Migration Trends 2004–2006 Söderköping Process Countries

MIGRATION TRENDS 2004–2006 SÖDERKÖPING PROCESS COUNTRIES

Irina Pribytkova, professor Juris Gromovs, mag.iur., dr.cand.iur

This project is funded by This project is implemented Swedish Migration Board The International the European Union by the United Nations High is a project partner Organization for Migration Commissioner for Refugees is a project partner Contact: Cross-Border Cooperation Process Secretariat 32-A Sichnevoho Povstannya St., Kyiv, 01015, Ukraine Tel: +380 44 254 55346 / 47 Fax: +380 44 288 9850 Email: [email protected] www.soderkoping.org.ua

Th is paper was written by Dr. Irina Pribytkova and Juris Gromovs with the assistance of Ilmars Mezs, Programme offi cer, International Organization for Migration. Th is publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Commission. It presents the views of its authors and in no way constitutes any obligation or expresses the offi cial position or views of the European Commission, IOM, UNHCR, or SMB. Th is paper may be freely quoted, cited and copied for academic, educational or other non-com- mercial purposes without prior permission from European Commission, IOM, UNHCR and SMB, provided that the source is acknowledged. Th e paper is available online at www.soderkoping.org.ua

Introduction 4

Regular and Irregular Migration in Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova, 2004–2006 5 Introduction 5 1. Ukraine 7 1.1. Migration process management 7 1.2. Regular migration 9 1.3. Irregular migration 11 2. Belarus 16 2.1. Management of migration processes 16 2.2. Regular migration 17 2.3. Irregular migration 18 3. Republic of Moldova 21 3.1. Migration process management 21 3.2. Regular migration 22 3.3. Irregular migration 22 Conclusions 24 Annexes 25

Overview of Migration Trends in the Countries – EU Member States of the Söderköping Process for the period of 2004–2006 34 Introduction 34 Trends in Regular and Irregular Migration 36 Estonia 36 Hungary 37 Latvia 38 Lithuania 41 Poland 42 Romania 45 Th e Slovak Republic 48 Th e fl ow of migrants from the new EU member states to the United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden. 51 Conclusions 54 Conclusions: Trends in the irregular migration fl ows 55 Bibliography 58 Annexes 59

3 Introduction

As the Söderköping process gains further momentum, it increasingly faces a changing environ- ment, newly-emerging patterns of migration fl ows and border management, and a new dynamic of EU enlargement. While cross-border cooperation, migration and asylum matters across the EU external frontier has been very much at the heart of the Söderköping process since its very start, the accession of the Baltic states, Poland, Slovak Republic, Hungary and, recently, Romania to the European Union has changed migration dynamics in the region considerably. While an obvious change took place in migration patterns, the EU enlargement also had an impact on the regulatory framework, adjusted some priorities in strengthening administrative and operational capacity of the participating countries, and highlighted further areas and needs of cross-border cooperation on migration and border management, and refugee protection. Th e current publication provides a comprehensive overview of migration trends in the ten participating countries covering both regular and irregular migration in a systematic manner. Th e fi rst part, written by Dr. Irina Pribytkova covers Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova and the second, part written by Juris Gromovs covers the seven EU member-states. While some remaining diff erences in statistical approach makes few comparisons diffi cult, these studies provide broad empirical evidence from a comparative perspective, the analysis of which presents a number of conclusions and newly emerging patterns, both in migration fl ows as well as approaches to regulate them. Sizable, precise and up to date statistical amendments and color illustrations will help readers to learn about migration trends in the region. Th e accession of the new countries to the EU changed some migration patterns considerably; while identifying the immediate eff ects, the study focuses on the long-tem agenda, challenges and solutions, of cross-border cooperation across the EU external frontier. While this publication is intended chiefl y as a source of reference for migration, asylum and border control offi cials of the Söderköping process countries, we trust it will be of interest to a broader audience, including academia, or anyone with an interest into the current developments and priorities of border and migration management in Europe. Th e full text of this publication is available on line for download at www.soderkoping.org.ua

May, 2007

4 Regular and Irregular Migration in Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova, 2004–2006 Irina Pribytkova, professor

Introduction

Th e enlargement of the European Union in 2004 has changed the geopolitical map of Eastern and Central Europe. Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova, bordering the new EU member states of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania in the West, became Eastern neighbours of the expanding European Union. At the same time, all the three countries borders with other states of the Commonwealth of Independent states (CIS): Ukraine and Belarus with the Russian Federation, while Moldova shares a border with Ukraine. Along the whole length, these frontiers remain quite porous. Th is factor has a considerable impact on the volume, structure and intensity of migration fl ows, both legal and illegal. In this context, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova are viewed as the countries of origin, destination and transit of various migration fl ows. Th e Th ematic programme for cooperation with third countries in the areas of migration and asylum adopted by the European Commission on 25 January 2006 acknowledges the increase in the types and volumes of international migration fl ows, diversifi cation of countries of their origin and destination, rise in the number of migration routes and their combined impact on the European Union’s bilateral and regional relationships with third countries. In the information report submitted to the European Parliament and European Council, migration is viewed as one of the strategic priorities in external relations of the EU. Due to the complex problems of integration of migrants into the host societies, immigration has become an increasingly frequent topic on Europe’s political agenda. Links between migration and security have also been receiving close attention of international organisations dealing with relevant issues of the modern European political realities. In particular, migration is studied and addressed by the International Organization for Migration, the Offi ce of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Centre for Migration Policy Development. For example, the results of a comprehensive analysis of migration situation in CIS countries, including Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova, were presented in three reference publications of the International Organization for Migration in 1997, 1999 and 2002. Th e fi rst of these publications was the “CIS Migration Report: 1996”. Th e second report “Migration in the CIS: 1997–1998. Th e 1999 edition” was published two years later. Finally, in 2002, the third report “Migration Trends in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: 2001–2002 Review” was released. In addition to these publications, under the initiative of the IOM Mission in Ukraine, two reports were prepared in 2004 and 2006 on migration dynamics in the country based on the data review of governmental statistics, while migration legislation of Ukraine was used as a methodological basis for analytical study, as follows: “Review of migration situation in Ukraine according to national and ministerial statistics data: 2002–2003.”; “Review of migration situation in Ukraine according to national and ministerial statistics data: 2004–2005”. Over the last two years, analytical studies in the fi eld of migration processes in CIS countries received additional methodological backup with the release of the following publications:

5 Review of migration systems in CIS countries / IOM: 2005. – 433 p.; Labour migration in the countries of Central Asia, Russian Federation, Afghanistan and Tajikistan. Analytical review / IOM: 2005. – 145 p.; Labour Migration Assessment for the WNIS Region / IOM: 2006/ – 36 p. Th e review of migration systems in CIS countries was prepared as part of the Project “Th e expan- sion of the Budapest process to the CIS region for the prevention of irregular migration inside the region, from the region and through its territory” under the auspices of the International Centre for Migration Policy Development acting as the Secretariat of the Budapest process. Th is review is based mainly on the information collected by the Centre’s staff and experts from CIS member states in the course of expert working missions to all the twelve CIS states. Th e analytical review of labour migration in Central Asian countries, the Russian Federation, Afghanistan and Pakistan was carried out as part of the Programme on the development of dialogue and technical capacity building in migration process management in the countries of Central Asia, Russian Federation, Afghanistan and Pakistan under the auspices of the International Organization for Migration with fi nancial support provided by the European Commission. Th e analytical report “Labour Migration Assessment for the WNIS Region,” produced by the IOM Mission in Ukraine in 2006, provides a review of the current status of labour migration dynamics in Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus from a comparative perspective vis-à-vis international standards in the fi led of employment and labour, and with due account to existing practices in the area of labour migration process management. In particular, examples are provided illustrating cooperation between Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus and Russia in the fi eld of making bilateral agreements on the use of labour and protection of the rights of migrant workers. While these analytical reviews present logical deductions, conclusions and conceptual proposals, their value would far higher if they were to rely on systematic empirical statistical information covering a number of years that would allow crystallizing the trends of migration fl ows in Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. Th e objective constraints in obtaining necessary information and, in some cases, the lack of comparative quantitative data led the authors of the reports to certain theoreticy in their conclusions to the detriment to their objectivity. Th is research paper makes an attempt to review the development trends in regular and irregular migration in Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova covering the period of 2004–2006 and, in some aspects, even for a lengthier period.

6 1. Ukraine

1.1. Migration process management

In any state, the management of migration processes covers both regular migration and attempts to combat irregular migration. In Ukraine, the State Committee for Nationalities and Religion is in charge of activities in the fi eld of regular migration. In turn, the Ministry of Internal Aff airs of Ukraine bears responsibility for managing, preventing and combating illegal migration. Th e State Committee for Nationalities and Religion, in close cooperation with other government agencies, exercise the following functions: policy development in the fi eld of immigration and refugees; processing refugee status claims and asylum seekers; providing shelter to the claimants at centres of temporary accommodation for refugees; assisting voluntary returns of refugees and asylum seekers to countries of their origin or permanent residence; developing programmes for refugee integration into the Ukrainian society. Th e State Committee on Nationalities and Religion coordinates its activities with the Ministries of Internal Aff airs, Foreign Aff airs, Labour and Social policy, Public Health and the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine. Th e Law “On Immigration,” adopted by the Parliament of Ukraine in June 2001, is of funda- mental signifi cance to the regulation of migration processes in the country. In particular, it establishes procedures and conditions for immigration into Ukraine of foreigner nationals and stateless persons, assigns quotas for immigrants into Ukraine, outlines the competencies of agencies responsible for regulating immigration processes in Ukraine, and, importantly, provides the defi nitions of the terms immigration and immigrants. Th e strategy of combating illegal migration is outlined in a number of legal documents govern- ing the activities of the Ministry of Internal Aff airs and the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine, two agencies that play a key role in combating irregular migration. Th e Ministry of Internal Aff airs performs the following functions: searching for and apprehending irregular migrants in the territory of Ukraine; verifying the identity of apprehended persons; taking administrative action against illegal migrants for violation of residence rules in the territory of Ukraine; removal (deportation) of irregular migrants or regularising their status by granting them residence in the country; investigating allegations of persons providing accommodation, employment, services and transport to illegal migrants. Th e scope of authority of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine includes the following: border control and issuance of permits to individuals, transport vehicles, cargo and property for crossing the border; detecting and preventing illegal fl ows of the above; combating organised crime and irregular migration along the borders; taking decisions regarding expulsion of foreign citizens and stateless persons. A regular inter-ministerial information sharing mechanism takes place and includes the State Border Guard Service, Ministries of Internal Aff airs and Foreign Aff airs, the State Security Service, the

7 State Customs Service and the State Committee of Ukraine for Nationalities and Religion. Expulsion of foreign nationals or stateless persons detained within the controlled frontier zones while attempting to cross or aft er illegal crossing of the state border of Ukraine, is carried out by the state border guard authorities; in all other cases, this procedure is performed by agencies reporting to the Ministry of Interior. Th e process of removal of foreign nationals and stateless persons is regulated by the Instruction on the procedures of interaction between the authorities of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine and the departments of Internal Aff airs of Ukraine in transferring foreign nationals and stateless persons detained by these agencies approved by the Order # 742/1090 of the Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine and the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine dated 15 October 2004. Th e emergence of a common frontier between Ukraine and the European Union created an increase in transit illegal migration to the EU countries. According to unoffi cial estimates, around 0.5 million persons are staying illegally in the territory of Ukraine, most of them from the countries of South-East and Central Asia, as well as the Caucasus1. Th e trend of detention of irregular migrants in Ukraine has shown an increase in their fl ows and indicates the danger of their accumulation in the territory of the country. Th e illegal migration fl ows are characterized by a strong presence of trans-national networks backed up by funding and equipment from trans-border crime groups. According to the EU Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Frontiers and Immigration (CIREFI), the territory of Ukraine is on a major Central European route of irregular migration, including sever- al channels of illegal movements of persons: Vietnamese, Pakistani-Indian, Sri Lankan-Bangladeshi, Afghan, Chinese, Kurdish, Uzbek-Tajik and Chechen channels.2 Following the conclusion of a readmission agreement with the EU in October 2006, Ukraine intends to create a single readmission zone on the basis of an overlapping network of bilateral agreements (Ukraine – EU, Russia – EU, Belarus – EU, Russia – Belarus, Ukraine – Russia, and Ukraine – Belarus). Currently, Ukraine has bilateral agreements on readmission with Hungary, Georgia, Moldova, Poland, Slovakia, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Switzerland. On 19 February, 2007 Russia already ratifi ed its readmission agreement with the European Union3. A similar agreement was signed between Ukraine and Russia by their Presidents on 22 December 2006. Concluding a bilateral readmission agreement with the Republic of Belarus remains on the agenda for the future. Th e European Commission has recognised migration control and eff ective border management as a priority area in relations between Ukraine and the European Union. Key objectives include the prevention and combating of irregular migration, traffi cking in human beings, smuggling and trans- border organized crime. A recent study, “Мigration policy of Ukraine in controlling irregular migration,”4 focuses on the following key issues: control of irregular migration as a priority area of integral migration policy of Ukraine; problems of migration policy of Ukraine as they refer to preventing and combating irregular migration; and changes required for controlling irregular migration in a more eff ective manner.

1 Documents of International Conference: “Applying Best Practice in The Readmission of Illegal Migrants: Building national capacity through international cooperation”. Kyiv, 23 July, 2006. 2 Migration situation in Ukraine // Information bulletin of International centre for advanced studies, number 8 (312), 6 March, 2006., P. 1–2. 3 The Agreement on readmission between Russia and the EU provides for a 3-year transition period giving Russia time to conclude similar agreements with all its neighbors. 4 Migration policy of Ukraine in controlling irregular migration. – Kyiv, 2006. – 56 p. Published by the International centre for advanced studies (Kyiv) and the Institute of public aﬀ airs (Warsaw) as part of the project “Improvement of implementation mechanisms of migration policy of Ukraine. Extension of best practice of EEC countries on implementing readmission agreements.” 8 1.2. Regular migration

Th e main sources of information on migration fl ows in Ukraine are migration records maintained and computed annually by the State Statistics Committee of Ukraine. Th e population migration data are kept by statistical agencies on the basis of registration forms for persons as they change their place of residence. Statistics account vouchers are also used; these are questionnaire type documents be completed in territorial subdivisions (sections) of the State department for citizenship, immigration and registration of physical persons with the Ministry of Internal Aff airs of Ukraine (OGIRFL)5 at registration of all persons arriving or departing for permanent or temporary residence to or from Ukraine. According to fi gures in Table 1, international migration in Ukraine became diversifi ed during the period of 2002–2006. While the overall volume of recorded population movements between Ukraine and other countries (covering all migrants regardless of destinations or transit countries) has decreased by 1.6 times (from 118,737 persons in 2002 to 74,209 persons in 2006), migration ex- changes with the Western countries were decreasing at slightly higher rate (1.8 times), if compared to that of the former Soviet Union countries (1.5 times). For instance, the percentage of the total migration volumes in population exchange with the former Soviet Union countries grew during this period from 72% to 74%, which also followed Ukraine’s international migration patterns in the early 1990s. Th e change in the volume and structure of migration processes was related to the improvement of migration situation in Ukraine. As per fi gure 1, the country became a receiving state already in 2005 and emigration losses to the Western countries were compensated by immigrants from the former Soviet Union countries. In 2006, however, for the fi rst time in over a decade, Ukraine also had positive net migration with the Western countries. Even if the net migration fi gure was just 1,539 persons, it nevertheless indicated a turning point in the development of migration dynamics in Ukraine, the status of which has been shift ing from a country of origin to a country of destination. Fig. 1. Registered Migration Trends in Ukraine, 2002–2006

60000 42473 44227 39489 38567 39580 40000

20000 4583 14245 -7615 Arrived 0 Departed -33791 -20000 -24210 Net migration -40000 -34997 -29982 -46182 -60000 -63699 -80000 -76264 -100000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

However, the registered movements of migrants in and out of Ukraine do not represent the fl ows of regular migration fully, as the fi gures of Table 2 clearly demonstrate. For many foreign nationals, Ukraine is not just a country of destination but also a transit country. Unfortunately, it is impossible to separate the registered foreign citizens and those foreign nationals who were allowed through the state border of Ukraine into transit passengers and potential immigrants; they all come under the umbrella of foreign nationals or stateless persons who entered or left the country legally.

5 State department for citizenship, immigration and registration of physical persons was established by the Resolution # 844 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dd. 14 June 2002 as part of the Ministry of Internal Aﬀ airs as a government body under state management. 9 Th e fi gures for a longer period (see Table 3) suggest that, since the enlargement of the European Union in 2004, the volume of registered foreign citizens and stateless persons, and those foreign nationals who were allowed through the state border of Ukraine increased substantially: while in 2000 their number was 22 million persons, in 2005 this fi gure already reached 39.8 million (a 1.8-fold increase). Another pattern started emerging: since 2000, the number of foreign nationals and stateless persons who legally entered Ukraine has been exceeding the number of persons who left the country: 117,553 foreign nationals were registered by the Ukrainian agencies of the interior in 2004, while in 2006 the fi gure grew to 213,760. Th e majority of these people came to Ukraine on private business or as students. Th e former category came mainly from the countries of former Soviet Union, while the students came from other countries (see Table 4). Th e number of stateless persons registered by the agencies is quite small and amounts to a mere 1.5%–3.0%. According to the 2006 fi gures of the Ministry of Interior, most foreign nationals came to Ukraine from Russia (92,171 persons or 43% of the total). Th e second largest group of foreigners were citizens of Moldova (12,015 people or 6%). Th ese were followed by Uzbekistan (11,125 persons), Azerbaijan (10,032), Armenia (8,332) and Georgia (8,310). Other legal resident groups in Ukraine include countries such as China (8,112 persons), Belarus (5,401), Turkey (4,724), Kazakhstan (3,990), Syria (3,673), Jordan (3,189), India (2,940), Iran (2,831) and Vietnam (2,733). In accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Immigration”6 foreign nationals and stateless persons staying in the country legally may apply for an immigration permit. Such permits can be granted within the immigration quota assigned annually for certain categories of immigrants by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. Immigrant status provides for the right for permanent residence in the country. Th e Law on immigration also specifi es the criteria for granting such status beyond the assigned quota. As immigration can be either regular (legal) or irregular (illegal) it is also classifi ed as controlled and uncontrolled. In the case of the latter, the illegal entry into the country is assumed without passing border and customs formalities, bypassing the state frontier check points or passing through it with invalid documents. Fig. 2. Foreigners residing in Ukraine in 2006 by their country of origin (in 1000s) Other countries, 44.6 Russia, 92.2 Turkey, 4.7

China, 8.1

Turkmenistan, 1.9

Tajikistan, 1.6 Kyrgyzstan, 1.6

Kazakhstan, 4.0

Uzbekistan, 11.1 Armenia, 8.3 Moldova, 12.0

Azejbaijan, 10.0 Belarus, 5.4

Georgia, 8.3

6 Adopted by the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine on 7 July 2001. 10 Th e number of foreign citizens registered by the Ministry of Interior has been increasingly on the rise: from 2001, when 102,000 migrants resided in the territory of Ukraine, to 119,000 in 2004, and further to 128,000 in 2005. According to fi gures for January–September 2006, their number has risen up to 147,000 persons from over 150 countries world-wide, which amounts to almost 0,5% of the total population of Ukraine. More than 80% of the immigrants are nationals of the former Soviet Union who maintained their kinship or links with residents of Ukraine. In January-September 2006, the largest number of immigrants to Ukraine came from Russia (58% of the all immigrants), followed by Moldovan citizens (7,300 persons or 5%). 3,300 persons (2%) of immigrants came from Belarus. During the fi rst three quarters of 2006, more than 17,800 immigration permits were granted, including 2,800 within the assigned quota and the remaining 15,000 outside the quota. Th e majority of permits for immigration are granted to persons having family ties with citizens of Ukraine: currently, more than 91,000 foreign nationals residing in Ukraine received an immigrant status on the basis of their family ties (constituting 62% of the total number of immigrants registered). Taking into account the analysis of migration dynamics in the previous calendar year, and in order to restrict the quota for immigration into Ukraine from the countries of origin that are main sources or irregular migrants, proposals are developed annually for adjusting the structure of the immigration quota for the upcoming calendar year, which is then approved by the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. Quite likely, the number of people interested in obtaining an immigration permit to Ukraine will be increasing further in the future. However, for the time being, no active measures to restrict immigration into the country are being taken or discussed. On the contrary, given the context of continuing demographic crisis, the return of ethnic Ukrainians into the country and family reunifi cation processes encourage an active immigration policy.

1.3. Irregular migration

Combating illegal migration starts at the State frontier of Ukraine. Every year a number of foreigners transiting illegally through the territory of Ukraine are apprehended by the State border guards service (see Table 5). Attempts of illegal entry into the country and further travel to the countries of the European Union take place generally bypassing state frontier checkpoints and violating the regulations of its crossing. Th e vast majority of off enders (93%-98%) are apprehended by Ukrainian border guards actually on the green border. Figures in Table 4 demonstrate the following: the apprehended persons are predominantly nationals of CIS countries; the largest numbers of detected illegal border crossing occur on the Slovak, Russian and Moldovan segments of the border. Illegal border crossings on its Russian and Moldovan segments are usually bound for Ukraine, while most attempts of leaving Ukraine illegally take place at the Slovak and, less oft en, Polish border. One of the main patterns of irregular migrants smuggling to the countries of the European Union is the legal entry of nationals from high-risk countries into Russia, followed by their illegal transit through the territory of Ukraine. Th e main routes include illegal entries into Ukraine through the green border and continuing illegal border crossing further via Bryansk-Chernigiv and Sumy on the Russian border, Gomel-Chernigiv on the border with Belarus, and Beregivske, Velykobereznyanske and Vynogradarske on the border with Slovakia and Hungary (Fig.3 and 4).

11 Fig. 3. Number of persons apprehended for crossing the Ukrainian border illegally in 2004–2006, by segments

Th e fi gures provided by the Ukrainian agencies for 2003–2006 demonstrate continuous decrease in the numbers of illegal migrants apprehended in the territory of the country. Th e main countries of origin (Table 6) in 2006 were Russia (2,222 persons), Azerbaijan (1,531), Moldova (1,437), Uzbekistan (1,195), Georgia (991), Armenia (862), as well as China (541), India (354), Pakistan (291) and Vietnam (240). Th e regional breakdown of 10,310 irregular migrants apprehended during the fi rst 10 months of 2006 is quite diverse: 1,116 irregular migrants were apprehended in Kyiv, 1,375 in Odessa region, 839 in Kharkiv region, 758 in Dnipropetrivsk region, 652 in Kherson region, 566 in Donetsk region, 404 in Sumy region and 863 in the Autonomous republic of Crimea. Strong presence of organized irregular migrant groups continues on the routes towards the Western frontier of Ukraine. In total, over the fi rst 10 months of 2006 1,143 irregular migrants were detected and apprehended in Ukraine; they constituted 120 organized groups including nationals of 26 countries. Th e details of the organized groups of irregular migrants apprehended by the agencies of interior, by the regions of Ukraine for 2006, are shown in Figures 3 and 4. Th e majority of these people arrived from China (213 persons), Pakistan (201 persons), Moldova (123 persons), Bangladesh (96 persons) and Vietnam (38 persons). During the fi rst 10 months of 2006, due to preventive activities, 34,596 foreign nationals, 497 legal entities (Art. 204 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Violations) and about 9,200 physical persons (Art. 205, 206, 206–1 of Code of Ukraine on Administrative Violations) were detected and brought to administrative charges for violating residence regulations in Ukraine (Art. 203 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Violations)7. Over the period 2000–2006 (January-October), the

7 The Article 203 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Violations specifi es administrative action for violations by foreign nationals and stateless persons the rules of residence in Ukraine and transit through its territory. The article 204 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Violations specifi es administrative action for violation of employment procedures, provision of accommodation, registration of foreign nationals and stateless persons and issuance of documents for them. The article 205 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Violations specifi es responsibility for non-execution of measures on the part of Ukrainian citizens inviting the foreign nationals or stateless persons into the country on private visit and providing them accommodation, to secure their timely registration. The article 206 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Violations specifi es responsibility for providing accommodation, transport or other services in violation of the rules of residence of foreign nationals and stateless persons in Ukraine and the rules of their transit passage through the territory of Ukraine. 12 number of persons brought to administrative responsibility under Article 203 of the Code continued decreasing from 63,107 persons in 2001 down to 42,005 persons in 2006. Th is development was paralleled by the decrease foreign nationals registered by the Ukrainian agencies of interior: from 368,264 persons in 2001 to 213,760 persons in 2006. Fig. 4. Main routes of movement and places of apprehension of irregular migrants by the agencies of the Ministry of Internal Aff airs of Ukraine in 2006 (January-October)

Th e administrative violations were committed mainly by the foreign nationals staying in Ukraine on a private visit (24,401 persons or 58%), foreign nationals permanently residing in the country (5,870 persons or 14%) as well as foreign students (2,224 persons or 5%). In accordance with the provisions of the Law of Ukraine ”On the legal status of foreigners” (Articles 31, 32) and the Rules of entry of foreigners to Ukraine, their departure from Ukraine and transit through the territory of the country” (Para. 37, 41) expulsion from the country can be applied to the foreign nationals and stateless persons who committed gross violations of migration legislation. In some cases the decision on removal from the country can be accompanied by the ban on further entry into Ukraine for the period of 5 years. Th e procedure of removal is carried out by the police. In 2004, 12,271 irregular migrants were expelled from Ukraine, including forced deportation of 2,211 persons. In 2005, their number remained quite stable and amounted to 12,375 persons, 1,808 (15%) of which were subjected to forced deportation. During 2006 the number of irregular migrants expelled from Ukraine somewhat decreased to 11,128 persons, 1,953 (18%) of which were removed by force (see Table 7). In 2004, an entry ban on entry to Ukraine (lasting from 6 months to 5 years) was applied to 7,946 foreign nationals for violating residence rules in Ukraine: in 2005 the fi gure decreased to 7,069 off enders who made up about 57% of the total number of all expelled persons. 3,113 foreign nationals were placed into police custody in 2005. In 2006, an entry ban for the period from 6 months to 5 years was applied to 9,193 violators that made up 83% of the total number of persons removed during that year. On the whole, since 2002, the numbers of expulsions from Ukraine has been on decrease, while the numbers of forced removals and bans of entry started declining only since 2004. In additions, few- 13 er violators are placed into police custody. In most cases, forced expulsion was applied to the citizens of CIS countries: Russia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Armenia, Uzbekistan and Georgia. Th e breakdown of foreign nationals removed from Ukraine in 2004–2006 by their nationality is shown in Figure 5. Fig. 5. Number of foreigners removed from Ukraine in 2004–2006 by citizenship.

2577 2510

2016 2165 2009

1667

1722 1697 1523

1187 1227 976 Russia 781 980 1015 Azerbaijan Moldova 951 902 845 Uzbekistan 788 Georgia 636 587 Armenia China 374 213 217 India 288 183 273 Tajikistan 204 259 263 Belarus 134 204 176 Vietnam 2004 2005 2006

In accordance with the national budget programme ”Involvement of agencies of interior in combating irregular migration”, starting from 2002, UAH 3 million have been allocated annually to the Ministry of Internal Aff airs of Ukraine. Processing and expulsion costs per migrant average in UAH 2,000, including expulsions to the neighbouring countries (about UAH 1,200) and to other countries (UAH 2,700 i.e. 2.3 times more). Th e analysis of irregular migration dynamics for the 1st half of 2006 performed by analytical staff of the Ministry of Internal Aff airs of Ukraine brings the following conclusions: A total of 725 foreign nationals (13% of the total number of apprehended irregular migrants) entered Ukraine illegally, including those with proper personal identifi cation papers (239 persons or 4%) and undocumented (480 or 8% of the total). Prevailing groups were nationals of non-neighbouring countries: China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Pakistan and India. Over 5,000 foreign nationals (88% of the total number of detected irregular migrants) entered legally but overstayed their entry permit and their legal status lapsed. Th is pattern is dominated by nationals of the CIS countries: Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Russia, Moldova and Uzbekistan. Th e structure of illegal migrants in Ukraine for the 1st half of 2006 is shown in Figure 6. Th roughout 2007, the Ministry of Interior has been undertaking measures to ensure complete entry ban to Ukraine for persons with a record of migration violations. In addition, procedures are being developed that will allow for the removal of illegal migrants from the country either at the expense of the receiving party, or charity organizations, or covered by the budget of the Ministry of Interior. According to the records of the Ministry of Interior, 23 criminal cases were launched in accordance with Article 332 of the Penal Code of Ukraine8 in 2005 by investigation units of the State Security Service of Ukraine. Th e fi rst 10 months of 2006 added 68 similar criminal charges.

8 Article 332 of the Penal Code of Ukraine provides for criminal liability for illegal traﬃ cking of people across the state frontier of Ukraine. 14 Fig. 6. Structure of illegal migrants in Ukraine for the 1st half of 2006.

Working persons, 37

Illegaly entered, persons, 725

Persons arriving on private visit, Others, 42 4518 Former students, 245

Tourists, 18

Persons arriving on bussiness, 222

Current problematic areas include keeping irregular migrants at reception centres of the Ministry of Interior, and establishing their identity as the Prosecutor-General’s Offi ce of Ukraine lodges protests in connection with this practice. Th e country still lacks temporary accommodation centres for illegal foreign nationals and stateless persons in Ukraine. Currently, construction/reconstruction of two such centres is underway at the village of Rozsudov, Repkinskyy District, Chernigiv Region and the village of Zhuravichi, Kivertsovsky District, Volyn Region. Th e senior management of the Ministry of Interior Aff airs of Ukraine continues paying close attention to combating illegal migration and enforcement of legislation on the legal status of foreigners by the Ukrainian agencies of interior.

15 2. Belarus

2.1. Management of migration processes

Th e Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Belarus, the State Border Troops Committee of the Republic of Belarus and the Ministry of Foreign Aff airs of the Republic of Belarus, in cooperation with the Representative offi ce of the International Organization for Migration in Minsk, have been joining eff orts in order to create a consistent and comprehensive national migration process management system in the country, migration policy-making, development of migration legislation and strengthening of administrative capacity. Th e International Organization for Migration has been looking into further opportunities for cross-border cooperation within the Söderköping process in order to coordinate the eff orts of Belarus, other CIS countries and the countries of the European Union in the area of combating and preventing illegal migration. In order to coordinate inter-agency cooperation between Belarusian agencies responsible for managing migration processes and combating irregular migration, a new legal entity, the Department for Citizenship and Migration,9 has been established within the framework of the Ministry of Internal Aff airs of the Republic of Belarus. Systemic eff orts are being undertaken on a national level to stabilize migration situation and focus on activities in the following areas: improvement of legislation; international cooperation; day-to-day practical activities, including preventive measures. In order to improve the management of migration processes, strengthen national security and create conditions for protecting the rights of migrants, the State Migration Programme for 2006– 2010 was adopted,10 including a range of measures aimed at the improvement of regulatory and legal framework, establishment of modern data base focusing on migration fl ows, and monitoring and surveys of migration processes, and related research. Th e Programme also provides for the involvement of local state administration bodies in the implementation of the measures, which creates a foundation for comprehensive and eff ective migration policy making at all levels, as well as facilitates the integration of migrants into the Belarusian society. In addition, the implementation of activities set forth by the State Migration Programme for 2006–2010 should ensure the optimization of migration fl ows and maximum effi ciency of the procedures for identifi cation, prevention and suppression of illegal migration. As far as international cooperation is concerned, the harmonization of migration policies between the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation has been a particular priority. An important milestone was the Agreement between the Governments of Belarus and the Russian Federation on the use of a single “immigration card” (signed on 5 October 2004; eff ective as of 8 February 2006 within the territories of both countries) that has to be completed by foreigners and stateless persons at points of entry into Belarus and Russia arriving from a third state. Th e Agreement provides for the procedures of issuance, completion and use of the uniform migration card, as well as procedures for processing and use of the information contained in it. In addition, on 24 January 2006, during the regular meeting of the Supreme State Council, the Presidents of the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation signed the Agreement on ensuring the equal rights for citizens of both states for freedom of movement and choice of residence within the territories of the member-states of the Union state.

9 The Decree of the President of the Republic of Belarus # 603 dd. 30 December 2003. The Regulation on the Department was approved by the Decree of the President # 286 dd. 4 June 2004. 10 Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus # 1403 dd. 8 December 2005. 16 Th e implementation of this Agreement will off er Belarusian citizens simplifi ed procedures of obtaining residence permits in the territory of the Russian Federation, swift payment of pensions and access to health services. Th ey will also be exempt from a registration requirement for the fi rst 30 days aft er their entry. In addition, according to the Agreement, Belarusian and Russian citizens are not required to complete an “immigration card” when staying within the territory of the neighbouring country. Consequently, both Belarusian and Russian citizens have a right for free and unrestricted entry into the other state for the period up to 30 days for a visit, leisure, on a tourist trip or for business purpose

2.2. Regular migration

Th e Republic of Belarus has common borders with new European Union member states Poland, Latvia and Lithuania, on the one side; while on the other side it borders Russia and Ukraine, members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which also includes Belarus. Th e lack of controls along the frontiers with Russian and Ukraine attracts illegal migrants from Asian and African countries transiting via Belarus into the countries of the European Union. At the same time, Belarus oft en becomes the country of destination for regular migrants from other CIS countries. Migration gain in its population fi gures at the expense of former USSR fellow countrymen exceeded 150 thousand people in the 1990s. Th e trend that shows the excess of immigration over emigration continued also in subsequent years already entering the third millennium. In particular, during the period of 2001–2006, 102,237 people came to the Republic of Belarus (including 92% from the CIS countries and the Baltic States), while 72,724 left the country (including 65% to the CIS countries and the Baltic States). Th e number of migrants was decreasing until 2006 when numbers of immigrants suddenly started increasing. In a similar way, the net migration was on decrease until 2006, when it increased to 5,626 persons, mainly due to lower emigration. Th roughout all these years, the migration gain of the population of Belarus was created predominantly by Russians, Ukrainians and Kazakhs (85%) who moved into this country (Table 8). Fig. 7. Registered Migration Trends in Belarus, 2001–2006.

30000 23355 18939 18146 20000 14642 13031 14124 9085 10000 Immigrants 5561 5160 2132 5626 Emmigrants 1949 0 Net migration

-10000 -8498 -12510 -11082 -14270 -13378 -12986 -20000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Almost half of all migrants who crossed the border into the country (46%) were Belarusians, the others were mainly Russians arriving in Belarus bypassing the Russian Federation. Only 9% of the total number of migrants came from war-torn areas. In the recent years the migrational exchange of Belarus with the countries of the former USSR has decreased by almost 8 times, if compared to 1991. Nevertheless, the migration gain, similar to previous years, compensates for the population loss that Belarus has been suff ering due to emigration of its citizens to non-neighbouring countries. Leading destination countries for emigration traditionally include Germany, the United States and Israel.

17 According to the information presented in Table 8, emigrational losses of the Belarusian population have been decreasing each year. Foreign citizens and stateless persons enter the Republic of Belarus legally for tourism and employment, social visits, for business purposes and, fi nally, for permanent residence. 10–13 thousand foreign citizens receive permits for permanent residence in the Republic of Belarus according to the established procedures. In 2005 alone, such permits were issued by the relevant agencies of the Republic of Belarus to 10,484 foreign citizens and 339 stateless persons. Th e number of foreign citizens and stateless persons has been on continuous rise from 102,313 people in 1999 to 128,658 people in 2002. Th e stabilization of the volume in 2003 (128,643 people) was followed by a slight decrease in following years down to the levels of 2000 (see Table 9).

2.3. Irregular migration

Irregular migration into the Republic of Belarus can be defi ned by the following consistent patterns: the main infl ow of illegal migrants are citizens of African and South-East Asian countries; the majority of irregular migrants view the Republic of Belarus as a transit country on their route to the countries of the European Union; some of irregular migrants arriving in the Republic of Belarus attempt to settle temporarily or permanently in the country. Th e latter tendency is attributed to the tightening of migration policy in the countries of the European Union, increasing allocation of funds by these countries to strengthen border controls between them and the Republic of Belarus. Th e transit of irregular migrants through the territory of the country is carried out by international organized criminal groups equipped with modern means of communication and encryption. Th ey plan the smuggling routes of irregular migrants well in advance in their country of origin and over to the frontier of the country of destination, and do their best to hire accomplices among the law enforcement offi cers of the countries on the route. Th eir activities oft en include other criminal off ences and illegal migrants tend to be involved in illegal trade, including drugs and weapons traffi cking. Today, the territory of the Republic of Belarus is the place of operation for trans-national criminal networks that involve, besides Belarusian nationals, also the citizens of Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Russia and some countries of Africa and Asia. Active assistance to illegal migrants is rendered by members of ethnic communities in Belarus and a number of other countries: they oft en provide them with temporary accommodation, work and transport to the countries of the European Union. Th e organisers of illegal migration have been advancing the operational skills and tactics of their criminal activities. Penetration into the territory of the country is carried out by small groups of 5–8 persons, usually under great secrecy. Illegal migrants tend to be grouped in small population centres in direct proximity of the border area. Shortly before crossing the frontier, or at the end stage of the run-up to this action, migrant groups are formed numbering up to 40 persons. Th e networks of human smuggling and fraud also extend to the countries of Western Europe. Th e agreements are not honoured by the smugglers: in some instances, abandoned illegal migrants were left in the territory of Belarus for extended period of time without any means of support. Th e measures taken by government agencies in combating illegal migration led to the decrease of its routes and channels; however, the organisers keep discovering other routes and methods. Agencies subordinate to the Ministry of Interior, in cooperation with the Border troops units and State security agencies, carry out annually a range of preventive measures aimed at detecting individuals staying in

18 the territory of the country illegally. Th e data presented in Tables 10 and 14 demonstrate the decrease in the number of apprehended illegal migrants since 2002, as well as the number of their groups within the Republic of Belarus. As in previous years, the state frontier remains an important barrier to illegal migration. Th e data presented in Table 11 refl ect the scope and directions of irregular migration fl ows, the combating of which proved quite successful in 2005. Th e biggest number of violations took place in the Ukrainian section of the frontier (514 out of 902, or 57%) by citizens of Ukraine (403 out of 514, or 78%). Well behind from the Ukrainians were Russian illegal migrants (128 out of 902, or 14%) who committed violations of the frontier legislation mainly along the Polish and Lithuanian sections of the State frontier of the Republic of Belarus (73 and 29 out of 128, or 57% and 23%, respectively). Th e number of law violations committed by citizens of Lithuania amounted to a half of that compared to the Russians (63 against 128) apprehended by Byelorussian border guards exclusively in the Lithuanian sections of the frontier. Th eir role has been relatively insignifi cant and comes to a mere 7% of the total. Moldovan citizens violating the Polish and Lithuanian sections of the Belarusian border are fewer still (5%). Illegal migrants from non-neighbouring countries are represented mainly by citizens of Vietnam and China: 56 and 32 detained migrants, respectively (6% and 3.5% of the total number). While the Chinese were apprehended exclusively at the Polish section of the State frontier, the Vietnamese are in most cases being detained in its Ukrainian section (31 out of 56), and sometimes while crossing over to Lithuania and Poland (15 and 10 persons, respectively). Among illegal migrants detained in 2005, 19 were stateless (2%). Th e violators of the migration law of the Republic of Belarus are apprehended not only at the border but also inside the country. For instance, administrative actions were brought to a total of 213,999 foreign citizens (see Table 12) in the Republic of Belarus during the period 2000–2006 for violating the Regulations on stay of foreign citizens and persons without citizenship in the Republic of Belarus. A major share of such violations has been committed by citizens of African and Asian nations. Having reached the peak in 2002, the numbers of violations of the Regulations on stay of foreign citizens started decreasing in the subsequent years: their numbers dropped from 43,171 in 2002 to 27,111 in 2005 (see Table 12). In addition, a number of Belarusian citizens were brought to administrative charges for related violations: in 2005 the number was 3,836 persons and 1,174 for the 4 months of 2006. In 2005, the agencies of interior brought criminal charges against 398 foreigners for organizing illegal migration of foreign citizens and stateless persons into the Republic of Belarus and severe violations of the Regulation on their stay in the country, as well as the Regulations on transit through its territory. In addition, 390 criminal cases were brought under Articles 371–1 and 371–2 of the Penal Code of the Republic of Belarus in 2006. When foreign citizens commit severe violations of the Regulations on stay of foreign citizens in the Republic of Belarus, as well as Regulations on transit through the territory of the country, orders are issued to expel them from the country. Th e dynamics of expulsion of deportations of foreign citizens and stateless persons in 2001–2006 from Belarus is presented in Tables 12 and 13. Since 2002, this number has been on decrease, reaching 2,160 cases in 2005, including 810 escorted removals, while in 2006 2,275 cases were recorded, including 912 escorted removals. During the period of 2005–2006, most frequent cases of removals from the Republic of Belarus for violation of migration law involved citizens of the CIS, primarily Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan, less frequently Georgia, Moldova and Uzbekistan. Th eir aggregate share in the total of removals constituted 75% in 2005, and 78% in 2006 (fi rst six months). Second in expulsion fi gures came citizens of Vietnam, China and India (14% in 2005 and 7% in the fi rst six months of 2006). More than one third of all expulsions were escorted ones (38% in 2005 and 36% in 2006 (fi rst six months). Generally, the

19 escort practice was most commonly used in relation to citizens of Russia, as well as such countries as Vietnam, China and India (see Table 13). Fig. 8. Number of persons expelled/removed from Belarus, 2005–2006 (I-VI) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 India China Other Latvia states Russia Ukraine Georgia Vietnam Armenia Moldova Pakistan Lithuania Azerbaijan Uzbekistan Kazakhstan Total Including under convoy

Improvement of the effi ciency of combating illegal migration requires consolidated eff orts of all the parties involved in the Söderköping process. Th e main guidelines of such cooperation within this initiative, in the opinion of representatives of the Ministry of Internal Aff airs of the Republic of Belarus, would include the following: assistance to the Republic of Belarus in the construction of temporary accommodation centres for foreign citizens and stateless persons pending their expulsion from the territory of the country; renewal of the voluntary repatriation programme for foreign citizens illegally staying in the territory of the country; rendering assistance in setting up the record keeping system of foreign citizens and stateless persons temporarily or permanently residing in the Republic of Belarus; provision of advisory assistance in the area of legal status of foreign citizens and stateless persons, arrangement of training visits and workshops for immigration and law enforcement offi cers; granting access to the Information system by the countries of destination available at the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) with the purpose of speed- ing up the processing of requests from foreigners applying for refugee status; provision of assistance in identifying undocumented foreign citizens and stateless persons detained in the territory of the country, including those applying for refugee status, utilising the linguistic expert analysis of detained persons; organizing projects activities in the country to support and enhance refugee integration.

20 3. Republic of Moldova

3.1. Migration process management

Th e enlargement of the European Union has created the need for the legislative and executive powers of the Republic of Moldova to review its migration policy11 and reorganize government institutions responsible for its implementation. Th e main objective of the undertaken reform has been strengthening of control mechanisms over migration processes and optimization of their management in the Republic of Moldova. Th e Ministry of Interior has primary responsibility in this area, and the following functions according to a Decree of the Government of the Republic of Moldova12: monitoring and coordination of migration processes; analysis and control over compliance with legislation in the fi eld of migration and granting asylum; development of draft legislation in the fi eld of legal status regulatory activity of foreign citizens and stateless persons; issuance of letters of invitation, extension of visa validity and issuance of exit visas from the territory of the Republic of Moldova; granting immigrant, refugee and repatriate status. Th e Bureau for Migration and Refugees has been established within the Ministry of Interior, which enforces the execution of these functions and has powers to carry out operational and investiga- tive activities. Th e structure of the Bureau includes the departments of immigration and repatriation; refugees; combating illegal migration; the division of research, planning and strategy development, the Accommodation Centre for asylum seekers, and the Centre for temporary reception of foreigners.13 Designating the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Moldova as a core agency responsible for strengthening migration controls, enforcement of national migration legislation and its compliance with EU legal norms addressed the needs of overcoming the lack of inter-departmental cooperation in taking management decisions in the area of migration processes. Th e institutional reform also led to changes in the legislation area: legal amendments, changes and additions to the current legislation on migration (a total of 6 laws) have been draft ed. In addition, a new law is being draft ed; it addresses the Regulations on stay of foreign citizens and stateless persons in the Republic of Moldova, including their entry into and exit from the territory of the country. Th e Decree of the Government of the Republic of Moldova has also set up a Commission for coordination of activities in the fi eld of migration processes, authorized to control the enforcement of the eff ective regulations for the entry, stay and exit of foreign citizens and stateless persons in/out of the territory of the country. As far as combating illegal migration is concerned, the Republic of Moldova has been taking comprehensive measures in the framework of the bilateral Action Plan between the Republic of Moldova and the European Union”. For instance, the Penal Code has been complemented with a new legal provision 362/1 “Organization of illegal migration” which already led to 35 criminal charges in 2006. Readmission agreements have been signed and entered into force with the Czech Republic, Italy and Lithuania. An agreement on acceptance and transfer of persons across the Moldavian-Ukrainian state frontier has been concluded with Ukraine. Readmission agreements are being negotiated with

11 Adopted by the Resolution of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova # 1386–XV dd. 11 October 2002. 12 Decree of the Government of the Republic of Moldova # 529 dd. 17 May 2006. “On measures for reorganization of central branch public administration bodies”. 13 At present, the project for reconstruction of the Centre for temporary reception of foreigners has been carried out with the ﬁ nancial assistance of the European Commission, the Government of the Republic of Finland and the International Organization for Migration. 21 the governments of Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Th e prospects of concluding a readmission agreement with the European Union are being discussed.

3.2. Regular migration

Migration fl ows between the Republic of Moldova and the countries of the CIS and non-neighbouring countries were consistently on the rise during 2003–2005. Th e data concerning border crossings in the Republic of Moldova indicate the following patterns: the fi gure of foreign citizens and stateless persons who entered the country has continuously exceeded the number of persons who left the country; the largest share of those who crossed the border were Ukrainian nationals; their fi gure increased from 36% in 2003 to 51% in 2005; the second largest segment of the total fl ows to and from Moldova were citizens of Romania; their cross-border movements decreased from 29% in 2003 to 23% in 2005; citizens of Russia were the third major category of foreigners who came to or left the Republic of Moldova; their share decreased from 15% in 2003 down to 10% in 2005; the fourth place in the total volume of cross-border movements goes to the citizens of Turkey; their numbers, insignifi cant as they were, had been declining from 4% in 2003 down to 3% in 2005. in this context, citizens of Ukraine, Romania and Russia constitute the core of foreign nationals arriving to or leaving Moldova. Th eir share in the total fl ow of regular migrants crossing the border of Moldova increased from 80% in 2003 to 85% in 2005; On 6 April 2006, changes to the Law on exit from the Republic of Moldova and entry into the Republic of Moldova # 269–XIII of 9 November 1994 took eff ect, which introduced the registration of foreign citizens and stateless persons crossing the border into the Republic of Moldova. Th e information is sent to the State population register. Generally, the Border Guard service authorises such foreign nationals and stateless persons to enter and stay in the Republic of Moldova for 90 days. According to the National Bureau of Statistics, a total of 2,056 persons entered Moldova in 2005 (an increase if compared with 1,706 people in 2005), the majority of them being from Turkey (462 persons), Ukraine (393 persons) and Russia (168 persons), as well as the USA, Romania and Syria. In 2005, 6,827 people left the country, which is about 5% less than in 2004. Almost half of the total moved to Russia (3,310 persons), 33% to Ukraine (2,057), the remaining part went to the USA (568 persons), Germany (373), Israel (220 persons) and other countries. Th erefore the migrational balance in 2005 remained negative (-4,771); the fi gure was -5,460 in 2005. Every year, approximately 3,000 fi xed-term stay permits are issued in Moldova; the fi gure grew from 2,892 permits in 2004 to 3,144 in 2006. Th ese permits are most frequently granted to citizens of Turkey (21%), Syria (14%) and Ukraine (11%), as well as Jordan, the USA and Israel.

3.3. Irregular migration

Th e Republic of Moldova remains attractive to foreign citizens from high-risk sending countries, including some aliens with international terrorist and criminal links. Th erefore, illegal migration remains a serious problem for the Republic of Moldova. Th e Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Moldova, through operational monitoring of migration fl ows in the country, has been taking measures in accordance to the national legislation for combating illegal migration and related international and domestic criminal activities. Combating illegal migration starts at the state frontier of the country. During the fi rst 10 months of 2006, 381 foreigners were refused entry into the Republic of Moldova (see Table 16). Th e bulk of this contingent were citizens of Lebanon (90 persons), Syria (45 persons), India (38 persons), Egypt (36 persons), Jordan (35 persons), South Korea (15 persons), Iran 22 (14 persons) and Iraq (10 persons). During the same year, other 247 undocumented foreigners were apprehended in the territory of Moldova; 162 of them were placed into the reception centre for the purpose of establishing their identity (see Table 18). Th ose apprehended were mainly the citizens of Russia (85 persons), Ukraine (77 persons), Turkey (13 persons), India (11 persons) and Uzbekistan (10 persons). Accordingly, the majority of the persons placed into the reception centre also are from these countries (a total of 131 persons). Foreign citizens and stateless persons who committed serious violations of stay in the Republic of Moldova receive expulsion orders and are requested to leave the territory of the country. Shortening of the period of stay in the country has been among other practices of tackling migration violations. Th e data presented in Table 17 demonstrates an increase of sanctions imposed by the law enforcement authorities with regard to persons violating the laws of the Republic of Moldova in the period 2002–2006. Th eir dynamics also indicates the date of the reversal in the trend of the trend that oc- curred in 2004. Most of foreign citizens and stateless persons expelled from the Moldova during the period 2003– 2006 (fi rst 10 months) are mainly from the former USSR area, later to become the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Th ese were mainly the citizens of Ukraine, Russian, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, less frequently Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Among the non-neighbouring countries, most of migration violations during the period of 2003–2006 (fi rst ten months) were committed by citizens of Turkey and, much less frequently, by citizens of Syria and Sudan. Th e violators have been expelled from the territory of the Republic of Moldova (see Figure 9 and Table 19). Most foreigners whose term of stay in Moldova was reduced by its law-enforcement authorities for severe violations of regulations were mainly citizens from the CIS countries (see Table 20). Th e total share of CIS nationals for the period of 2004–2006 was 79%, was dominated by citizens of the Russian Federation (38%) and Ukraine (29%). Th e citizens of other countries have been subjected to such punishment on a much less frequent basis, although there were some cases involving citizens of Turkey (5%), Romania (3%), Israel (3%) and Syria (2%). Fig. 9. Number of persons removed from Moldova, 2004–2006 (I-X), by citizenship.

2006

2005 60 Ukraine 2004 10 72 Russia 8 6 8 156 Turkey 5 107 16 6 96 10 187 Armenia 4 4 5 Syria 6 22 7 10 3 Azerbaijan 10 15 14 72 15 Jordan 21 29 33 Georgia 27 80 Izrael 35 42 22 Uzbekistan 40 Sudan 160 Romania Deported Other states 524 in 2004 130 560 in 2005 470 in 2006

23 Finally, it is worth stressing that the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Moldova continues constant monitoring of the socio-political situation in the eastern parts of the country that are not controlled by its constitutional institutions and, within the constraints, takes necessary measures for ensuring law and order, crime control and combating illegal migration.

Conclusions

Th e analysis of regular and irregular migration dynamics in Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova reveals common features, namely, changing patterns and volumes of trans-national migration fl ows; diversifi cation of their countries of origin and destination; increase, diversity and change of migration movement routes of illegal migrants in transit to the countries of the European Union. All the three countries experience a similar pattern of regular migration changing into irregular: legal entry into the country of foreign nationals and stateless persons and their subsequent switch to illegal status and attempts to move to the countries of the European Union illegally, oft en using the services of human smugglers. All the three countries have higher recorded numbers of foreign nationals and stateless persons who entered the country legally than those who left for other countries. Citizens of the former USSR constitute the majority of incoming and outgoing fl ows. Since the enlargement of the European Union in 2004, the fi gure of registered foreign nationals and stateless persons, as well as those who crossed the state border in all the three countries, has increased considerably. Th e absolute majority of illegal migrants apprehended at the border and inside the country con- sists of nationals of Russia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia and Uzbekistan. Apprehensions of illegal migrants from South-East Asian and African countries are far less common. A major human smuggling pattern for illegal migrants to the countries of the European Union has been a legal entry of foreign nationals from high-risk sending countries into Russia followed by their illegal transit through the territory of Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and, much less frequently, the Republic of Moldova. Some of illegal migrants arriving to these countries are forced to stay in their territories temporarily and sometimes permanently. Th e largest number of border violations occurs along the frontier between the countries of the former Soviet Union; as for the borders with the countries of the European Union, such violations take place primarily on their Slovak as well as Polish sections. In order to combat and prevent illegal migration in all the three countries, procedures of cross- border cooperation and models of coordinated operative action have to be established, developed and strengthened between ministries of interior and other agencies responsible for implementation of migration policy and ensuring border controls and security in their respective countries. Cooperation in the fi eld of border controls and security in Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Moldova takes place through regular exchange of operational and other information processed and shared in a harmonised manner, and joint operational and preventive measures in curbing illegal migration. A coordinated approach in all the three countries remains vital for resolv- ing the issues of migration management. Another area of particular importance remains close cross- border cooperation of national agencies responsible for enforcing migration laws with international organizations and the countries of the European Union, leading to eff ective results of their joint activities in the fi eld of managing regular and irregular migration in the Eastern European region.

24 Annexes

Table 1. International Migration in Ukraine 2002–2006.14

Migration ﬂ ows Total amount of Years immigrants and Net-migration Arrived Departed emigrants Total in Ukraine 2002 42,473 76,264 118,737 -33,791 2003 39,489 63,699 103,188 -24,210 2004 38,567 46,182 84,749 -7,615 2005 39,580 34,997 74,577 4,583 2006 44,227 29,982 74,209 14,245 including migration exchange with the CIS countries 2002 35,929 49,429 85,358 -13,500 2003 32,876 40,647 73,523 -7,771 2004 32,583 28,865 61,448 3,718 2005 33,444 21,866 55,311 11,578 2006 33,976 21,270 55,246 12,706 including migration exchange with other countries 2002 6,544 26,835 33,379 -20,291 2003 6,613 23,052 29,665 -16,439 2004 5,984 17,317 23,301 -11,333 2005 6,136 13,131 19,266 -6,995 2006 10,251 8,712 18,963 1,539

Table 2. Number of foreigners crossing the state border of Ukraine in 2004–2006 (I-XI).15

Registered foreigners and stateless persons crossing the state border Border segment 2004 2005 January – November 2006 1 (by the name of including Total including including country) Total Total In out In out in out Poland 3,727,484 1,995,715 1,731,769 7,222,483 3,750,502 3,471,981 5,560,282 3,012,729 2,547,553 Slovakia 504,059 258,478 245,581 1,069,329 541,352 527,977 824,877 428,038 396,839 Hungary 3,912,821 2,056,585 1,856,236 3,509,828 1,902,363 1,607,465 2,688,488 1,531,059 1,157,429 Romania 370,054 185,253 184,801 537,381 266,470 270,911 427,714 214,019 213,695 Moldova 7,318,973 3,944,318 3,374,655 7,039,679 3,668,884 337,0795 5,407,527 2,946,877 2,460,650 Russia 12649,980 6,514,088 6,135,892 13091736 6,659,650 6,432,086 10051279 5,350,475 4,700,804 Belarus 4,743,197 2,434,446 2,308,751 4,607,398 2,366,690 2,240,708 3,543,916 1,909,708 1,634,208 Sea border 558,949 275,620 283,329 529,571 263,640 265,931 397,163 214,019 183,144 Air border 1,838,871 918,757 920,114 2,144,961 1,069,150 1,075,811 1,649,754 856,076 793,678 TOTAL 35624388 18583260 17041128 39752366 20488701 19263665 30551000 16463000 14088000

14 Based on the data of the Ukrainian State Committee on Statistics, available online: www.ukrstat.gov.ua. The main information source of migration ﬂ ows in Ukraine is the register of address changes of residents by the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine. 15 Distribution of ﬂ ows of foreigners and stateless persons by the segments of the state border of Ukraine has been calculated from preliminary data of the State Border Service of Ukraine for January–November 2006 25 Table 3. Flows of foreigners and stateless persons legally entering into Ukraine via border checkpoints during 2000–2006 (I-IX)16 Registered border crossings by foreign citizens and stateless persons Years Including Total To Ukraine From Ukraine 2000 21,980,253 11,691,274 10,288,979 2001 22,911,616 11,876,728 11,034,888 2002 9,296,750 4,839,181 4,457,569 2003 7,844,999 4,388,787 3,456,212 2004 35,624,388 18,583,260 1,704,1128 2005 39,752,366 20,488,701 19,263,665 2006 (I-IX) 30,551,000 16,463,000 14,088,000 Table 4. Foreigners apprehended during attempts to cross the state border of Ukraine illegally, 2004–2006 (I-IX).17 Foreigners apprehended when crossing the state border of Ukraine illegally Citizenship of apprehended Including by segments of the Ukraine border persons Total Poland Slovakia Hungary Romania Moldova Russia Belarus Sea Air 2004 Total 5,858 837 1,555 78 36 1,368 1,394 524 18 48 CIS countries (without Ukraine) 4,024 194 931 51 10 1,341 1,024 422 14 37 %% 69% 23% 60% 65% 28% 98% 73% 81% 78% 77% 2005 Total 9,063 772 3,280 114 32 1,779 2,114 792 46 134 CIS countries (without Ukraine) 6,528 406 1,764 101 12 1,763 1,612 737 40 93 %% 72% 53% 54% 89% 38% 99% 76% 93% 87% 69% 2006 (January – November)17 Total 4,853 787 3,332 158 20 13 385 95 23 40 CIS countries (without Ukraine) 2,746 297 1,892 121 6 12 288 82 19 29 %% 57% 3737 57% 77% 30% 92% 75% 86% 83% 73% Table 5. Distribution of foreigners and stateless persons, as registered by the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine, by the reasons of their residence in Ukraine, 2004–2006.1819

Arriving from: Total From the CIS and Baltic Reason of foreigners residence in Ukraine From other countries countries 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006 Total foreigners registered by the MOI of Ukraine 117,553 230,116 213,760 75,092 171,775 158,285 42,461 58,341 55,475 Including Students 30,803 32,386 34,829 5,381 5,595 6,711 25,422 26,791 28,118 Persons with work permits 2,453 2,649 2,822 1,222 1,275 1,303 1,231 1,374 1,519 Persons working under intergovernmental 322 271 252 17 - 3 305 271 249 agreements Religious workers / clergy 990 840 1,004 71 33 63 919 807 941 Tourists 689 503 577 44 31 76 645 472 501 Refugees 1,717 1,626 1,279 840 595 469 877 1,031 810 Business travel 4,639 6,238 6,556 888 921 1,180 3,751 5,317 5,376 Private visit 54,374 61,339 64,705 49,571 55,543 59,079 4,803 5,796 5,626 Persons in transit 224 25 29 1 - - 223 25 29 Others 21,342 124,239 101,707 17,057 107,782 89,401 4,285 16,457 12,306 Note: Stateless persons, of the total 1,802 7,460 4,781 ------Immigrants registered by the Ministry of 119,228 128,160 146,90019 100,127 109,440 11500019 19,101 18,720 31,90019 Interior

16 Based on the data of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine. 17 Based on the tentative data of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine for January–November 2006. 18 Based on the data of the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine. 19 Data for January–September 2006. 26 Table 6. Countries of origin of illegal migrants apprehended by the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine 2003–2006.20

Country of origin Total Persons per year persons % 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 58175 100,0 17000 15438 14441 11296 Including citizens of: Russia 11,350 20% 3,144 3,176 2,808 2,222 Azerbaijan 8,381 14% 2,340 2,371 2,139 1,531 Moldova 7,021 12% 2,007 1,782 1,795 1,437 Armenia 4,414 8% 1,314 1,192 1,046 862 Georgia 4,235 7% 1,114 958 1,172 991 Uzbekistan 4,229 7% 748 1,060 1,226 1,195 China 3,839 7% 1,437 996 865 541 India 2,217 4% 864 627 372 354 Pakistan 1,357 2% 365 449 252 291 Tajikistan 1,288 2% 373 366 352 197 Vietnam 1,207 2% 260 303 404 240 Bangladesh 860 1% 394 201 144 121 Afghanistan 730 1% 372 218 108 32 Other countries 7,047 12% 2,268 1,739 1,758 1,282

Table 7. Persons expelled from Ukraine in 2002–2006, by their countries of origin21

Years Expelled persons by their countries of origin 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total expelled persons 15,881 13,548 12,271 12,375 11,128 Including from countries: Russia 3,060 2,438 2,577 2,510 2,016 Azerbaijan 2,498 2,246 2,165 2,009 1,667 Moldova 1,955 1,823 1,697 1,722 1,523 Armenia 1,378 1,162 951 902 845 Georgia 1,014 917 781 980 1,015 Uzbekistan 619 667 976 1,187 1,227 China 688 1,177 636 788 587 India 683 533 374 213 217 Tajikistan 330 312 273 288 183 Belarus 171 149 204 259 263 Vietnam 378 132 134 204 176 Pakistan 209 155 260 91 187 Bangladesh 266 229 147 58 82 Afghanistan 381 167 72 45 20 Other countries 2,080 1,358 945 1,090 1,107 Stateless 171 83 79 29 13 Forced removal 2,318 1,607 2,211 1,808 1953 Entry ban to Ukraine 3,583 5,890 7,946 7,069 9,193 Persons placed in reception facilities for illegal migrants 6,983 5,385 3,752 3,113 1,299

20 According to the data of the Ministry of Internal Aﬀ airs of Ukraine. 21 According to the data of the State Department on Citizenship, Immigration and Registration of Persons of the Ministry of Internal Aﬀ airs of Ukraine. 27 Table 8. International Migration in the Republic of Belarus, 2001–2006 22

Distribution of migrants by ﬂ ows Total amount of Years immigrants and Net migration Arrived Departed emigrants In total for Republic of Belarus 2001 23,355 14,270 37,625 9,085 2002 18,939 13,378 32,317 5,361 2003 18,146 12,986 31,132 5,160 2004 14,642 12,510 27,152 2,132 2005 13,031 11,082 24,113 1,949 2006 14,124 8,498 22,622 5,626 including migration exchange with CIS countries 2001 21,824 8,296 30,210 13,528 2002 17,518 8,592 26,110 8,726 2003 16,629 8,348 24,977 8,281 2004 13,110 8,369 21,479 4,741 2005 11,943 7,714 19,657 4,229 2006 13,000 6,290 19,290 6,710 including migration exchange with other countries 2001 1,531 5,974 7,505 -4,443 2002 1,421 4,786 6,207 -3,365 2003 1,517 4,638 6,155 -3,121 2004 1,532 4,141 5,673 -2,609 2005 1,088 3,368 4,456 -2,280 2006 1,124 2,208 3,332 -1,084

Table 9. Number of foreigners and stateless persons permanently residing in the Republic of Belarus, 1999–2005.23

Years Foreigners and stateless persons, permanently residing in the Republic of Belarus 1999 102,313 2000 115,134 2001 125,233 2002 128,658 2003 128,643 2004 113,411 2005 114,724

Table 10. Organized groups of illegal migrants detected/apprehended by the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Belarus, 2001–200624

Years Number of groups Number of illegal migrants in the groups 2001 47 1,117 2002 150 2,120 2003 133 1,925 2004 126 1,044 2005 53 302 2006 26 127

22 According to the data of Ministry of Statistics and Analysis of the Republic of Belarus, as published in the IOM Minsk statistics bulletin. – Minsk, April 2006. – p. 9–10. 23 According to the data of the Ministry of Internal Aﬀ airs of the Republic of Belarus. 24 Ibid. 28 Table 11. Distribution of foreigners and stateless persons apprehended for attempts to cross the state border of Belarus in 2005 illegally, by border segments and countries of origin25

Illegal immigrants, detained for illegal crossing of the border of Belarus Countries of origin of detainees Including by border segments with Total Latvia Lithuania Poland Ukraine Air Total 902 19 137 195 514 37 including Ukraine 428 3 5 17 403 - Russia 128 11 29 73 13 2 Lithuania 63 - 63--- Vietnam 56 - 15 10 31 - Moldova 47 - - 23 17 7 China 32 - - 32 - - Stateless 193727 - Kazakhstan 13 - 4 9 - - India 12 - - 2 10 - Pakistan 11---38 Georgia 10-2152 Egypt 7 - -142 Armenia 7 -1312 Iraq 6-1--5 Somalia 6---6- Turkey 5 - - 3 - 2 Palestine 5---5- Azerbaijan 5 - 1 - 4 - Uzbekistan 5 - 1 3 1 - Poland 5 - - 5 - - Congo 4 - 1 1 - 2 Tajikistan 4 1 - 2 1 - Cameroon 3 - 1 1 - 1 Nigeria 3 - 1 1 - 1 Kyrgyzstan 3 -111 - Latvia 2 1 1--- Germany 2 - - 1 1 - Other countries 11 -3413

Table 12. Administrative actions and expulsions of foreigners from Belarus due to migration violations during 2001–2006 (I-IV).26

Administrative actions regarding foreigners and stateless persons for violation of the migration legislation in Republic of Belarus Years Number of administrative actions for violating the Number of persons expelled due to severe violations of the regulations of stay in Belarus Regulations on stay and transit 2001 40,922 1,181 2002 43,171 2,380 2003 37,353 2,361 2004 26,780 2,324 2005 27,111 2,160 2006 (I-IV) 6,550 741 Total 181,887 11,147

25 Based on the data of the State Committee of Border Troops of the Republic of Belarus, see: IOM Minsk Statistic bulletin. – Minsk, April 2006. – p. 12. 26 Based on the data of the Ministry of Internal Aﬀ airs of the Republic of Belarus. 29 Table 13. Distribution of foreigners expelled from Republic of Belarus for violation of migration legislation, 2005–2006 (I-VI)27

Foreign citizens expelled from Belarus for violation of migration legislation

Country of origin 2005 2006 (I-VI)

Total Forced expulsion Total Forced expulsion

Total 2,160 810 1153 418 including Russia 452 120 250 78 Ukraine 350 51 191 50 Azerbaijan 199 62 122 44 Vietnam 180 162 35 29 Moldova 118 13 77 11 Uzbekistan 122 30 68 20 Georgia 132 46 53 20 Armenia 72 17 40 12 China 95 88 8 3 Lithuania 63 33 36 21 India 23 17 40 30 Kazakhstan 41 10 20 4 Latvia 26 6 17 3 Egypt 24 19 12 12 Tajikistan 23 9 7 1 Poland 8 5 19 1 Ghana 2 1 25 13 Turkmenistan 11 4 8 3 Turkey 11 4 7 4 Afghanistan 9 5 9 5 Syria 9 5 5 1 Sri Lanka 8 5 6 4 Israel 10 2 2 - Sudan 8 6 4 2 Kyrgyzstan 6 2 6 1 Cameroon 5 1 6 2 Other countries 136 80 73 39 Stateless 17 7 7 5

27 Based on the data of the Ministry of Internal Aﬀ airs of the Republic of Belarus. 30 Table 14. Distribution of persons apprehended within the territory of the Republic of Belarus in organized groups of irregular migrants by countries of origin, 2005–2006 (I- IX)28

Detained within groups of illegal migrants within territory of Belarus Countries of origin of illegal migrants 2005 2006 (I-IX) Total 302 90 including Vietnam 111 3 China 65 5 India 15 27 Pakistan 27 4 Egypt 21 7 Moldova 17 Ghana 16 Nigeria 8 7 Iraq 8 Sudan 6 Somalia 6 Palestine 5 Afghanistan 5 Comoro Islands 4 Ecuador 3 Georgia 3 Azerbaijan 3 Lebanon 3 Congo 3 Other countries 8 2

Table 15. Number of border crossings by foreigners and stateless persons in Moldova, 2003–200529

2003 2004 2005 Country of Including Country of including Country of including Total Total Total origin In Outorigin In Outorigin In Out Ukraine 213,831 111,694 102,137 Ukraine 326,094 165,585 160,509 Ukraine 508,637 263,877 244,760 Romania 173,667 90,169 83,498 Romania 189,824 95,201 94,623 Romania 229,918 115,374 114,544 Russia 87,129 49,981 37,148 Russia 84,381 42,580 41,801 Russia 103,011 52,512 50,499 Turkey 23,399 12,134 11,265 Turkey 23,994 12,005 11,989 Turkey 27,514 13,942 13,572 Germany 16,213 8,385 7,828 Italy 19,024 9,556 9,468 Italy 24,458 12,373 12,085 Italy 15,661 8,070 7,591 Germany 16,092 7,994 8,098 Germany 19,410 10,028 9,382 The USA 13,636 7,105 6,531 The USA 14,249 7,132 7,117 The USA 17,042 8,485 8,557 Israel 10,246 5,345 4,901 Israel 10,344 5,310 5,034 Israel 11,257 5,759 5,498 Bulgaria 8,846 4,643 4,203 Bulgaria 8,753 4,409 4,344 Bulgaria 9,641 4,923 4,718 Belarus 8,757 5,415 3,342 The UK 8,296 4,146 4,150 Poland 7,870 4,103 3,767 The UK 4,362 2,228 2,134 Belarus 5,948 2,820 3,128 Belarus 7,825 4,083 3,742 Greece 4,257 2,180 2,077 France 4,977 2,533 2,444 The UK 6,742 3,439 3,303 France 4,139 2,187 1,952 Greece 3,952 1,973 1,979 France 6,123 3,127 2,996 The 5,854 3,859 1,995 Poland 3,909 1,958 1,951 Greece 5,944 3,036 2,908 Netherlands The The Poland 2,792 1,488 1,304 3,334 1,644 1,690 3,896 1,953 1,943 Netherlands Netherlands Total 592,789 314,883 277,906 Total 723,171 364,846 358,325 Total 989,288 507,014 482,274

28 According to the data of the Ministry of Internal Aﬀ airs of the Republic of Belarus. 29 Based on the data of the Ministry of Internal Aﬀ airs of Moldova. 31 Table 16. Number of foreigners and stateless persons refused entry into Moldova, January- October 2006, by countries of origin30

Country of origin Number of persons Lebanon 90 Syria 45 India 38 Egypt 36 Jordan 35 Korea, South 15 Iran 14 Saudi Arabia 11 Iraq 10 Burkina Faso 7 China 7 Bangladesh 6 United Arab Emirates 6 Ghana 5 Nigeria 5 Pakistan 5 Sudan 5 Stateless 12 Other countries 29 Total 381 Table 17. Foreign citizens and stateless persons who committed serious violations of stay in Moldova, 2002–2006 31 Years Foreign citizens and stateless persons who committed serious violations of stay in Moldova Number of foreigners whose term of stay in Number of foreigners expelled from Moldova Moldova was reduced 2002 67 13 2003 233 49 2004 562 241 2005 558 452 2006 (I-III) 201 505 Table 18. Number of undocumented foreigners apprehended in Moldova and placed into reception centre for establishing their identity, I-X, 2006, by countries of origin32 Number of foreigners apprehended in the Republic of Moldova without proper documents Country of origin and placed into reception centre for identiﬁ cation Apprehended Number of persons placed into the reception centre Total 246 161 Russia 85 59 Ukraine 77 46 Turkey 13 7 India 11 11 Uzbekistan 10 8 Azerbaijan 7 2 Armenia 7 6 Pakistan 5 4 Tajikistan 4 2 Georgia 4 3 Cuba 3 3 Syria 3 1 Other countries 17 9

30 According to the data of the Ministry of Internal Aﬀ airs of Moldova. 31 Ibid. 32 According to the data of the Ministry of Internal Aﬀ airs of Moldova. 32 Table 19. Number of foreigners expelled/deported from Moldova by countries of origin 2003–2006 (I-X)33

Countries of origin 2003 2004 2005 2006 (I-X) Total 233 562 558 426 Ukraine 9 96 187 151 Russia 72160 117 Turkey 49 80 35 36 China 87 16 2 1 Syria 23 42 15 8 Azerbaijan 26 27 22 7 Armenia 1 22 29 16 Georgia 1 15 10 5 Sudan 7 7 8 8 Israel 1 14 6 4 India 3 16 2 Romania 2 6 6 7 Uzbekistan 35 13 Belarus 29 8 Kazakhstan 1 6 9 2 Germany 1 9 3 2 Lebanon 8 3 2 1 Turkmenistan 45 5 Tajikistan 58 Other countries 14 116 36 22 Stateless 6 2 5

Table 20. Number of foreigners and stateless persons whose length of stay in Moldova was reduced due to severe violations of migration legislation, by their countries of origin, 2004– 2006 34

Years Total Country of origin 2004 2005 2006 persons % Total 241 452 505 1,198 100% Russia 86 206 164 456 38% Ukraine 85 128 137 350 29% Turkey - 13 46 59 5% Azerbaijan 7 10 17 34 3% Israel 2 12 18 32 3% Romania 11 3 16 30 3% Armenia 7 8 11 26 2% Syria - 11 11 22 2% Kazakhstan 4 9 7 20 2% Belarus 2 8 6 16 1% Uzbekistan 4 5 6 15 1% Turkmenistan 6 4 1 11 1% Georgia 1 1 5 7 1% Italy 1 3 3 7 1% Tajikistan 1 2 4 7 1% Ethiopia 1 6 - 7 1% Other countries 22 22 40 84 7% Stateless 1 1 13 15 1%

33 Ibid. 34 According to the data of the Ministry of Internal Aﬀ airs of Moldova. 33 Overview of Migration Trends in the Countries – EU Member States of the Söderköping Process for the period of 2004–2006 Juris Gromovs, mag.iur., dr.cand.iur.

Introduction

Th e objective of this study is to analyze the trends of regular emigration and immigration, irregular entries and stays in countries involved in the Söderköping process within the period of 2004–2006,35 and to identify the main countries of destination and origin. To have prepared such an overview, the following data was requested from the participating countries: 1) Legal migration: emigration and immigration fl ows to and from each country and the main destination countries for emigrants from each country and the countries of origin for immigrants to each country, 2) Irregular migration: numbers and origin of irregular migrants apprehended at the borders or within the territory of each country from 2004 to the 1st half of 2006. Data for this overview was collected from the governmental institutions of Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia, and their offi cial publications. Th e additional statistical data provided by governmental agencies of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden as well as of Eurostat was used for comparative analysis. In some cases, assessments carried out by academics of the respective countries were taken into account. Measuring migration, its scale and directions is a complex task. Various countries have diff erent ways of measuring their migration fl ows, and even the defi nition of the term “migrant” diff ers. Some countries follow the registration approach: only movements where migrants have registered the change of their residency (when emigrating or immigrating) are counted. Other countries tend to rely on registers, census or surveys data. As a result, the accurate comparison of such data is not always possible. Birth and death rates tend to be recorded much more accurately, if compared to immigration and, particularly, emigration statistics. Among the countries reviewed, only in Slovakia the rates of birth outnumber deaths. Net migration records are mostly negative; the largest emigration rate was recorded in Lithuania. However, a possibility exists that the Lithuanian statisticians are simply more diligent with recording their emigrants, when compared to other countries. On the whole, immigration statistics tend to be more objective than emigration data. Among the countries reviewed, Lithuania and Hungary had the highest rates of immigration, while the lowest immigration was recorded in Romania and Moldova. As Prof. J.Salt puts it in his 2006 Council of Europe report on migration trends in Europe: “A growing problem is the complexity of migration. For the most part, the concepts of migration used as the basis for collecting statistics do not refl ect many of the realities of today’s movements, characterized as they are by new forms and dynamics. Particularly diffi cult to capture are short-term movements and status changes as well as, most obviously, illegal migrations.”36 Th is reference is fully applicable to the current overview. During the reporting period, most of the countries underwent substantial changes in their migration legislation and its enforcement. Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia joined the European Union on 1 May 2004. Accession changed the whole issue of statistics on migra-

35 Mainly the 1st half of 2006. 36 J.Salt, “Current trends in international migration in Europe”, Council of Europe, 2006, p.6. 34 tion for citizens of EU and EEA Member States, since the principle of the free movement of persons began to apply in these countries. New categories of residence permits were introduced in EU Member States by implementing Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents. Also, at least one country of the Söderköping process, Estonia, reported regularization arrangements for irregular migrants. Such measures, so far not regulated by European Community law, may change the number of illegal migrants signifi cantly. In addition, Romania joined the EU while the current research was conducted and probably will continue to undergo signifi cant changes in the area of migration. Th e institutional setup for collection and processing of data on international migration also varies country by country. Latvia and Lithuania use central population registers to produce statistics on international migration fl ows for both nationals and non-nationals. In Estonia, where relevant statistics are currently unavailable, the central population register will be used for statistics production purposes aft er the improvement of data reliability. Hungary derives statistics from central population registers but the data is limited to Hungarian nationals due to the fact that the population register does not include the entire foreign population, only those with permanent residence permits. Poland and Slovakia, have functioning centralized population registers but these are not used for statistical purposes. Instead, these two countries collect international migration data on their nationals and foreigners by means of statistical or administrative forms that are completed when persons change their place of residence37. Finally, in Romania the function of statistics collection belongs to the Authority for Aliens, an institution subordinated to the Ministry of Administration and Interior. Table 1. Basic data on registered migration in countries of the Söderköping Process

Territory, Population Departures Arrivals Net migration Country sq.km 2006, mln. 2005 2006 % 2005 2006 % 2005/2006 Belarus 207600 9.8 11,082 8,498 0.2% 13,031 14,124 0.3% 7,575 Estonia 45200 1.3 Hungary 93000 10.1 3,848 0.0% 18,809 0.2% 14,961 Latvia 64600 2.3 2,450 5,252 0.3% 1,886 2,801 0.2% -3,015 Lithuania 65300 3.4 15,571 12,602 0.8% 6,789 7,745 0.4% -13,639 Moldova 33800 3.4 6,827 0.2% 2,056 0.1% -4,771 Poland 312700 38.1 22,242 51,000 0.2% 9,364 11,000 0.1% -52,878 Romania 237500 21.6 13,082 0.1% 3,224 5,149 0.0% -4,709 Slovakia 49000 5.4 1,873 1,290 0.1% 5,276 3,652 0.2% 5,765 Ukraine 603700 46.7 34,997 29,982 0.1% 39,580 44,227 0.2% 18,828 Total 1712400 142.1 111,972 108,624 0.2% 100,015 88,698 0.1% -31,883 Th ere are also “problems that are not directly connected with defi nitions but considerably hin- der the international comparability of data fl ow. First, migration events are counted at various dates. For immigration it might be the date of issuing a permit, the date of arrival or the date of reporting for registration, and for emigration, the date of expiry of a permit, the date of reporting the departure or the date of departure. Second, in some cases a reference period which diff ers from a calendar year might be applied.”38

37 B. Nowok, D. Kupiszewska, “Oﬃ cial European Statistics On International Migration Flows: Availability, Sources and Coverage”, Working Paper, Central European Forum for Migration Research, 5/2005, pp.7–9. 38 Ibid, p. 25. 35 Trends in Regular and Irregular Migration

Estonia

Regular Migration. As outlined in a letter from the Estonian authorities39, no offi cial statistics are being currently kept regarding regular immigration and emigration to and from Estonia. “Due to the unsatisfactory quality of the available data,” the National Statistical Institute of Estonia “decided not to produce international migration statistics.”40 According to EUROSTAT, in 2005 Estonia’s net migration was -0,03%. Pre-2000 national statistics, which still included migration fi gures, suggest that up to 1000 people leave Estonia annually, destined for former republics of the USSR (mostly to Russia, but also Ukraine, Belarus and Latvia), and at least a few thousand Estonians leave annually for the West: moving mostly to the UK and Ireland, but also to Sweden, Finland, Germany and the United States. According to the estimates of the Estonian government, approximately 32.000 Estonians have left the country in order to search for work elsewhere during the last few years41. It should also be mentioned that Estonian (as well as Latvian) aliens gained visa-free access to the EU Member States (except the UK and Ireland) and Iceland. However, from a legal point of view, they are still not allowed to work in other EU Member States yet, although they may try to seek illegal employment. Th e Estonian Migration Fund reports that 40 persons were assisted in returning to Estonia, and 108 persons assisted in their departure from Estonia in 2006. Irregular Migration. In accordance with the data provided by state border guard authorities, the number of foreigners who were detained at the state borders (for use of false documents, illegal border crossing between the check points and illegal work and stay in the country) almost doubled since 2004 but still remains relatively low: 58 persons in 2004; 90 persons in 2005; and 50 persons in the fi rst half of 2006. Th is indicates an increasing trend of attempts to illegally cross a border since Estonia’s accession to the European Union. Th e dynamics of the main countries of origin keep changing. In 2004 Romania’s citizens topped the list (39 persons), in 2005 and the 1st half of 2006 the leading country of origin became Moldova. Russia and Ukraine remain close to the top of the list while Turkey has disappeared from it since 2005. While detailed information or any explanation are lacking, in 2005 – 1st half of 2006 the 3rd place in the list was occupied by detainees who previously did not appear in it. Th eir country of origin is indicated as “Unknown” (11 individuals in 2005, 8 in the 1st half of 2006). At the same time, the number of citizens of Ukraine dropped from 10 in 2004 to 1 person in the 1st half of 2006. Th e 1st half of 2006 is also marked with the appearance of Kazakhstan citizens in 2nd place in the list of countries (15 persons). Th e overall number of foreigners detained in Estonia for entry and residence violations decreased from 399 persons in 2004 to 307 in 2005, and only 127 in the 1st half of 2006. However, as the Estonian authorities highlight in their letter, it should be taken into account that these statistics also included so-called “domestic illegal residents whom Estonia inherited from the former Soviet Union and who legalized their stay in the country in 2004, 2005, in the 1st half of 2006”. Apparently, this category was used to be listed as “unknown” and amounts to two-thirds of the whole number of detainees per year.

39 The statistics for 2004 – 1st half of 2006 provided on the basis of an oﬃ cial letter from the Estonian Board of Border Guard. 40 B.Nowok, D. Kupiszewska, “Oﬃ cial European Statistics on International Migration Flows: Availability, Sources and Coverage”, CEFMR Working Paper, 5/2005, p.12 41 State Calls Estonians to Return to Their Homeland; http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/382976, checked on 24.04.2007 36 Illegal migrants by citizenship or the country of origin in Estonia, 2004–2006

GMB 1 VNM 1 SLE 1 BRA 1 ZWE 1

BLR 2

GHA 2 AZE 2

LVA 2

TUR 2

HRV 3 MDA 28

IRQ 3 GHA 1 CIV 1 CMR 3 BLR 1 UKR 1 BLR 1 IRQ 1 BRG 1 NGA 3 SCG 1 UKR 7 RUS 17

RUS 2 UNK 11

TUR 3 UNK 8 MDA 15

UKR 10 2005 - 90

ROU 39 RUS 8 KAZ 15

2004 - 58 2006 1st half - 50

In addition to “domestic illegal residents”, the main countries of origin of irregular migrants in detention were Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, Georgia and Moldova. Assuming that the average growth of numbers for the main countries continued at the same pace in 2nd half of 2006 as in the 1st half of 2006, it may be said that there was a decreasing trend in the numbers of “unknown” persons, Russian and Ukrainian citizens in comparison with 2004–2005. However, there was an increase of Moldovan nationals (9 persons in the 1st half in 2006 in comparison with 2 in 2005).

Hungary

Regular Migration. During 2005–2006, Hungary maintained positive net migration fi gures. However, aft er Hungary’s accession to the European Union, at least 26,000 Hungarians moved to the United Kingdom and Ireland for work (see further details in Chapter 5 of this study), although offi cial statistics recorded only less than 1,000 such registered emigrants. Th e main countries of origin for immigrants to Hungary in 2004–2005 were Romania (22,410 persons or 55% of the total; in 2004, 12,129 persons; a decrease in 2005 to 10.281 persons); Ukraine: 5,654 persons or 14% (in 2004, 3615 persons; a decrease in 2005 to 2039); Serbia: 2,879 persons or 7% (in 2004, 1,586 persons; a decrease in 2005 to 1,293); China: 1,486 persons or 4% (in 2004, 802 persons; a decrease in 2005 to 684); Th e USA: 696 persons or 2% (in 2004, 439 persons; a decrease in 2005 to 257); Germany: 622 persons or 2% (in 2004, 57, a signifi cant increase to 565 in 2005). Registered migration trends in Hungary, 2000–2005. 25000 20184 20308 19365 22164 20000 17972 18809 15000 10000 Arrivals 5000 Depatures 0 Net migration -5000 -2208 -1944 -2388 -2553 -3466 -3848 -10000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Based on national statistics, the following countries were the main destinations in 2004–2005 for emigrants from Hungary: 37 Romania: 3,863 persons or 53% of the total; Ukraine – 834 or 11%; China – 389 or 5%; Serbia – 253, and Germany – 239 persons. Apparently, most of the emigrants were nationals of third countries returning home aft er having spent some time in Hungary. A majority of the immigrants from Romania, Ukraine and Serbia were most likely of Hungarian ethnic origin. Immigration to Hungary, 2005 Emigration from Hungary, 2005 Other 16% Vietnam Other UK 2% Russia 17% Vietnam 1% 2% 1% USA France 1% 2% Slovakia Mongolia 2% 2% Germany 3% Serbia 3% China 4% Romania Romania Serbia Ukraine Germany China 55% Ukraine 49% 7% 11% 5% 6% 12% Irregular migration. According to the data provided by state border guard authorities, the numbers of foreigners detained at the national border remained almost stable for the last three years: 2,144 persons in 2004, 1,950 in 2005, and 1,033 in the fi rst half of 2006. Th ese numbers and the representation of irregular migrants by the countries suggest that trends in irregular migration to Hungary were rather stable. Th e largest volumes of irregular migrants were from: Moldova (42% of all detainees in 2004, decreasing to 12% in 2005 and 6% in the 1st half of 2006); Ukraine (18% in 2004, increasing to 40% in 2005 and 38% in the 1st half of 2006); Serbia (17% in 2004, increasing to 22% in 2005 and 30% in the 1st half of 2006), and Romania (11% in all three years). Th e overall number of foreigners detained in Hungary gradually decreased during the reporting period from 678 persons in 2004 to 416 in 2005, and only 227 in 1st half of 2006. Th e main countries of origin of the detainees in Hungary were the same as in case of the detention at the borders: Moldova, Ukraine, Serbia and Romania. Also, in 2004, the list was joined by India (4%) and in 1st half of 2006 – by China (11%). Th e number of expelled persons from Hungary remained relatively stable during the last few years and averaged in 4000–5000. Th e breakdown by nationalities remains approximately the same, with Romanian citizens being the majority.

Latvia

Regular Migration. Latvia’s net migration has been negative since the beginning of the 1990s, albeit 2002–2005 show a slowing trend of emigration.42 Aft er accession to the European Union, a signifi cant number of migrants moved to EU Member States (mainly the United Kingdom and Ireland) for work. Until mid-2006, only unoffi cial estimates were available since almost all emigrants from Latvia had failed to register their departure with the competent authorities. Th e draft concept paper “On Migration Policy in the context of Employment” released on 18 January 2007 and yet to be adopted by the Latvian Government, suggests that, according to Eurostat data only within the period of May 2004–December 2004, there were some 9,360 unemployed Latvian citizens in the United Kingdom and 5,769 in Ireland. In 2005, the United Kingdom received 13,665 work applications and Ireland 9,412 applicants from Latvia43. Another study conducted by the Ministry of Welfare of Latvia

42 The statistics for 2004 – April 2006 given on the basis of the letter of the Citizenship and Migration Board of the Republic of Latvia and on the basis of draft concept paper “On Migration Policy in the context of Employment” of the Government of Latvia, http://www.mk.gov.lv/lv/mk/tap/?pid=30276797, checked on 18.01.2007. 43 Regional unemployment in the European Union, Bulgaria and Romania in 2005. http://ec.europa.eu.eurostat 38 indicated that approximately 86,000 Latvian citizens left the country unregistered either for study or employment purposes. In addition to Latvian citizens, Latvian non-citizens (or aliens, as well as Estonian aliens) gained visa-free access to EU Member States (except the UK and Ireland) and Iceland. In legal terms, the aliens of Latvia and Estonia are still not allowed to work in other EU member states. However, “some observers fear that it will lead to a surge in emigration from countries already complaining about the lack of workers in key industries such as construction.”44 Registered migration trends in Latvia, 2000–2006. 5000 1627 1443 1428 1364 1665 1886 2801 2500 0 Arrivals -2500 -3262 -2210 -2744 -2450 Departures -5000 -5252 Net-migration -7500 -7131 -6602 -10000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

From 2002 to 2005 registered migration trends were quite stable in Latvia, but in 2006 the number of emigrants suddenly has doubled. It can be assumed that still many emigrants do not register. Most Latvians, who do register their departure, tend to emigrate to Russia, Germany, the UK, the United States as well as Belarus and Ukraine. Th ese states are also among the main countries of origin for regular migrants to Latvia during the reporting period. Leading countries of origin were Russia, Lithuania, Germany, the UK, Estonia and the USA. As to the migrants who entered Latvia with the aim to work, the fi gures show that during the reporting period most of them came from Russia (21%), Ukraine (13%), Lithuania (9%) and the United States (5%). Th e 2005–2006 fi gures suggest that the main reasons for applying for residence in Latvia were family reunifi cation, followed by employment and study. An interesting trend is that, during the reporting period, Latvia maintained a positive net migration balance with its neighbouring EU Member States of the Baltic Sea region: Lithuania, Estonia, Sweden, Denmark and Finland. Among non-EU Member States the main 3 countries with which Latvia kept a positive net migration balance were the former USSR republics of Moldova, Georgia and Armenia. Immigration to Latvia, 2005–2006 Emigration from Latvia, 2005–2006

Russia Others Others 22% 25% Russia 29% 31% Ireland 4% Sweden 3% Lithuania Lithuania 12% 4% Ukraine USA 4% Germany Germany 6% Ukraine 10% Ireland UK USA UK 9% 6% 4% 4% Belarus 7% Estonia 8% 7% 5%

44 Latvia’s non-citizens gain visa-free access to EU, except Great Britain and Ireland, LETA news, 19.01.2007. 39 Table 3. Residence permits issued in Latvia for 2005–2006

On 01.01.2005. On 01.01.2006. Reason for residence EU citizens Others In total EU citizens Others In total Family reuniﬁ cation 517 3,475 3,992 586 3,586 4,172 Employee 714 448 1,162 1,231 556 1787 Employer 486 706 1,192 143 661 804 Students 224 375 599 146 335 481 Provider of services 62 - 62 94 - 94 Receiver of services 3 - 3 3 - 3 Others 130 289 419 270 392 662 In total 2,136 5,293 7,429 2,473 5,530 8,003 Th e above fi gures demonstrate clearly that employment was the second main reason for staying in Latvia, and the number of employed foreigners continues growing. In addition, foreigners who have received residence permits for the family reunifi cation purposes also have access to the labour market. Th erefore, 2,302 work permits were issued in 2005, and 2,818 in 2006 for family members of Latvian citizens, thus granting them unrestricted rights to work for any employer. It should be stressed that so far Latvia maintained a restrictive migration policy which does not encourage foreigners from non-EU countries to apply for work in Latvia. Th e main current areas of economy that employ foreigners include are public and social services, trade and manufacturing. A distinct category of immigrants to be mentioned are repatriates to Latvia. In accordance to the Repatriation Law, a repatriate is a person who on his or her own volition makes a permanent move to live in the Republic of Latvia, granted that he or she is a citizen of Latvia, or one of his or her parents or grandparents was Latvian or Livonian by ethnicity. Since Latvia launched its repatriation program in 1995, a total of 5,355 persons have returned to Latvia. However, the numbers have been decreasing annually. In 2006, the largest share of repatriates to Latvia, 108 persons, came from the former Soviet Union countries while 66 persons moved back to live in Latvia from the Western countries. Experts explain this tendency by the fact that, in the past, Latvians mostly went to live in Russia and other former USSR countries. Therefore, it is predictable that the similar numbers of repatriates from these countries would continue. In 2006, the largest number of repatriates, 68 persons, returned to Latvia from Russia, while 30 came back from the United States and 19 from Ukraine. The state provides a modest integration support that amounted to LVL 48,000 distributed to 302 repatriates last year. This assistance covered travel costs, unemployment allowances and the Latvian language classes. Irregular Migration. According to data provided by the Latvian border guard authorities, the number of foreigners detained at the state borders with false travel documents almost doubled from 86 persons in 2004 to 156 in 2005, and decreased to 114 in 2006. This indicates an increasing trend in attempts of the illegal border crossing since Latvia’s accession to the European Union. Major nationalities in this category were Russians followed by increasing numbers of Moldavians. The numbers of apprehended Lithuanians, Belarusians, Armenians and Estonians have been declining. Detained foreigners in the territory of Latvia by top nationalities, 2004–2006

120 100 80 2004 60 2005 40 2006 20 0 Russia Lithuania Ukraine Stateless Belarus Armenia Moldova Estonia Other

40 Th e numbers of foreigners who were stopped at the Latvian border due to the absence of entry visas remained relatively stable. In 2004, there were 865 such foreigners, 716 in 2005 and 760 in 2006. Th e overall numbers of foreigners who were detained in Latvia for violating entry and residence provisions also gradually decreased during the reporting period from 399 persons in 2004 to 307 in 2005 and further still to 238 in 2006. Th e countries of origin for regular migration were similar to the leading countries of origin of irregular migrants in detention. Th ese included Russia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Estonia as well as Armenia, Germany and Azerbaijan. It was also noted that in Latvia there were a signifi cant number of stateless detainees (e.g. 46 persons in 2004).

Lithuania

Regular Migration. Th e responsible authorities in Lithuania have provided very detailed information on the major trends in both regular and irregular migration issues45. Th e main countries of destination for emigrants from Lithuania were as follows. In 2004, 13,246 persons left Lithuania (3,472 to the UK; 2,879 to the US, 1,613 to Germany, and 1,036 to Ireland). In 2005, 15,571 (some 20% more) left Lithuania (including 13,306 Lithuanian citizens and 2,265 aliens.) Th e largest fl ows were to the United Kingdom (4,223 persons); Ireland (2,073); the United States (2,010); Germany (1,473); and Russia (1,113). During 2006, the total of 12,602 persons left Lithuania, the main destinations for emigrants from Lithuania being the United Kingdom (3,223 persons or 26%), the United States (1,771 or 14%), Ireland (1,313 or 10%), and Germany (1,114 persons). Th e overwhelming majority of emigrants were Lithuanian citizens, the only exception being the destinations of Russia and Ukraine where the majority of emigrants were foreigners. Registered migration trends in Lithuania, 2001–2006. 10000 4694 5110 4728 5553 6789 7745 5000 0 Arrivals -5000 Departures -10000 -7253 -7086 Net-migration -15000 -11032 -15165 -15571 -12602 -20000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Numbers of immigrants arriving to Lithuania continued to grow from 5,553 persons in 2004 to 6,789 in 2005 and further to 7,745 in 2006. Main countries of origin are the United Kingdom (1,528 persons or 20%), Russia (956 or 12%), Belarus (945 or 12%) and Ireland (766 persons). Most of the immigrants are returning citizens of Lithuania (5,508 persons or 71%). Foreign citizens dominated only among immigrants from Belarus, Ukraine and Israel in 2006. During the reporting period, the following numbers of the Lithuanian citizens returned to Lithuania: 3,111 in 2004; 3,428 in 2005 and 1,747 during the 1st half of the 2006. Th e number of issued permits decreased from 8,706 permanent residence permits and 6,437 temporary residence permits in 2004 to 5,444 permanent residence permits and 1,723 temporary residence permits in 2006. In the 1st half of 2006, 2,027 permanent residence permits and 3,567 temporary residence permits were issued. While the reasons for temporary stays in Lithuania are not indicated in the statistics, it shows an interesting pattern. In 2005, the number of the temporary residence permits decreased by three times. However, for the 1st half of 2006 the number of such permits doubled compared to the whole year of 2005. Th e main countries of origin for immigrants to Lithuania were Russia, Belarus and Ukraine.

45 The statistics provided on the basis of a letter from the State Border Guard Service at the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Lithuania. 41 Immigration to Lithuania, 2005–2006 Emigration from Lithuania, 2005–2006

UK Other Other UK 18% 21% 26% 27% Belarus Russia Spain 5% 5% 12% Spain 6% Ukraine Belarus USA 5% 10% Russia 13% 7% Ireland Germany Germany 8% USA Ireland 8% 9% 8% 12% Irregular migration. Th e numbers of detained persons at the border of Lithuania almost doubled since 2004. In 2004, 541 illegal immigrants were detained (of these, 313 persons were detained for illegal stay in Lithuania, 153 persons crossed the border circumventing the offi cial border crossing points, and 75 persons tried to enter Lithuania with forged or counterfeit travel documents). Th e ori- gins of these violators were from: Russia (210 persons); Belarus (94); Ukraine (76); Kazakhstan (32); and Pakistan (27). In 2005, 967 illegal immigrants were detained (of these, 717 persons were detained for illegal stay in Lithuania, 103 persons crossed the border circumventing the offi cial border crossing points, and 147 persons tried to enter Lithuania providing forged or counterfeit travel documents). Th e ori- gins of these violators were from Russia (462 persons); Belarus (193); Ukraine (81); Moldova (70); and the Philippines (20). In the 1st half of 2006, 528 illegal immigrants were detained (of these, 454 persons were detained for illegal stay in Lithuania, 32 persons crossed the border circumventing the offi cial border crossing points, and 42 persons tried to enter Lithuania providing forged or counterfeit travel documents). Th ese violators were citizens of Russia (271 persons); Belarus (90); Ukraine (55); Moldova (42); and Georgia (11). Th e overall number of foreigners who were detained in Lithuania for the violation of entry and residence legislation increased during the reporting period more than twice: in 2004, 313 illegal immigrants were detained (of these, 207 persons entered Lithuania legally but overstayed the visa period). Most of these were citizens of Russia (86 persons); Belarus (33); Ukraine (33); Kazakhstan (25); and Moldova (6). In 2005, 717 illegal immigrants were detained for illegal stay (of these, 430 persons entered Lithuania legally but overstayed the visa period). Most were citizens of Russia (186 persons); Belarus (129); Ukraine (47); Uzbekistan (13); and Kazakhstan (12). In the 1st half of 2006, 454 illegal immigrants were detained; of these, 311 persons entered Lithuania legally but overstayed their visas. Th ese were mostly citizens of Russia (152 persons); Belarus (71); Ukraine (38); Moldova (13); and Georgia (6). In conclusion, trends in irregular migration to Lithuania demonstrate the doubling of illegal migrants during the reporting period, especially from the former Soviet republics of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova.

Poland

Regular Migration. Th e Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of Poland collects data on Polish workers abroad only from EU/EEA countries. Th e data cover diff erent years and is provided by diff erent systems (e.g. work permits, residence permits, social insurance or registration scheme numbers). Th e summary of all data would be rather misleading as in many cases the systems of migration moni- 42 toring are unable to distinguish permanent employment from seasonal work or track workers leaving employment or the country where they worked. Th erefore, only estimated numbers are available. Data from the Central Statistical Offi ce of Poland available for the period of 2004–200546 show ongo- ing negative net migration. In 2004, Poland received 9,495 immigrants, while 18,877 people left the country. In 2005, Poland received approximately the same number of immigrants (9,364) while the number of persons emigrating from the country increased by 17% to 22,242 persons. Th e estimates for 2006 have more than doubled and come to about 51,000. Registered migration trends in Poland, 2000–2006. 20000 7331 6625 6587 4048 9395 9364 11000 10000 0 -10000 Arrivals -20000 Departures -30000 -22080 -23368 -24532 -20813 -18877 -22242 -40000 Net migration -50000 -51000 -60000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Most of registered emigrants left for Germany (67% in 2004; 55% in 2005), other two major countries being the UK and the United States. UK Home Offi ce statistics include records of over 300,000 Polish citizens residing there, and another 180,000 in Ireland. Interestingly, during the last fi ve years, registered Polish emigrants to the UK and Ireland (assuming many were living there before the EU accession) are barely over 5,000, which is around 1% of the fl ow. Since the number of emigrants from Poland in 2006 has doubled, it seems that national statistics is able to register a larger share of labour migrants. As far as immigration to Poland is concerned, the main countries of origin were Germany, the United States, Ukraine, Canada, the UK and Belarus. As noted by Polish analysts, “as data for 2004 indicates, the number of Ukrainians almost tripled, from 423 in 2003 to 1,196 in 2004, and 1,067 in 2005, so the share of Ukraine in the total immigrant population doubled. Similar, but not spectacular increases, were displayed in the case of Armenia (by 125%), and Belarus (113%), as well as in the case of the Russian Federation (by 64%). Kazakhstan and Lithuania were the only exceptions among the countries of the former USSR, reporting decreases over 2003, by 27% and 5%, respectively.”47 Th e above countries were continued to lead in fi gures, albeit in 2005–2006 the numbers started decreasing signifi cantly (e.g., 527 Russian citizens applied for a residence permit in 2004; there were 376 applicants in 2005 and only 165 in the 1st half of 2006.

46 Central Statistical Oﬃ ce of Poland, http://www.stat.gov.pl/english/dane_spol-gosp/ludnosc/ludnosc/index.htm, checked on 28.12.2006 47 E.Kepinska, “Recent Trends in International Migration”, the 2005 SOPEMI Report for Poland, December 2005, p.17. 43 Immigration to Poland, 2005 Emigration from Poland, 2005

Other Other Ireland Austria 26% Germany 10% 1% 30% 2% Italy 2% Belarus Canada 4% 4% USA France 12% 3%

Canada Italy USA 3% 4% 14% Ukraine UK Germany 11% UK 5% 55% 14% According to a Labour Force Survey conducted by the Central Statistics Offi ce of Poland, the picture of the Polish citizens staying abroad for longer than two months by the destination countries looks as follows (information is based on the records of the second quarters of 2004 and 2005)48: Table 2. Numbers of Polish citizens staying abroad for longer than two month

Number of Polish citizens Country 2004 2005 Germany 51,000 47,000 The United Kingdom 18,000 40,000 Italy 18,000 20,000 The USA 22,000 11,000 Ireland 4,000 9,000 France 5,000 7,000 The Netherlands 3,000 5,000 Spain 6,000 5,000 Sweden 6,000 4,000 Austria 5,000 2,000 Belgium 3,000 2,000 Other countries 12,000 16,000 Total 153,000 168,000 Irregular Migration. Th e Polish authorities provided statistics on irregular migration based on the following categories: the numbers of persons who were issued an expulsion order to leave the territory of Poland (2004–2005); the numbers of persons to whom expulsion orders were issued by a commanding offi cer of the voivodship, district (poviat) or municipal Police station, or a commanding offi cer of a Border Guard division or checkpoint (for years 2004–2005); the numbers of migrants who were apprehended while attempting to cross the Polish state border illegally. No information on the numbers of irregular migrants in detention was provided. Th e main countries of origin of persons who were issued an expulsion order to leave the territory of Poland in 2004–2005 were as follows: Ukraine: (constituting more than 50% of all expulsion orders) in 2004, 3,761 persons, a decrease in 2005, 2,518 persons; Moldova: in 2004, 377 persons, an increase in 2005, 509 persons;

48 Ibid, p.75. 44 Armenia: in 2004, 277 persons, an increase in 2005, 343 persons; Vietnam: in 2004, 276 persons, an increase in 2005, 331 persons; Belarus: in 2004, 332 persons, a decrease in 2005, 217 persons; Russia: in 2004, 187 persons, a small increase in 2005, 195 persons; Bulgaria: in 2004, 392 persons, a 50% decrease in 2005, 189 persons. Illegal migration routes to Poland

Th e main countries of origin for persons to whom expulsion orders were issued by a commanding offi cer of the voivodship, district (poviat) or municipal Police station, or a commanding offi cer of a Border Guard division or checkpoint included: Ukraine: (amounting to about 70% of all decisions) in 2004, 4,381 persons, in 2005, 4,391 persons; Belarus: in 2004, 625 persons, a 30% increase in 2005, 921 persons; Bulgaria: in 2004, 305 persons, an 18% increase in 2005, 352 persons: Armenia: in 2004, 139 persons, an increase to 206 in 2005; Russia: in 2004, 156 persons, a decrease in 2005, 117 persons; Romania: in 2004, 140 persons, a decrease in 2005, 100 persons. Th e numbers of migrants who were apprehended while attempting to cross the Polish state border illegally kept decreasing gradually during the last 2 years. In 2004, the fi gure was 4,472, in 2005 – 3,598 and in the fi rst half of 2006 – only 1,348. Over 40% of those apprehended were citizens of Ukraine; other major nationality groups included Russians (12%), Moldavians (8%), Czechs (7%) and Vietnamese (6%).

Romania

Regular migration. Th e data available only for 2003–2004 suggests that net migration in Romania for the reporting period was negative. 10,673 persons emigrated from Romania in 2003, while in 2004 the fi gure reached 13,082. Th e main countries of destination for the emigrants were

45 Germany (2,728 persons), followed by Italy (2,603), the United States (2,049), Hungary (1,553) and Canada (1,445)49. Registered migration trends in Romania, 2000–2004. 15000 11024 10350 10000 6582 2987 5000 3267 0 Arrivals -5000 Departures -10000 -9921 -8154 Net-migration -15000 -14753 -10673 -13082 -20000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Th e number of the long-term visas issued during the reporting period was 2,623, while short- term visas totalled to 298,401. Accordingly to the overall data provided by the Romanian authorities, the largest numbers of immigrants residing in Romania on the basis of long-term visas arrived from Turkey, China, Tunisia, Bangladesh, India and Israel: Turkey: in 2004, there were 376 persons; this fi gure decreased by 75% in 2005 to 76 persons, and decreased in the 1st half of 2006 further to 9 persons; China: in 2004, there were 315 persons; this fi gure decreased to 76 persons in 2005, and no Chinese citizens were granted long-stay visas in the 1st half of 2006; Tunisia: in 2004, there were 223 persons, with an increase to 319 persons in 2005, and no Tunisian citizen received a long-stay visa in the 1st half of 2006. Bangladesh, Israel and India follow next with almost identical fi gures (the total numbers of 145, 143 and 145 persons respectively during the reporting period and a decrease to 0 in 1st half of 2006. In fact, the statistics for 1st half of 2006 indicated that Turkish citizens were the only ones receiving long-stay visas. Th ose staying on short-term visas came mainly from Turkey, Ukraine, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, and Belarus. However, there is a visible decrease in the numbers of persons receiving short-stay visas within the reported fi gures (only the numbers of immigrants from Ukraine, Turkey and Serbia and Montenegro continue to grow; for the remaining countries there was a gradual decrease). Turkey: in 2004, there were 22,707 persons; this fi gure increased by 28% in 2005 to 29,007 persons, and in the 1st half of 2006, to 14,803 persons; Ukraine: in 2004, there were 17,305 persons; this fi gure increased by 67% in 2005 to 28,938 persons, and shows a decreasing trend (in comparison with 2005) to 13,125 persons in the 1st half of 2006; Russia: in 2004, there were 20,022 persons, with a decrease to 18,148 persons in 2005, and to 8,161 in the 1st half of 2006; Serbia: in 2004, there were 8,189 persons, with the fi gure almost doubling in 2005 to 16,236 persons, and continuing growing at the same pace (in comparison with 2005) in the 1st half of 2006 to 8,725 persons; Belarus: in 2004, there were 5,524 persons, with a minor but continuing decrease to 5,265 in 2005, and showing a slight increase in the 1st half of 2006 to 2,447 persons. During the reporting period, 5,149 persons stayed on the basis of permanent residence permits, Syria, China, Turkey, Iran, Lebanon and Russia being the main countries of origin. Th ere was a

49 As the source of information on the regular migration the Romanian Statistical Yearbook (the latest addition for 2005 available online was used in order to get at least the data on emigration for 2003–2004. Available at: www.insse.ro/ Anuar%202005/CHAPTERS/cp2.pdf, checked on 25.12.2006. 46 dramatic increase in the fl ows of persons granted both temporary and permanent residence permits in Romania, up to three times, from 2004 to the 1st half of 2006. Unfortunately, limited information indicates no possible causes for such increases. One major reason is likely to be the future accession of Romania to the EU, the fact well known already in 2004. Th e main countries of origin of foreigners who stayed permanently in Romania within the reporting period are as follows: Syria: the number of persons was growing extremely fast. In 2004, 205 persons receiving permanent stay visas; this fi gure more than doubled in 2005 to 527, and kept increasing to 708 in only the 1st half of 2006; China: the number of persons grew extremely fast as well. In 2004, 119 persons received permanent stay visas; this fi gure almost tripled in 2005 to 348 persons, and doubled further in the 1st half of 2006 to 637 persons; Turkey: in 2004, 97 persons received permanent stay visas; this fi gure increased to 347 in 2005, and continued growing to 568 in the 1st half of 2006; Lebanon: in 2004, 126 persons received permanent stay visas, with an increase to 319 persons in 2005, and a further increase in the 1st half of 2006 to 387 persons; Iran: in 2004, 63 persons received permanent stay visas, the fi gure tripled in 2005 to 198 persons, and doubled in the 1st half of 2006 to 387 persons; Russia: in 2004, 45 persons received permanent stay visas, the fi gure tripled in 2005 to 162 persons, and increased further in the 1st half of 2006 to 229 persons. During the reporting period, 45,660 persons stayed on the basis of short-term residence permits (Turkey, China and Italy being the leading countries of origin). Turkey: in 2004, 2,234 persons received temporary stay permits; this fi gure doubled in 2005 to 5,018 persons, and doubled again in the 1st half of 2006 to 5,550 persons; China: in 2004, 1,462 persons received temporary stay permits, the fi gure almost tripled in 2005 to 4,161 persons, and increased still in the 1st half of 2006 to 4,173 persons, Italy: in 2004, 874 persons received temporary stay permits, the fi gure doubled in 2005 to 2,363 persons, and increased again in the 1st half of 2006 to 3,586 persons. Th e number of Moldavians entering and working in Romania or some other EU Member States legally is likely to increase in 2007 and the future for two main reasons. According to the Associated Press, more than 400,000 Moldavians have already applied for the Romanian citizenship. In this regard, Romania’s Foreign Minister “expressed his surprise, since a 2004 census indicated that only 70,000 Moldavians declared themselves to be Romanians.” Romania has already adopted a simplifi ed visa regime for Moldovan citizens, which started on 1 January 2007. Visas will be issued free of charge, no additional support documents will be required, and the holders of business and diplomatic passports will enjoy visa-free travel to Romania50. Irregular migration. According to the data provided by the Romanian authorities, 13,465 foreigners were apprehended as illegal stayers in Romania during the reporting period (5,560 persons in 2004, 5,607 in 2005, and 2,298 in 1st half of 2006). Th e statistics for each year shows that the fi g- ures for 2004–2005 were quite stable. However, if the trend of the 1st half of 2006 were to continue throughout the 2nd half then a decrease by 18% would be likely.

50 “More than 400.000 Moldovans have applied for Romanian citizenship following the relaxation of the visa regime”, Monday 23 October 2006, Euroactiv. 47 Number of illegal migrants apprehended in Romania, 2004–2006.

Others 32% Turkey 24% Serbia 2%

Egypt 2% USA Moldova 2% 21% Italy China 2% Israel 6% Ukraine 3% Syria 3% 3%

Within the reporting period, the numbers of foreigners apprehended for illegal entry/stay in Romania per countries of origin were as follows: Turkey: 3,196 persons (1,288 in 2004, 1,349 in 2005, and 559 in 1st half of 2006); Moldova: 2,886 persons (1,199 in 2004, 1,191 in 2005, and 496 in the 1st half of 2006); China: 799 persons (257 in 2004, 335 in 2005, and 207 in the 1st half of 2006); Syria: 419 persons (192 in 2004, 163 in 2005, and 64 in the 1st half of 2006); Israel: 396 persons (158 in 2004, 182 in 2005, and 56 in the 1st half of 2006), Ukraine: 372 persons (151 in 2004, 146 in 2005, and 75 in the 1st half of 2006). Th e fi gures suggest an emerging trend of the fl ows of irregular migrants from the leading countries of origin decreasing gradually. Th e exception is China, with the number of irregular migrants to Romania increasing by 30% in 2005 and a higher increase still in the 1st half of 2006. It is worth mentioning as well that the numbers for Ukraine remained stable throughout the years. In addition, Romania was the only country of the Söderköping process that had a signifi cant number of Israeli citizens apprehended for the irregular entry or stay.

The Slovak Republic

Regular migration. Offi cial data from the national statistical offi ce shows a doubling of recorded immigrants to Slovakia during the last few years. Major countries of origin were the Czech Republic (22% in 2005), Germany (14%), Austria (6%) and Poland (6%). Th ere were also immigrants from South Korea (120 in 2005), Vietnam (260 in 2004) and China (63 in 2004). It may be assumed that a signifi cant part of the immigrants were returning Slovak nationals. Th e number of recorded emigrants is one of the lowest among the participating countries, less than 2,000 annually; and the fi gure was only around 1,000 a few years ago. Major countries of destination are quite similar to countries of origin that provide immigrants: the Czech Republic (39%), Germany (16%), Austria (11%), Switzerland and the United States (6% each). As of 30 September 2006, there were 30,244 persons residing in Slovakia under permanent, temporary or “tolerated” types of stay. By nationalities, the largest groups included Czech citizens (4,916), Ukrainians (3,871), Poles (3,479), Germans (2,097), Hungarians (1,994) and Russians (1,301). Also, there were relatively high numbers from Vietnam (1,030), China (770) and South Korea (751).

48 Registered migration trends in Th e Slovak Republic, 2000–2005. 7500 4460 5276 5000 2274 2023 2313 2603 2500 Arrivals 0 Departures Net-migration -2500 -811 -1011 -1411 -1194 -1586 -1873 -5000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Th e latest data concerning registered foreigners (for 2005) shows that the Aliens Department of the Police Force of the Slovak Republic had a total of 972,320 foreigners on their fi les, including 920,778 foreigners not subject to visa obligation and 51,542 visa nationals. As far as visa-free registered foreigners are concerned, most of them were nationals of EU Member States, the vast majority being citizens of the Czech Republic (277,423 persons). Th e majority of foreigners who were subject to a visa requirements came from Ukraine (15,490 persons), Russia (12,071 persons), Serbia (3,828 persons) and China (1,507 persons).51 Table 4. Residence permits by their types in Slovakia, 2004–2006

Type of residence permit 2004 2005 1st half of 2006 Permanent residence 6,248 5,507 3,526 Temporary residence 1,460 1,816 1,470 Registered residence 154 0 0 “Tolerated” residence 219 269 130 In total 8,081 7,592 5,126 Number of Foreigners staying legally in Slovak Republic, Sep-30, 2006 South Korea 3% Others China 8% The Czech R. 3% 21% France 3% Vietnam 4% Austria 5% Russia Ukraine 5% 17%

Hungary 8% Germany Poland 9% 14% Irregular migration. According to data provided by the Slovak border guard authorities for 2004–2006, the numbers of foreigners were apprehended at the national borders were on constant decrease: in 2004, 8,334 persons (plus 2,612 apprehended in the country while residing illegally); in 2005, 5,178 persons (plus 2,871 apprehended while residing illegally); in 2006, 4,129 persons (plus 3,491 apprehended while residing illegally). Th e main countries of origin of the irregular migrants apprehended at the borders were the following: Moldova (941 persons in 2004, 1,126 in 2005 and 1,251 in 1st half of 2006);

51 Yearbook of Border and Alien Police, Bratislava, 2005, p.13. 49 Russia (1,921 persons in 2004, decreasing to 1,278 in 2005 and decreasing to just 544 in 2006); China (993 persons in 2004, decreasing to 435 persons in 2005 and with a continued decreasing trend in 2006 to 317 persons); India (1,295 persons in 2004, decreasing to 582 persons in 2005 and with a continuing decrease in 2006 to 464 persons); Georgia (828 persons in 2004, decreasing to 356 persons in 2005 and decreasing in the 1st half of 2006 to just 88 persons); Ukraine (166 persons in 2004, decreasing to 122 persons in 2005 and increasing to 264 in 2006). Illegal Migration Routes to and from Slovakia, 2005–2006

Th e main countries of origin of irregular migrants illegally residing in the Slovak Republic were the following: Ukraine (116 persons in 2004, with a sudden increase to 923 persons in 2005 and with future increase in 2006 to 1,062 persons); Russia (230 persons in 2004, with the increase to 376 persons in 2005 and with a decreasing trend in 2006 to 188 persons); India (884 persons in 2004, with a decrease to 376 persons in 2005 and with an increase in 2006 to 721 persons); Georgia (122 persons in 2004, and 139 persons in 2005); Moldova (135 persons in 2004, more than doubling to 289 persons in 2005 and with a continuing increasing trend in 2006 to 604 persons); Bangladesh (176 persons in 2004, with a slight increase to 184 persons in 2005, with a decreasing trend in the 1st half of 2006 to 64 persons). Th e received information suggests that the number of detected cases of illegal employment increased more than 5 times within one year.52 In 2004, only 112 cases were identifi ed, skyrocketing to 627 cases in 2005.

52 Yearbook of Border and Alien Police, Bratislava, 2005, p.16. 50 Some decrease in illegal employment of foreigners emerged in the 1st half of 2006 when 176 cases of illegal employment were identifi ed. 40 of which were citizens of Korea; 40 of Vietnam; 13 of Ukraine; 11 of Romania; and 9 of Kuwait. Looking from a comparative perspective, the change of pattern is obvious: during the 1st half of 2005 there was a diff erent distribution of the illegal workers by the countries of origin: Vietnam – 97 persons; Ukraine – 29 persons; Romania – 28 persons; Poland – 25 persons; and China – 20 persons53.

The ﬂ ow of migrants from the new EU member states to the United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden.

Th e accession to the EU on 1 May 2004 created possibilities of free movement within EU member states that did not impose transitional restrictions on the movement of labour: the new member states, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. In 2006, Spain, Portugal, Finland and Greece also opened their labour markets aft er the end of a two-year transitional period. France granted limited access to its market but the rest of the EU countries still maintain barriers to entry of labour. Th is opportunity of free movement (albeit in its diluted version) caused signifi cant fl ows of labour migrants from Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia, mainly to the United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden. Romania’s accession may follow the same scenario with the exception that the countries of destination could change due to restrictions imposed by EU Member States that were generous in their approach to free movement from the new EU Member States during the 2004 enlargement. Th e United Kingdom, aft er the EU enlargement in May 2004, estimated its net inward migration at 222,600 persons, almost 50% higher than in 200354. Th e total number of work permit holders and dependents admitted to the UK was 137,000 in 2005, an increase of 10% over 200455. In accordance with UK Home Offi ce data, a cumulative total of 555,030 applicants are from the new EU Member States applied for the Worker Registration Scheme (WRS) between 1 May 2004 and 31 December 2006, but these fi gures do not necessarily indicate the stable number of long term migrants or A8 workers into the UK, as most come for only short periods56. During 2004, 126,000 persons from Eastern European countries have registered for the Scheme; many of them likely arrived in the UK before 1 May 2004 but were living and working illegally. In 2005, the number of registered persons in the UK rose to 205,000 and reached its peak of 224,000 in 2006. Polish citizens constituted absolute majority during all three years, and their percentage among the total number grew from 56% in 2004 to 71% in 2006. Th e numbers of other nationals show a tendency to decrease, especially Lithuanians with fi gures falling from 15% in 2004 to just 7.5% in 2006 and Latvians (from 7% to 4%). Statistics on labour migration from Romania to the UK is relatively diffi cult to assess due to the fact that it was in the other group of assessed countries until 1 January 2007, when it joined the European Union. In April 2006, the Institute for Public Policy Research published an estimate that assumed, based on the trends in the new EU Member States, that up to 50,000 Romanians may apply for a work permit in 2007. It further assumed that 18% or 9,000 of them would be in the UK already in 2006, adding 41,000 Romanians as new migrants57. Th e new EU Member States, due to a variety

53 “Legal and Illegal migration in Slovak Republic” – 1st half of 2006, Border and Alien Police, Bratislava, 2006, p.8. 54 Control of immigration: statistics United Kingdom 2004, http://www.offi cial-documents.gov.uk/document/ cm66/6690/6690.pdf, checked on 29.12.2006., p.10. 55 Control of immigration: statistics United Kingdom 2005, http://www.offi cial-documents.gov.uk/document/ cm69/6904/6904.pdf, checked on 29.12.2006., p.8. 56 Accession Monitoring Report May 2004 – December 2006, A joint online report by the Home Offi ce, Department for Work and Pensions, HM Revenue & Customs and Department for Communities and Local Government, 27 February 2007. 57 Migration Watch UK, http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/Briefi ngpapers/european_union/4_7_Potential_immigratio_ 51 of reasons (restrictions, lower salary levels, etc), were signifi cantly less attractive. For instance, according to statistical data between 1 May 2004 and 1 May 2006 in Latvia, only 19 work permits were issued to citizens of Romania58. Th e United Kingdom, meanwhile, opted to impose work restrictions on Romanians59. Country of Origin of the Immigrants to the UK from the New EU States, 2004–2006 80% 70% 60%

50% 2004 40% 2005 30% 2006 20% 10% 0% Poland Lithuania Slovakia Latvia Hungary Estonia Other Th e EU enlargement signifi cantly changed the number and composition of work permit recipi- ents in Ireland. During only eight months following the EU accession (from May 2004 to December of 2004), 53,406 persons from the ten new EU member states were allocated Personal Public Service (PPS) Numbers which are required in order to get work in Ireland. Th is fi gure includes both new arrivals and people who already were in Ireland before the accession and may have previously held a work permit in one or another form. In 2005, the number of immigrants from the new EU member states increased to 113,112, and continued to grow by 22% in 2006, reaching 138,08360. Altogether, 304,077 persons moved to Ireland from the 10 new EU Member States within the period from 1 May 2004 to 31 December 2006.61 Most of them were from Poland (60% or 183,609 persons), followed by Lithuanians (46,114 persons), Slovaks (24,497), Latvians (23,014), as well as Hungarians (9,061) and Estonians (5,048 persons).Th e percentage of Poles increased from 47% in 2004 to 67% in 2006, while the percentage of Lithuanians and Latvians kept decreasing from 22% and 11% respectively in 2004 to just 12% and 6%. As a result of such massive immigration, Ireland experienced its largest-ever infl ux of migrants in 2006 with almost 200,000 foreign nationals registering to work or access public services there. Th e scale of immigration is the main reason why Ireland opted to impose work restrictions on citizens of Romania62. Already during the fi rst two months of 2007, 12,131 Poles, 5,291 Romanians, 1,923 Lithuanians, 1,448 Slovaks and 887 Latvians were issued with Personal Public Service Numbers, required for seeking work. Th erefore, while the labour market of Ireland is not fully open to Romanian nationals, Romanians now constitute the second largest group (or 23% of all immigrants) aft er the Poles, vastly outnumbering Lithuanians and Latvians, according to the new statistics63. If a similar trend continues, over 50,000 Romanians will fi nd a job in Ireland during 2007.

%20from_Romania_and_Bulgaria.asp, checked on 26.12.2006. 58 Latvia will not apply restrictions to Romanian and Bulgarian labour force, 20.12.2006., http://www.lm.gov.lv/index. php?sadala=428&id=3113, checked on 26.12.2006 59 EU struggles to tidy up migrant worker rules, 5 February 2007, EUobserver 60 Immigrant Council of Ireland, “Background Information and Statistics on Immigration to Ireland”, June 2005, p.4. 61 Department of Social and Family Aﬀ airs of Ireland, Personal Public Service Number Statistics For The 10 EU Accession States, http://www.welfare.ie/topics/ppsn/ppsstat.html#euten040506, checked on 29.12.2006. 62 Poles and Lithuanians form highest inﬂ ux of immigrants in Ireland in 2006, LETA news, 02.01.2007. 63 Poles, Romanians and Lithuanians are the biggest groups of immigrants to Ireland, LETA, 04.02.2007. 52 Country of Origin among the New Immigrants to Ireland, 2004 V – 2007 IV 100% Others 80% Romania Estonia 60% Hungary

40% Slovakia Latvia 20% Lithuania Poland 0% V-VIII IX-XII I-IV V-VIII IX-XII I-IV V-VIII IX-XII I-IV 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006 2007*

According to offi cial statistics, 62,028 persons came to Sweden in 2004 and further 65,229 in 2005. Th e largest groups of immigrants aft er Swedish returnees and other Nordic citizens were Polish and Iraqi nationals. Immigration from the Söderköping process countries to Sweden continued to increase from 4,821 in 2004 to 6,058 in 2005 reaching almost 10,000 in 2006. A majority of them were Polish citizens and their percentage kept increasing64. In addition, more than 45% of Polish citizens were granted residence permit due to their employment in 2005. Table 5. Number of immigrants to Sweden from the Söderköping process countries, 2004– 200665

Country 2004 2005 2006 Total Poland 2,552 3,525 6,442 12,519 Lithuania 427 659 849 1,935 Romania 395 415 422 1,232 Estonia 397 394 419 1,210 Ukraine 327 298 444 1,069 Hungary 246 292 487 1,025 Latvia 197 232 359 788 Belarus 142 130 266 538 Slovakia 106 92 137 335 Moldova 32 21 40 93 Th e number of immigrants to Sweden kept increasing from 2004 to 2006, especially those from Poland and Lithuania, but the fi gures from Romania and Estonia remain fl at. Immigration from Moldova and Slovakia remains quite insignifi cant. Number of Immigrants to Sweden from the Söderköping Process Countries, 2004–2006 7000 6000 5000 4000 2004 3000 2005 2000 2006 1000 0 Poland Lithuania Romania Estonia Ukraine Hungary Latvia Belarus Slovakia Moldova

64 Sverige Oﬃ ciella Statistik, Migration 2005, http://www.scb.se/templates/Publikation____162431.asp, checked on 29.12.2006. 65 Sverige Oﬃ ciella Statistik, Migration 2006 http://www.scb.se/databaser/makro/Visvar.asp, checked on 06.03.2007. 53 Conclusions

During 2004–2006, most countries of the Söderköping process had negative net migration. All the reviewed countries, except perhaps Romania, experienced a real “exodus” of their nationals, mainly heading for the “old” EU Member States that have not imposed restrictions on the freedom of movement of workers for newcomers. Immigrants to the countries covered by this study came mainly from the neighbouring countries (such as Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova). Based on national statistics, the fl ow of recorded emigrants remains quite stable. Moreover, the average total registered net migration for countries of the Söderköping process is negative, with 120,000 emigrants and 109,000 immigrants. However, statistics available for Ireland, the United Kingdom and Sweden suggest that the volume of negative net migration is much higher. Even the approximate fi gures provided by these three EU Member States, related primarily to work permits requested or obtained, show signifi cant discrep- ancies between the national data available and reality: only about 1% of departing labour emigrants get recorded in national statistics. Only the Lithuanian national statistics registered a noticeable part of emigrants: 7% of emigrants to Ireland, 18% of emigrants to the UK and 56% of emigrants departing to Sweden. One could argue that a migrant is only a person living in the new country for more than 12 months, and many of labour migrants return home before they accrue one year of residence abroad. Still, approximately half of those labour migrants will probably stay for most of their working lives in their chosen EU country. Th e Lithuanian experience of estimating the number of unrecorded emigrants in their national statistics is worth a special attention. Table 6. Number of migrants from selected countries to the UK, Ireland and Sweden

Country, 2004– Emigrants Based on UK Emigrants Based on Emigrants Based on Total for the Total 2005 to the UK, data to Ireland, Irish data to Sweden, data of 3 EU member emigration in national data MAY 2004– national MAY 2004– national Sweden states (where 2004–2006 DEC 2005 data NOV 2006 data (2004– 2005) available) Poland 781 198,345 600 180,445 400 6,077 204,422 41,119 Hungary 51 9,975 5 8,970 22 538 10,513 7,314 Slovakia 144 35,055 24,042 198 35,253 3,459 Romania (2004) n/a 1,267 62 395 810 13,082 Lithuania 7,748 42,255 3,082 45,604 606 1,086 43,341 30,736 Latvia 302 21,630 132 22,787 119 429 22,059 5,194 Table 7. Top countries of origin for immigrants to the Söderköping countries 2004–20066667

Country of Immigrants,% of the Comments on the destination origin total Ukraine 29,639 or 21% Majority (78%) went to Poland, the rest mainly to Hungary. A few went to Slovakia, Lithuania and Latvia Romania 22,901 or 16% Almost all went to Hungary, few to Slovakia. Russia 7,119 or 5% 60% went to Poland, the rest to Lithuania, Latvia and Hungary. Belarus 6,160 or 4% The majority (82%) to Poland, other to Lithuania and Latvia. Vietnam 5,590 or 4% The majority (89%) to Poland, the rest to Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. The USA 4,489 or 3% Half went to Poland, the rest to Lithuania, Hungary, Latvia and Romania Germany 4,391 or 3% 41% went to Poland, the rest to Lithuania, Hungary, Latvia and Romania. Armenia 4,534 or 3% Majority (98%) went to Poland, the rest to Lithuania, Latvia. China 3,047 or 2% Half (50%) went to Poland, the other half (49%) to Hungary the rest to Lithuania and Latvia. Serbia67 2,879 or 2% All went to Hungary. Moldova 1,908 or 1% The majority (66%) went to Romania, the rest to Poland, Lithuania and Latvia.

66 The data on the Slovak Republic provides only for the overall number of the immigrants for each year of the reporting period. 67 Please note, that the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro ceased to exist on 5 June 2006, after both Serbia and Montenegro each proclaimed its independence 54 Conclusions: Trends in the irregular migration ﬂ ows

Indications of trends in irregular migration are always somewhat inaccurate by defi nition due to the fact that they are chiefl y based on: data on irregular migrants apprehended while crossing the border or staying within a country, data on the persons who entered the country in either regular and irregular manner and were apprehended during illegal employment in the territory of the country, decisions to leave/expulsion orders issued to persons. Th erefore, the statistics generally indicates the number of cases, while a single person may attempt to cross the border illegally a number of times a year and be recorded every time. Since the data concerns the number of the cases identifi ed rather than the actual number of persons crossing the border, a certain degree of speculation always remains. For example, as mentioned above in case of the Slovak Republic, do the statistics indicate it is a trend of dramatic increase in the number of illegally employed (by 460% during one year) or just suggest more eff ective work and improved capacity of the national authorities responsible for prevention and combating of the illegal immigration and employment? Also, certain trends will be disappearing in the future, e.g. Romanian nationals will probably enjoy freedom of movement within a number of EU Member States, thus changing the statistics of the legal and illegal unemployment for the country in 2007 and beyond. All countries of the Söderköping process addressed in this study provided the available statistics on irregular immigration within the reporting period based on two criteria: data on irregular migrants apprehended during border-crossing and during their stay on the territory of the country. In the case of Poland, statistics on decisions to leave issued to irregular migrants was also provided. Table 8. Number of irregular migrants to the Söderköping process countries within the period of 2004 – 1st half of 2006 by the main countries of origin

Persons apprehended during illegal border-crossings of the borders Persons detained during their stay in the territory of the country Ukraine 5,958 persons (19%) Ukraine 13,233 persons (34%) Russia 5,586 persons (17%) Moldova 5,454 persons (14%) Moldova 4,757 persons (15%) Turkey 4,578 persons (12%) India 2,149 persons (7%) Stateless 4,094 persons (11%) China 1,951 persons (6%) Russia 3,537 persons (9%) Georgia 1,511 persons (5%) Belarus 2,037 persons (5%) Serbia 1,085 persons (3%) China 1,875 persons (5%) Pakistan 872 persons (3%) India 1,606 persons (4%) Data on the nationality of irregular migrants apprehended during illegal crossings at the borders of countries of the Söderköping process shows that, in total, 32,082 persons of 28 nationalities or unidentifi ed origin were apprehended. In addition, the data on the nationality of irregular migrants detained during their stay in the territory of the country shows that in total 38,293 persons were detained. Th e leading countries of origin included Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova, followed by Russia, Turkey, China and India. As far as trends in the regions are concerned, in the cases of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, irregular migrants from Russia and Ukraine as well as Moldova prevailed, followed by stateless persons. In Poland, Ukrainian, Russian and Moldovan nationals dominated, followed by Romanian citizens. However, in the case of the Slovak Republic, in addition to Russian and Ukrainian nationals, there was an increasing fl ow of the citizens of Moldova, Bangladesh, China and India. Th e above-outlined diffi culties in fi nding correct statistics on migration issues seem to pose a serious obstacle for EU Member States trying to shape an EU-level Common Migration Policy. In 2005, the European Commission stressed that the current situation in the area of statistics “involves many diff erent statistical defi nitions and concepts of migration. Th is prevents the production of com-

55 parable migration statistics. Attempts have been made for a number of years to collect data based on harmonized defi nitions using a series of gentlemen’s agreements but Member States have failed to apply these defi nitions”1. Th erefore, the Commission came up with a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on migration and international protection,68 which is currently under scrutiny. Should it get adopted, the Regulation will establish a number of common rules for the collection and compilation of EU-wide statistics on: (a) immigration to and emigration from Member State territories, including fl ows from the territory of one Member State to that of another, and fl ows between a Member State and the territory of a third country (b) the citizenship and country of birth of natural persons usually resident in the territory of the Member States (c) administrative and judicial procedures and processes in the Member States relating to immigration, granting of permission to reside, citizenship, asylum and other forms of international protection and the prevention of illegal immigration. In relation to our study topic (addressing both regular and irregular migration fl ows), the following harmonized migration data would be possible to obtain aft er the entry into force of the Regulation: 1) Statistics on international migration, usually resident population and acquisition of citizenship. Each EU Member State would be obliged to supply Eurostat statistics with data concerning: (a) immigrants moving to the territory of the Member State, their citizenship by age and sex; country of birth by age and sex; and country of previous usual residence by age and sex, (b) emigrants moving from the territory of the member State, their citizenship by age and sex, their country of birth by age and sex, and country of next usual residence by age and sex, (c) persons having their usual residence in the Member State, their citizenship by age and sex, and country of birth by age and sex, (d) persons having acquired the citizenship of the Member State and having formerly held the citizenship of another Member State or a third country or having formerly been stateless, disaggregated by age and sex, and by the former citizenship of the persons concerned and by whether the person was formerly stateless. 2) Statistics on the prevention of illegal entry and stay, including the numbers of: (a) third-country nationals refused entry to the Member State’s territory at the external border; (b) third-country nationals found to be illegally present in the Member State’s territory under national laws relating to immigration. Th ese statistics should be disaggregated by age and sex, and by citizenship of the persons concerned. 3) Statistics on residence permits and residence of third-country nationals: (a) the number of residence permits issued to persons who are third-country nationals, disaggregated as follows: permits issued during the reference period whereby the person is being granted permission to reside for the fi rst time, disaggregated by citizenship, by the reason for the permit being issued and by the length of validity of the permit permits issued during the reference period and granted on the occasion of a person changing immigration status or reason for stay, disaggregated by citizenship, by the reason for the permit being issued and by the length of validity of the permit valid permits on the reference date (number of permits issued, not withdrawn and not expired), disaggregated by citizenship, by the reason for the issue of the permit and by the length of validity of the permit

68 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on migration and international protection / COM/2005/0375 ﬁ nal – COD 2005/0156 / 56 (b) the number of long-term residents, disaggregated by citizenship. Statistics on returns, producing the numbers of third-country nationals who go back to their countries of origin, transit, or another third country, whether voluntarily or enforced, following an administrative or judicial decision or act imposing an obligation to return, disaggregated by age and sex, and by the citizenship of the persons returned. Th e future Regulation would provide a number of defi nitions of terms as “usual residence”, “immigration”, “emigration”, “immigrant”, “emigrant”, “long-term resident”, “third-country national”, “refugee status”, etc., mostly referring to the already adopted directives in the areas of migration and asylum. Such solution theoretically should lead to the harmonization of the use of these defi nitions in the national statistical data of the Member States if this has not been done yet by some of them. In addition the Commission stressed that “Th e statistics to be collected under the proposed legislation will, as far as is possible, be in accordance with the United Nations Recommendations on Statistics of International Migration.”69 Th e future Regulation seems also to impose, at least theoretically, an additional burden on the Member States. On the one hand, it stresses that the statistics should be based on the following data sources according to their availability in the Member State and in accordance with national laws and practices: records of administrative and judicial actions; registers relating to administrative actions; registers of the population or of a particular sub-group of that population; censuses, sample surveys and other appropriate sources. On the other hand, Member States would be obliged to report to Eurostat on the data sources used, the reasons for the selection of these sources and the eff ects of the selected data sources on the quality of the statistics. Moreover, at the request of Eurostat, Member States would be obliged to provide it with all the information necessary to evaluate the quality, comparability and completeness of the statistical information. Finally, Member States will be obliged to inform Eurostat without delay of revisions and corrections to the statistics supplied under this Regulation, and of any changes in the methods and data sources used. In relation to possible future studies and further co-operation on migration issues between countries of the Söderköping process, this Regulation, if adopted and in force, would provide the possibility to obtain improved harmonized and more reliable data. As regards to Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus, the adoption and implementation of this Regulation in the EU could be useful tool for the development of the similar legal, institutional and technical systems for the collection and processing of migration data. Th is would serve not only the internal purposes of migration policy development, but also the external ones, like co-operation with other countries in the area of migration. Undoubtedly, the issue of co-operation in the area of migration remains crucial not only for neighbouring countries, and all countries of the Söderköping process, but also this closer co-operation would be a condition for some of them that have (or will have an inspiration in the future) to aim at accession to the European Union. Th e development of the above-mentioned legal, institutional and technical systems for the collection and processing of migration data in accordance with the Regulation in Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus could also be the subject of projects fi nanced and carried out by the international organizations, EU or by means of the bilateral assistance provided by some of the EU Member States.

69 Explanatory Memorandum, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on migration and international protection /COM/2005/0375 ﬁ nal – COD 2005/0156/. 57 Bibliography B. Nowok, D. Kupiszewska, “Offi cial European Statistics On International Migration Flows: Availability, Sources and Coverage”, Working Paper, Central European Forum for Migration Research, 5/2005. J. Salt, “Current trends in international migration in Europe”, Council of Europe, 2006. R. Muenz, “Europe: Population and Migration in 2005”, Hamburg Institute of International Economics and Erste Bank, 1 June 2006, Migration Information Source. Control of immigration: statistics United Kingdom 2004, http://www.offi cial-documents.gov.uk/ document/cm66/6690/6690.pdf, checked on 29.12.2006. Control of immigration: statistics United Kingdom 2005, http://www.offi cial-documents.gov.uk/ document/cm69/6904/6904.pdf, checked on 29.12.2006. Accession Monitoring Report May 2004 – September 2006. A joint online report by the Home Offi ce, Department for Work and Pensions, HM Revenue & Customs and Department for Communities and Local Government, 21 November 2006. UK Home Offi ce in Accession Monitoring Report May 2004 – September 2006, A joint online report by the Home Offi ce, Department for Work and Pensions, HM Revenue & Customs and Department for Communities and Local Government, 21 November 2006. Migration Watch UK, http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/Briefi ngpapers/european_union/4_7_ Potential_immigratio_%20from_Romania_and_Bulgaria.asp, Immigrant Council of Ireland, “Background Information and Statistics on Immigration to Ireland”, June 2005. Department of Social and Family Aff airs of Ireland, Personal Public Service Number Statistics For Th e 10 EU Accession States, http://www.welfare.ie/topics/ppsn/ppsstat.html#euten040506, checked on 29.12.2006. Poles and Lithuanians form highest infl ux of immigrants in Ireland in 2006, LETA news, 02.01.2007. EU struggles to tidy up migrant worker rules, 05.02.2007., EU observer. Latvia will not apply restrictions to Romanian and Bulgarian labour force, 20.12.2006., http:// www.lm.gov.lv/index.php?sadala=428&id=3113, checked on 26.12.2006 “More than 400,000 Moldavians have applied for Romanian citizenship following the relaxation of the visa regime”, Monday 23 October 2006, Euroactiv. Sverige Offi ciella Statistik, Migration 2005, http://www.scb.se/templates/Publikation_162431.asp, checked on 29.12.2006. Romanian Statistical Yearbook for 2005, http://www.insse.ro/Anuar%202005/CHAPTERS/cp2. pdf, checked on 25.12.2006. “Residence of foreigners in the territory of the Slovak Republic”, Ministry of Interior of Slovak Republic, http://www.minv.sk/en/_private/ACT48about.htm#temp, checked on 08.01.2007. Yearbook of Border and Alien Police, Bratislava, 2005. “Legal and Illegal migration in Slovak Republic” – 1st half of 2006, Border and Alien Police, Bratislava, 2006. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on migration and international protection / COM/2005/0375 fi nal – COD 2005/0156/.

58 Annexes 470 475 506 604 634 512 836 812 366 253 1368 2623 3568 1530 1688 1567 5126 4035 3872 6842 2592 1418 2306 33751 15464 14633 63197 171048 2004–2006 73 98 80 131 338 316 161 129 216 766 341 634 1137 1601 1502 2543 3604 2060 54414 2006 70144 TOTAL 8 332 606 815 297 290 791 226 623 214 756 192 560 294 198 132 631 852 1034 2565 1850 1948 1086 7603 4943 2600 14538 2005 45984 138 762 671 105 216 739 247 727 340 159 147 302 168 121 740 446 820 2436 1559 1059 2963 2022 2351 4257 7630 6183 17612 2004 54920 2005 84 85 62 491 436 Romania 1445 2728 1553 2603 2049 1546 2004 13082 4 8 4 71 17 45 25 17 10 33 76 53 18 14 22 38 132 437 556 240 184 1844 3848 2005 7 3 0 7 1 4 2 5 6 10 55 42 18 36 12 66 43 Hungary 149 121 463 397 2019 3466 2004 49 90 40 74 200 734 303 109 274 1873 2005 41 32 31 70 39 Slovakia 175 662 223 313 1586 2004 51000 2006 51000 223 308 149 808 295 405 413 393 265 268 693 3072 2633 12317 2005 22242 Poland 730 543 2350 2608 12646 2004 18877 80 73 98 212 161 129 216 891 766 247 295 966 720 131 196 3223 1771 1114 1313 2006 12602 8 6 42 62 46 57 702 115 109 153 208 126 248 192 137 237 144 794 299 274 720 1473 2073 1113 4223 2010 15571 2005 Lithuania 6 3 49 78 92 57 77 560 178 194 213 163 283 159 132 241 137 730 307 250 787 1727 1009 1228 3525 2980 2004 15165 94 417 142 487 189 104 339 381 289 1652 1158 5252 2006 4 18 19 25 17 40 44 83 35 37 16 35 16 23 47 113 261 764 141 189 166 357 2450 2005 Latvia 5 8 11 10 32 10 53 39 49 50 28 11 25 19 72 111 233 173 113 169 466 1057 2744 2004 Number of Registered Emigrants from Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania, 2004–2006 Romania, and Hungary Slovakia, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, from Emigrants Registered of Number ay Country of destination Australia Austria Belarus Belgium Canada China Rep. Czech Denmark France Germany Hungary Ireland Poland Romania Russia Serbia Spain Sweden Ukraine UK USA Other Total Israel Italy Latvia Netherlands Norw

59 299 252 570 846 395 471 252 513 836 807 279 516 922 2702 2208 1248 9726 1613 7999 1415 1052 5443 3355 1546 1275 3741 9621 5414 1280 28882 22901 34859 120134 2004–2006 46 637 823 309 459 888 172 247 171 387 297 125 366 708 568 492 689 157 1031 1938 1773 17968 2006 30347 TOTAL 87 156 134 783 198 311 506 345 827 190 155 212 195 320 264 553 444 188 567 459 935 439 1001 1052 1189 5017 1715 1493 3764 2268 9138 10443 2005 45348 63 76 69 40 72 850 143 118 419 219 454 416 205 147 129 246 192 374 368 271 248 684 1013 1019 3886 1790 1862 1033 5365 2457 7753 2004 12458 44439 637 309 459 247 387 229 708 568 157 1448 5149 2006 348 198 311 155 319 162 527 347 118 739 3224 2005 Romania 63 76 69 45 97 61 119 126 205 241 1102 2004 19 17 87 76 51 40 684 219 565 199 174 163 437 112 227 257 235 1293 2039 1634 2005 10281 18809 2 6 8 21 57 14 67 66 68 Hungary 802 262 194 192 278 151 439 362 1586 1845 3615 2004 12129 22164 3652 3652 2006 31 127 742 101 155 200 251 2245 5276 2005 11144 Slovakia 63 987 333 216 325 276 335 149 260 1516 4460 2004 2006 11000 11000 83 364 324 331 175 250 106 468 2823 1067 1289 2084 2005 9364 Poland 350 300 300 200 100 313 2697 1000 1300 2935 2004 9495 945 575 766 122 171 125 956 366 382 614 1528 1195 2006 7745 3 7 7 17 20 45 85 77 88 16 27 112 336 600 583 698 423 360 195 143 858 2089 2005 6789 Lithuania 4 5 1 27 32 89 31 78 93 11 29 441 629 188 117 147 117 993 250 541 334 451 945 2004 5553 86 96 46 50 75 248 122 297 753 245 110 673 2006 2801 1 54 52 36 66 58 35 10 23 14 71 347 134 189 264 282 128 122 2005 1886 Latvia 2 3 59 52 87 20 25 75 23 11 27 10 81 170 246 274 111 118 271 2004 1665 Number of Registered Immigrants to Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania, 2004–2006 Romania, and Hungary Slovakia, Poland, Latvia, to Lithuania, Immigrants Registered of Number Country of origin Belarus China Rep. Czech Denmark Estonia France Germany Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Latvia Lebanon Lithuania Mongolia Poland Romania Russia Serbia Slovakia Spain Syria Turkey UK Ukraine USA Vietnam Other Total

60 9 10 89 43 59 52 15 95 43 70 47 13 307 256 161 349 103 287 132 137 583 894 400 1204 1245 2623 1251 2006* 10477 19 61 25 23 65 31 122 184 359 493 164 399 187 121 140 211 153 163 127 139 1073 1585 1364 1370 5635 2065 2401 2005 TOTAL 18679 7 15 36 84 56 72 158 177 706 309 776 176 169 917 161 140 193 327 935 124 192 135 1504 1337 4828 1168 2362 2004 17064 29 56 51 57 64 75 44 207 496 559 660 2298 2006* 61 335 182 121 102 163 146 119 1191 1349 1838 2005 5607 Romania 95 192 151 123 257 176 158 140 1199 1288 1781 2004 5560 1 1 5 1 5 6 25 16 21 76 21 16 33 227 2006* 1 7 6 6 4 5 11 17 51 16 40 45 97 110 416 2005 Hungary 1 1 4 4 5 51 28 60 14 29 43 42 20 187 189 678 2004 64 79 260 162 338 315 1218 2006* 31 184 146 139 388 289 130 376 923 265 2005 2871 Slovakia 21 176 466 122 884 135 169 230 116 293 2004 2612 4 5 1 2 2 1 17 10 11 40 24 14 78 25 12 95 384 198 111 704 168 160 117 299 463 2104 2006 5049 4 4 4 5 1 1 7 2 nia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania, Romania, and Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, nia, Latvia, Lithuania, 11 63 16 49 59 132 106 921 352 100 117 4391 2005 6345 Poland 2 3 2 2 1 7 11 26 54 23 15 88 56 139 625 305 140 156 4381 2004 6036 6 71 13 38 31 152 311 2006* 4 6 12 10 47 13 23 129 186 430 2005 Lithuania 4 2 6 3 5 33 25 10 86 33 207 2004 3 6 6 1 1 1 1 8 3 1 1 2 3 10 45 73 28 35 10 238 2006 8 8 9 4 4 4 2 5 21 27 93 50 30 42 307 2005 Latvia 4 1 9 1 1 4 2 2 11 29 69 10 64 46 26 120 399 2004 5 2 7 8 2 9 4 19 232 848 1136 2006* 7 3 1 5 6 2 1 1 2 2 4 14 38 587 2030 2005 2703 Estonia 7 5 1 3 1 3 6 3 6 3 14 15 15 41 338 1111 2004 1572 Number of Irregular Migrants detained on the territory of Esto of the territory detained on Migrants Irregular of Number 2004–2006 istan Nationlaity Armenia Azerbaijan Bangladesh Belarus Bulgaria China Eqypt Georgia India Israel Italy Kazakhstan Lithuania Moldova Mongolia Pak Romania Russia Serbia Syria Turkey Ukraine USA Ukbekistan Stateless Vietnam Other Total * – 6 month

61 55 43 62 41 81 60 178 631 481 690 256 176 872 663 127 821 1951 1515 2149 4770 5594 1085 5978 3924 32203 2004–2006 3 2 7 7 3 8 27 14 99 22 17 54 23 64 136 215 153 139 810 125 646 312 719 1024 4629 2006* TOTAL 7 34 71 26 16 25 49 25 41 297 276 509 261 473 101 598 228 259 419 464 43 1856 2247 2400 1257 11939 7 45 80 22 18 39 73 32 78 198 198 330 889 133 621 279 354 293 1227 1412 2104 2701 2554 1948 2004 15635 1 1 2 2 5 5 3 10 53 14 20 18 60 17 118 312 392 1033 2006* 1 8 9 3 1 2 34 26 26 29 19 17 231 240 419 770 115 2005 1950 Hungary 7 7 5 6 7 1 2 22 16 24 50 882 226 354 394 141 2004 2144 88 172 112 502 206 476 1556 2006* 233 435 356 582 192 122 136 718 1126 1278 2005 5178 Slovakia 184 993 828 941 445 166 145 1295 1921 1416 2004 8334 6 7 3 7 2 4 2 27 41 22 99 33 21 22 11 63 155 141 571 111 1348 2006* 7 7 10 18 29 35 19 25 22 17 66 86 70 98 355 456 261 101 325 203 1388 2005 3598 Poland 7 7 45 80 59 93 12 65 13 31 25 101 218 330 133 276 143 557 146 247 1884 2004 4472 90 11 48 55 53 271 528 2006* 70 81 193 462 161 967 2005 Lithuania 94 32 27 76 210 102 541 2004 4 3 1 5 43 30 10 17 114 2006 4 2 20 46 15 32 30 156 2005 Latvia 2 2 8 5 1 4 24 40 86 2004 1 9 1 1 8 15 15 50 2006* 2 3 2 7 1 28 17 30 90 2005 Estonia 1 1 2 3 2 39 10 58 2004 Number of Irregular Migrants detained at the borders of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Hungary, 2004–2006 Hungary, and Slovakia, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, of the borders detained at Migrants Irregular of Number Nationality Afghanistan Albania Armenia Belarus Bangladesh Bulgaria China Rep. Czech Georgia Germany India Iraq Kazakhstan Lithuania Moldova Pakistan Romania Russia Serbia Slovakia Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Other Total * – 6 month