from the CIS, expand opportunities for resettlement of compatriots in Russia, prevent discrimination of non-Russian speakers while arresting the rising xenophobic tendencies against them. Additionally, these measures were also driven by the (i) Russian government’s attempt to check Russia’s demographic decline while creating a conducive environment for the educated elite Russians to return to their homeland from countries like USA, Germany and Israel (ii) to address the mass out-migration from the northern regions of Russia (iii) promote economic development of these areas and (iv) prevent Brain Drain Westward.
Recent Migration Reform: Analysing the Concept of the State Migration Policy
The Concept of the State Migration Policy (CSMP) approved by the President of Russia in 2012 is the first state initiative of its kind in the post-Soviet period. On 31st October 2018, the concept was signed with the aim to make migration policy more balanced and regularized until 2025 in a phased manner. In line with Russia’s commitment to International migration laws and its own federal laws, the Concept attempts to promote effective regulation of migration. It covers various types of migration that include, academic mobility, temporary migration for a certain period of time without change in permanent residence, long term migration made at least for a year, foreign labour mobility and so on.
The Concept focuses on the resettlement of migrants on the permanent residence to the Russian Federation in a bid to balance its demographic deficit. It also aims to ease the process of resettlement of its compatriots in Russia. This echoes Russia’s foreign policy approach towards Russian compatriots as a key instrument in sustaining the idea of a Cultural Russian World (Mir) larger than Russia itself. The aim is to demonstrate that Russia is a great power with socio-cultural influence beyond its borders. Secondly, it aims at the promotion of security standards through information technologies and digitalization of migration governance in order to curb illegal migration, Thirdly, it aims to attract highly skilled labours to Russia especially in the sparsely populated regions of Siberia and the Far East and in view of lower territorial mobility at the local level towards these regions. The Concept further lays down the ways in which Russia desires to engage with International and Regional Organizations to boost migration that can promote the flow of foreign investment into Russia.
The Concept identifies three successive stages of implementation. The first stage (2012-2015) aims at developing and adopting regulations, the second stage (2016- 2020) aims at implementing the main areas of migration policy while the third and final stage (2021-2025) include assessing the efficacy of the programmes implemented.
Conclusion
Though the Concept is the first of its kind in the post-Soviet space and it attempts to address some of the challenges of earlier migration policies, yet it too faces some practical and institutional impediments. Firstly, the Concept doesn’t address the concern of those migrants who wishes to work for longer period and then return home. Secondly, overt centralization of the policies leaves little or no room for local and regional leaders to engage with the issues of migration. Thirdly, migration policy can be used at the Central level as a leverage in Russia’s political relations with its weak neighbours. Fourthly, the stress on learning Russian language and history may not go down well with other ethnic groups who wishes to preserve their own cultural and linguistic heritage.
