Immigration Initiatives In The CIS-Countries: Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Russia

Twenty years after the collapse of the USSR, politicians in the newly generated independent CIS-countries do not build common migration strategy, even though it is in each country’s best interest for their residents to pay attention to each other’s social, political, economic, cultural, and linguistic differences. However, partnership and immigration regulation among CIS-counties demonstrate inappropriate “case by case” law regulation that often appears inhumane and unfriendly towards immigrants and natives.

According the UN data of 2012, there are 11.9 MLN immigrants in Russia; 5.1 Mio immigrants live in Ukraine; 3.5 Mio are in Kazakhstan; 1.3 Mio immigrants are in Uzbekistan; 1.1 Mio are in Belarus. Most of these individuals were former citizens of the USSR or have a common tie to Soviet background. Nonetheless, recent immigration initiatives in the CIS-countries refuse both immigrants and natives human rights.

There are inappropriate initiatives stated by national leaders in the CIS-countries. In October, 2013 Belarusian President Lukashenko proposed a departure fee of $100 for each Belarusian traveling abroad if consumer goods were purchased during their travels. Lukashenko´s argument was based on the overabundance of goods in Belarus and wanted to protect the national economy. Some days later, President apologized for his “black humor”.

This is not the first time CIS- leaders have “joked” about immigration policies. In 2006, Sapamurat Niyazov, former President of Tajikistan, resolved a growing number of international marriages and the extensive female emigration from Tajikistan by adopting  law about state marriage fees (kalym) “that proclaim a special fee of $50.000 for foreigners marrying a Tajikistan female citizen.” It was and is a case, when bad habits catch on. In November, 2013, deputies of Kazakhstan discussed adding new amendments to the National Tax Law and the opportunity to collect money for the state budget from foreigners interested in Kazakhs´ females. Senator Jabal Ergaliev mentioned that such an initiative could protect “the gene funds of Kazakhstan”.

While Central Asian countries search for internal immigration protections strategies, Russia pursues external protection policies. In October, 2013, Alexey Zhuravlev, deputy of United Russia, suggested adding a special amendment for the exclusion the children of illegal immigrants from public service, in particular public school. Roman Khudykov, deputy of LDPR, proposed in November, 2013 the cancellation of the death penalty´s moratorium for some type of criminals, especially serial murderers, pedophiles, and immigrants. He mentioned that, “...only aforementioned actions” could stop a criminalization of immigrants. This initiative got support among other State Duma´s represents, particularly by Mikhail Dyagterev (LDPR) and Tamara Pletneva (KPRF). Supporting the approach of “Russia without immigrants” and widespread deportation, Russian mass media brought repots and interviews of Tajikistan´s women who appealed to the Russian immigration authorities to deport their “husbands, brothers and sons” who are workers in Russia. The idea behind these actions and laws is to drive immigrants out of Russian metropolitans and get them back to CIS-countries.

All these initiatives suggest that immigration policy on the post-Soviet continent is often low-key and its details are largely unfriendly to immigrants. The possibility for politicians and enforcements to find a balance between immigrants´ and natives´ interests is limited. The immigration policy in the aforementioned countries, particularly in Russia, is considered ineffective and unsuccessful, because politicians and bureaucrats are still searching for merits of their priorities, mobilizing exclusively anti-immigrant slogans.