Migration between Russia and the European Union: Policy implications from a small-scale study of irregular migrants

96 Pages·1.023 MB·English

by  Williams Lucy, Aktoprak Serhan.

Migration
between Russia and
the European Union:
Policy implications from
a small-scale study of
irregular migrants
1
International Organization for Migration, Moscow, 2010
2
Migration between Russia and the European Union:
Policy implications from a small-scale study
of irregular migrants
Dr. Lucy Williams with Serhan Aktoprak
International Organization for Migration
Moscow
2010
1
Opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
the views of IOM, its member states, the European Commission or EU member states. IOM
does not take any responsibility for inaccuracies caused through translation. The European
Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained
herein.
IOM is committed to the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and
society. As an intergovernmental body, IOM acts with its partners in the international com-
munity to: assist in meeting the operational challenges of migration; advance understanding
of migration issues; encourage social and economic development through migration; and
uphold the human dignity and wellbeing of migrants.
This material has been funded through the support of European Commission Aeneas 2005
Programme and co-funded by the government of the Finnish Republic.
Publisher: International Organization for Migration
2nd Zvenigorodskaya ulitsa 12, Moscow, 123100
Phone: [phone],
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [email protected]
Web-site: www.iomrussia.ru
ISBN 978-5-94446-008-0
© 2010, International Organization for Migration
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording,
or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher.
2
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................... 5
ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
SECTION 1 – STUDY CONTEXT, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
1.1. IntroductIon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
1.2. Study MethodS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2.1. Data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
1.2.2. Data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3. the Study BaSe on MIgratIon Between the ruSSIan FederatIon
and the european unIon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4. outlIne oF the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
SECTION 2 – M IGRATION PATTERNS BETWEEN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
AND THE EUROPEAN UNION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
2.1. IntroductIon .......................................................... 13
2.2. MIgratIon – patternS and perSpectIveS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.1. theoretical consiDerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.2. Migration anD Destination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
2.3. ruSSIan MIgratIon patternS and “ruSSIan” MIgratIon to the european unIon . . . . . . . . 16
2.3.1. general trenDs in Migration in the russian FeDeration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3.2. Migration patterns between the russian FeDeration anD the european union ..... 17
2.3.3. the return oF Migrants FroM the european union to the russian FeDeration .... 18
2.3.4. reaDMission agreeMents .............................................. 19
2.3.5. the response oF european union to irregular Migration .................... 19
2.4. Irregular thIrd-country natIonalS tranSItIng Into the european unIon
through the ruSSIan terrItory .............................................20
2.5. concluSIon ........................................................... 22
SECTION 3 – P ROFILE OF MIGRANTS WHO HAVE TRAVELLED FROM THE RUSSIAN
FEDERATION TO THE EUROPEAN UNION – FINDINGS OF THE STUDY . .23
3.1. IntroductIon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.2. deMographIc proFIle oF the MIgrantS Surveyed In the european unIon
and In the ruSSIan FederatIon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
3.3. data collected relatIng to the SItuatIon oF MIgrantS In the eu
and the ruSSIan FederatIon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
3.3.1. Key FinDings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
3.3.2. analysis oF suppleMentary Questions For transit Migrants in the eu saMple ..... 27
3.4. FIndIngS FroM QueStIonnaIre Survey IMpleMented In the ruSSIan FederatIon . . . . . . . . .29
3
3.5. concluSIonS to analySIS oF QueStIonnaIre data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
3.6. QualItatIve FIndIngS FroM the “open QueStIonS” FroM the QueStIonnaIre Survey
IMpleMented In Selected european unIon MeMBer StateS and In the ruSSIan FederatIon .34
3.6.1. analysis oF the “open Questions” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
3.6.2. the FinDings oF the “open Questions” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
3.7. caSe StudIeS FroM the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
3.8. concluSIonS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
SECTION 4 – P OLICY IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FUTURE GOOD PRACTICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
4.1. IntroductIon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
4.2. polIcy IMplIcatIonS and recoMMendatIonS For the Future ManageMent
oF MIgratIon FlowS Between the ruSSIan FederatIon and the european unIon . . . . . . . .45
4.3. recoMMendatIonS to Support the return, reIntegratIon and receptIon
oF returned MIgrantS FroM the european unIon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
4.4. concluSIon and SuMMary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
SECTION 5 – CONCLUDING COMMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
ANNEX 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
ANNEX 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
ANNEX 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
ANNEX 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89
ANNEX 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90
4
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support and assistance of the International Organization
for Migration (IOM) Moscow office – in particular that of Marina Manke, Olga Pozdorovkina, Julia
Zelenskaya, Kirill Shevchenko – who were extremely generous with their time and expertise.
We would like to thank Stepan Ripka (Czech Republic), Miroslaw Bieniecki and Piotr Kazmierkiewicz
(Poland), Anton Babkin (Russian Federation) and the Society of Goodwill (Slovakia) for carrying out
interviews in a professional and dedicated manner in the countries where it has been possible.
We also recognize the invaluable contribution of the migrants surveyed who gave up their time to
share their insights and experiences with us. Their testimony is often poignant and painful to read
but is essential reading for all policy makers who seek to establish fair and equitable policies that
fully respect the human rights of migrants.
Finally, thanks are given to the European Commission and the Government of the Finnish Republic
without whose generous financial support this report would not have been possible.
5
Abbreviations
CIREFI Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Frontiers
and Immigration
CEE Central and Eastern Europe
CIS Commonwealth of Independent States
ECA Europe and Central Asia
ECRE European Council for the Rights of Refugees and Exiles
EMN European Migration Network
EU European Union
FSB Federal Security Bureau
FSU Former Soviet Union
IOM International Organization for Migration
NGOs Non-governmental organizations
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
6
Executive Summary
The purpose of this study has been to provide evidence to support the ongoing development of
administrative and legislative frameworks that facilitate the return of migrants from the European
Union to the Russian Federation. The main strength of this study is to provide some insight into a
“migrant view” of migration regimes and policy. The collection of robust quantitative data did not
prove possible but the study design enabled the collection of qualitative data from migrants. This
data has provided unique insights into the lives and experiences of migrants in irregular situations
in the European Union as well as upon their return to the Russian Federation.
This study surveyed:
• migrants in the European Union who had travelled from the Russian Federation (n.58) including
non-Russian citizens who had crossed the territory of the Russian Federation prior to entering
the European Union;
• Russian migrants who have returned to the Russian Federation (n. 23) from the European
Union;
• migrants by means of an interview process that was conducted in Slovakia (n.30), Poland (n. 22),
the Czech Republic (n. six) and the Russian Federation (n. 23).
The main findings of the study:
• International instruments promoting individual human rights clearly advocate that migrants
should have the opportunity to return to their home countries voluntarily and the European
Union and the Russian Federation have stated clearly that forced return should be avoided.
However, this study indicates that some irregular migrants from the Russian Federation living
in the European Union do feel that they have no alternative but to return to the Russian Federa-
tion even when it would be their preference to stay in their country of migration. In some cases,
migrants indicated that while they may be acquiescing with the authorities in accepting return,
this was not a truly voluntary choice.
• Lack of adequate information played a role in this sense of “involuntary” return as not all migrants
felt they had been provided with sufficient information to make an informed choice. Those mi-
grants considering return should be provided with sufficient information to allow them to make
a positive decision that is in their own best interest. To enable this informed decision, migrants
need clear information about how they will be returned and what services and support they
can expect on return – this information is even more important for those facing imminent return.
This study shows that such information is not universally available to all migrants who need it.
• The Russian Federation needs to actively develop partnerships with non-governmental organi-
zations to overcome the lack of trust between migrants and government bodies. However, such
partnerships will work only if non-governmental organizations are allowed to remain impartial
and to work as advocates of the migrants rather than as co-opted agents of the state.
• Migrant citizens of the Russian Federation should be able to access support in returning to the
region of their choice, in finding housing, employment, training and health care appropriate to
their needs. This study has shown that while examples of good practices exist, some migrants
are not able to access support.
• Efforts should be made to ensure that the skills and qualifications gained during migration
are recognized and valued in the Russian Federation – at present, the skills of migrants are
neither recognized in the countries to which they migrate, nor in the Russian Federation if they
return.
• Systems and mechanisms of recording and managing migration within the Russian Federa-
tion need to be strengthened so that migration flows can be understood better, international
standards for migration can be achieved and the needs of migrants, especially vulnerable
migrants, can be met.
7
• This study shows that many of the migrants from the Russian Federation who are currently in
the European Union are committed to their country of birth and want to return. They remain in
the European Union because of uncertainty about the socio-economic climate in the Russian
Federation and/or because they feel that if they return, they will find it difficult to migrate at a
later date.
• In addition, many surveyed migrants did not want to return to the Russian Federation because
of anxiety over their safety and wellbeing and/or that of their families. In order for return migra-
tion to be demonstrably voluntary, rather than forced, the Russian Federation needs to make
efforts to promote voluntary return to its citizens overseas.
• Far from being a drain on economies, migrants make significant economic contributions to the
countries where they reside so this contribution should be seen as an asset to the Russian
Federation. This applies to migrants from beyond the borders of the Russian Federation who
live within the Russian Federation, as well as to migrants from the Russian Federation now
living outside the region.
• As a final point, the importance of regularizing migration between the Russian Federation and
the European Union should be a priority for socio-economic reasons and as a means to un-
dermine the power of criminal smugglers and traffickers that presently have an important but
unintentional role in shaping migration patterns.
Recommendations for further study:
This study was able to canvas the opinion of a small number of migrants in a few countries only.
It has highlighted numerous controversial areas which need to be followed up with a larger study
project. Such a study should build on the areas identified here, include qualitative as well as
quantitative elements and should include a longitudinal dimension to identify how the attitudes
and aspirations of migrants change over time. It is recommended that any future study should
focus on migrants who are not from the former Soviet Union (from countries of the so-called “far
abroad”) as they transit across the Russian Federation to the European Union. This study has
highlighted some of the particular problems such migrants face but a larger sample is needed
urgently to support policy making in this area. Particularly African migrants are conspicuous by
their absence in this study.
8