Russian Migration Policy: Restrict or Liberalize?
In
Login if you are already registered
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
Ph.D., Professor of World Politics Department, Moscow State University
The problem of illegal migration in Russia has been exacerbated to a large extent by the mixed migration regime with CIS countries that combines both liberal and restrictive tools. The experience of developed countries shows that in order to solve this problem, Russia has to opt for either consistent restraint or consistent liberalization of migration and employment in the region.
The problem of illegal migration in Russia has been exacerbated to a large extent by the mixed migration regime with CIS countries that combines both liberal and restrictive tools. The experience of developed countries shows that in order to solve this problem, Russia has to opt for either consistent restraint or consistent liberalization of migration and employment in the region.
In recent decades, many attempts have been made to reduce the level of illegal migration into Russia and to increase the transparency and controllability of migration flows. These measures have included the introduction of labor quotas, “patents” for self-employed persons, changes to the rules of registration and migration control, etc. However, all have failed to noticeably improve the situation. According to expert assessments, the level of informal employment of migrants in Russia in 2013 does not differ much from that of the early 2000s: the number of illegal migrants is estimated at 3-5 million people, which is at least twice the number of legal foreign workers.
In order to radically change the situation, Russia needs to reform not the particular rules of employment or stays in the country, but the very principles of its migration policy, in particular, the basis of its migration regime with CIS countries, from which the vast majority of illegal migrants come. The experience of other leading countries has shown that Russia will have to either enforce tough visa control at its borders, or consistently liberalize its immigration regime by lifting restrictions on the access of migrants from the CIS into the labor market.
Migration Regime in the CIS
The current migration regime is based on a mixture of liberal and restrictive principles. On the one hand, Russia maintains a visa-free regime with the CIS countries in order to ensure the freedom of movement in the region and encourage immigration. On the other hand, Russia has established quite strict rules of employment for citizens of these countries in order to keep the level of immigration under control and protect the national labor market. Russia restricts the number of work permits for foreign workers through quotas, demands knowledge of the Russian language to perform certain activities, inflicts severe punishment for organizing the illegal employment of migrants, etc.
Moscow, Febraury 28, 2008
International practices confirm the effectiveness of the mixed regime in relations between developed countries, such as the United States and Canada, the U.S. and the EU countries. Restricting foreigners' access to the labor market protects the priority right of citizens to find work, while open borders allow migrants to circulate freely across borders in search of work and respond flexibly to changes in demand and supply. As a result, illegal migration is minimal, since immigrants from developed countries who fail to find work, would rather return home than stay in the country in violation of the law and operate illegally.
However, maintaining the same regime between developed and developing countries will inevitably create problems. The benefits of immigration from poor to rich countries are so great that they outweigh all the negative consequences of violating the law. Open borders reduce risks to a minimum, since they significantly simplify the entry of immigrants and the procedures allowing for their employment, all while avoiding government control. Internal regulatory mechanisms, such as quotas or other restrictions, do not produce the desired deterrence effect and only push immigrants into the shadow economy.
Many developed countries that have opened their borders to migrants from developing countries had to learn this lesson. Most of them have abandoned the mixed regime in favor of either consistent restraining or liberalizing migration flows.
The Restrictive Scenario
The policy of West European countries and the U.S. in the second half of the 20th century illustrates a restrictive scenario.
Labor migration, Moscow
In the first decades after World War II, countries of Western Europe (France, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands) suffering from labor shortages opened their borders to labor migrants from their former colonies and Turkey. The United States did the same for workers from Mexico. Britain declared all residents of the Commonwealth of Nations – a quarter of the world population at that time – “British subjects” with the right to freely enter and work in the United Kingdom.
However, by the early 1970s, Europe and the United States recognized this approach as erroneous. Experience showed that no developed country with open borders could control the number of migrants and ensure their timely return home. Moreover, after closing labor migration programs, no host country was able to contain the process of family reunification and growing migrant communities, which became a real challenge to integration.
In the 1970-1980s, almost all Western countries closed their borders with developing countries, which at the time were the main source of labor migrants. Western European countries also introduced a visa regime with the countries of North Africa and the Middle East. In response to a dramatic influx of immigrants, Britain abolished all the privileges previously granted to citizens of African and Asian member-states of the Commonwealth of Nations. The United States stopped hiring Mexican workers in its agricultural sector and for railroad track maintenance (in line with the so-called bracero program – a guest worker program that ran between the years of 1942 and 1964). It should be noted that later the United States toughened its migration regime with Mexico. Even integration processes in North American continent and Mexico's active efforts to liberalize its migration regime within the framework of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) failed to make the United States change its position on the issue.
In the long term, the restrictive scenario has generated some unintended side effects:
- Closing borders created incentives for migrants to put down roots in the host countries and bring over their families, which triggered large-scale family reunifications;
- The lack of legal entry and employment opportunities dramatically increased the level of illegal migration and the abuse of other channels of immigration, such as asylum-seeking and family reunification;
- Strengthening border controls entailed significant allocations for border guards, which, in turn, increased the burden on taxpayers.
However, it should be admitted that the visa barrier became an effective instrument that allowed developed countries to significantly reduce the mass flow of unskilled labor migrants from developing countries and create the necessary conditions for selective migration policies, i.e. quality selection of immigrants on the grounds of skills and ability to integrate (age, language skills, experience of work or training in the country).
The Liberal Scenario
To significantly improve control over migration flows, Russia should change its migration regime with CIS countries outside the Common Free Market Zone and make it either liberal or tough. Any “third way” which attempts to combine elements of both approaches is doomed to failure.
The liberal scenario is an alternative to the restrictive approach and presumes no containment of mass immigration from developing countries through visa barriers. Moreover, it supplements freedom of movement with freedom of employment. The advantage of this approach is that it does not attempt to counteract the objective processes and keep them within narrow bounds (which requires enormous efforts and resources from host countries), and expands the field for the legal functioning of migration flows. The access of immigrants not only to the territory, but to the labor market too is simplified in every possible way, which increases the flexibility in the use of foreign labor and reduces the attractiveness of informal employment.
The liberal scenario can be illustrated by the policy of Western countries in relation to the countries of Southern and Eastern Europe within the framework of European integration. The European Economic Community (later the European Union) went through several phases of expanding and was joined by countries with a significantly lower level of GDP and a large migration potential. The prospect of EU enlargement every time gave rise to fears in Western Europe of mass immigration from the south (Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece), or from the east (Central and Eastern Europe). For new members a new transition period of 2 to 7 years was introduced, during which the citizens of these countries were required to obtain work permits just as citizens of third countries.
Nevertheless, thanks to political will, all the restrictions were lifted at the end of the transitional period, and the citizens of the new member-states of the European Union were granted full freedom of movement and employment.
The persistent fears of mass immigration proved to be groundless. Along with the traditional national institutes of employment protection, mass migration was severely restricted by language ignorance, the immigrants’ lack of work experience in the country and employers’ mistrust of foreign qualifications.
In addition, due to open borders, migration acquired a short-term nature. Studies have shown that the majority of immigrants from new member-states got jobs that did not conform to their qualifications, and work abroad was for them a temporary solution rather than a choice in life. The hypothesis that mass migration would occur for the sake of social benefits - the so-called “welfare tourism” phenomenon – has not been empirically supported either.
EU immigrants’ freedom of movement and employment allowed governments:
- To raise the efficiency of labor force distribution in the region, benefiting both the host countries and the countries of origin;
- To significantly reduce the level of shadow employment of migrant workers at minimal cost;
- To eliminate grounds for corruption and violation of human rights;
- To promote the return-oriented and pendulum-like nature of migration patterns and prevent large-scale settlements of migrants in the host country.
French police inspect an illegal Roma camp,
September, 2010
Nevertheless, as the European experience has shown, the opening of labor markets to immigrants from the new member-states has its drawbacks too.
First, in the short-term, migration flows have become more intense and have led to escalated tensions. Both effects were particularly noticeable in the UK, where the massive influx of unskilled workers from Poland and Romania stirred up resentment of migration policy and serious complaints. In response, the British government agreed to limit immigration from third countries, including skilled workers, which, according to experts, caused damage to the national interests of the United Kingdom.
Second, the host state is deprived of its flexibility in decision-making and cannot limit the influx of immigrants at will. Thus, the attempt by France to send Gypsies back to Romania and Bulgaria in 2010, or to restore border control with Italy at the beginning of 2011, when a large number of refugees from North African countries gathered there, caused resistance and criticism from other EU states and international human rights organizations.
Third, due to freedom of movement, host countries become vulnerable to socio-economic and political problems of the partner-states, as any upheaval in the latter will inevitably provoke mass exodus to problem-free countries. Within the EU, this problem is solved in a preventive manner by structural funds and the Cohesion Fund which render financial support in order to develop the most backward regions. These account for at least 35-40 percent of the annual budget of the European Union (347 billion euros for 2007-2013).
* * *
What lessons can Russia learn from international experience? To significantly improve control over migration flows, Russia should change its migration regime with CIS countries outside the Common Free Market Zone and make it either liberal or tough. Any “third way” which attempts to combine elements of both approaches is doomed to failure.
The choice in favor of either scenario is complicated by the remaining contradictions between the strategic priorities of the country’s leadership and the opinion of the majority of the population. On the one hand, the leadership champions strengthening Eurasian integration – the establishment of the Eurasian Union in which citizens will be able to choose their place of work and residence at will. This degree of freedom of movement can only be achieved under the liberal scenario, similar to the European one. On the other hand, the rise of nationalist and anti-immigrant sentiments in the society has created a demand for a restrictive scenario. Thus, according to an opinion poll carried out by the Levada Center on July 3, 2013, 84 percent of Russians support the introduction of a visa regime with the republics of Central Asia and Transcaucasia. Liberalization has become invariably unpopular and a losing ticket in the political struggle. As a result, the government has to confine itself to half-hearted measures by “pointing to tightening the screws” on the migration regime, while maintaining the freedom of movement within the CIS.
The continued policy of combining restrictive and liberal principles will remain a major obstacle on the way to effective migration regime.
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
