Migration between Russia and the European Union: Policy implications from a small-scale study of irregular migrants 1 International Organization for Migration, Moscow, 2010 2 Migration between Russia and the European Union: Policy implications from a small-scale study of irregular migrants Dr. Lucy Williams with Serhan Aktoprak International Organization for Migration Moscow 2010 1 Opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IOM, its member states, the European Commission or EU member states. IOM does not take any responsibility for inaccuracies caused through translation. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein. IOM is committed to the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society. As an intergovernmental body, IOM acts with its partners in the international com- munity to: assist in meeting the operational challenges of migration; advance understanding of migration issues; encourage social and economic development through migration; and uphold the human dignity and wellbeing of migrants. This material has been funded through the support of European Commission Aeneas 2005 Programme and co-funded by the government of the Finnish Republic. Publisher: International Organization for Migration 2nd Zvenigorodskaya ulitsa 12, Moscow, 123100 Phone: +7 495 797 87 22, Fax: +7 495 253 35 22 E-mail: [email protected] Web-site: www.iomrussia.ru ISBN 978-5-94446-008-0 © 2010, International Organization for Migration All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher. 2 Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . .5 ABBREVIATIONS . 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 7 SECTION 1 – STUDY CONTEXT, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES. .9 1.1. INTRODUCT I ON . 9 1.2. STUDY METHOD S . 10 1.2.1. DATA COLLECTION . 10 1.2.2. DATA ANALYSIS . 11 1.3. THE STUDY BA S E ON MI GRAT I ON B ETWEEN THE RU ssi AN FEDERAT I ON AND THE EUROPEAN UN I ON . 11 1.4. OUTL I NE O F THE REPORT . .12 SECTION 2 – MIGRATION PATTERNS BETWEEN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND THE EUROPEAN UNION. 13 2.1. INTRODUCT I ON . .13 2.2. MI GRAT I ON – PATTERN S AND PER S PECT I VE S . 13 2.2.1. THEORETICAL CONSI D ERATIONS . .13 2.2.2. MIGRATION AN D D ESTINATION . .14 2.3. RU ssi AN mi GRAT I ON PATTERN S AND “RU ssi AN ” mi GRAT I ON TO THE EUROPEAN UN I ON . 16 2.3.1. GENERAL TREN D S IN MIGRATION IN THE RUSSIAN FE D ERATION . .16 2.3.2. MIGRATION PATTERNS BETWEEN THE RUSSIAN FE D ERATION AN D THE EUROPEAN UNION . 17 2.3.3. THE RETURN O F MIGRANTS F RO M THE EUROPEAN UNION TO THE RUSSIAN FE D ERATION . .18 2.3.4. REAdmISSION AGREE M ENTS . .19 2.3.5. THE RESPONSE O F EUROPEAN UNION TO IRREGULAR MIGRATION . .19 2.4. IRREGULAR TH I RD -COUNTRY NAT I ONAL S TRAN si T I NG I NTO THE EUROPEAN UN I ON THROUGH THE RU ssi AN TERR I TORY . 20 2.5. CONCLU si ON . 22 SECTION 3 – PROFILE OF MIGRANTS WHO HAVE TRAVELLED FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION TO THE EUROPEAN UNION – FINDINGS OF THE STUDY. 23 3.1. INTRODUCT I ON . .23 3.2. DE M OGRAPH I C PRO fi LE O F THE mi GRANT S S URVEYED IN THE EUROPEAN UN I ON AND IN THE RU ssi AN FEDERAT I ON . .25 3.3. DATA COLLECTED RELAT I NG TO THE si TUAT I ON O F mi GRANT S IN THE EU AND THE RU ssi AN FEDERAT I ON . 25 3.3.1. KEY FINDINGS. .25 3.3.2. ANALYSIS O F SUPPLE M ENTARY QUESTIONS F OR TRANSIT M IGRANTS IN THE EU SA M PLE . 27 3.4. FINDINGS F RO M QUE S T I ONNA I RE SURVEY IM PLE M ENTED IN THE RU ssi AN FEDERAT I ON . 29 3 3.5. CONCLU si ON S TO ANALY sis O F QUE S T I ONNA I RE DATA . .34 3.6. QUAL I TAT I VE FINDINGS F RO M THE “OPEN Q UE S T I ON S ” F RO M THE Q UE S T I ONNA I RE S URVEY im PLE M ENTED IN S ELECTED EUROPEAN UN I ON M E mb ER S TATE S AND IN THE RU ssi AN FEDERAT I ON .34 3.6.1. ANALYSIS O F THE “OPEN Q UESTIONS ”. 35 3.6.2. THE FINDINGS O F THE “OPEN Q UESTIONS ”. .36 3.7. CA S E STUD I E S F RO M THE STUDY . 43 3.8. CONCLU si ON S . .44 SECTION 4 – POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE GOOD PRACTICES . 45 4.1. INTRODUCT I ON . .45 4.2. POL I CY imPLICATIONS AND RECO mm ENDAT I ON S F OR THE F UTURE M ANAGE M ENT O F mi GRAT I ON F LOW S B ETWEEN THE RU ssi AN FEDERAT I ON AND THE EUROPEAN UN I ON . 45 4.3. RECO mm ENDAT I ON S TO S UPPORT THE RETURN , RE I NTEGRAT I ON AND RECEPT I ON O F RETURNED mi GRANT S F RO M THE EUROPEAN UN I ON . 47 4.4. CONCLU si ON AND S U mm ARY . .49 SECTION 5 – CONCLUDING COMMENTS. .50 BIBLIOGRAPHY. .53 ANNEX 1. .57 ANNEX 2. .60 ANNEX 3. .73 ANNEX 4. .89 ANNEX 5. .90 4 Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the support and assistance of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) Moscow office – in particular that of Marina Manke, Olga Pozdorovkina, Julia Zelenskaya, Kirill Shevchenko – who were extremely generous with their time and expertise. We would like to thank Stepan Ripka (Czech Republic), Miroslaw Bieniecki and Piotr Kazmierkiewicz (Poland), Anton Babkin (Russian Federation) and the Society of Goodwill (Slovakia) for carrying out interviews in a professional and dedicated manner in the countries where it has been possible. We also recognize the invaluable contribution of the migrants surveyed who gave up their time to share their insights and experiences with us. Their testimony is often poignant and painful to read but is essential reading for all policy makers who seek to establish fair and equitable policies that fully respect the human rights of migrants. Finally, thanks are given to the European Commission and the Government of the Finnish Republic without whose generous financial support this report would not have been possible. 5 Abbreviations CIREFI Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Frontiers and Immigration CEE Central and Eastern Europe CIS Commonwealth of Independent States ECA Europe and Central Asia ECRE European Council for the Rights of Refugees and Exiles EMN European Migration Network EU European Union FSB Federal Security Bureau FSU Former Soviet Union IOM International Organization for Migration NGOs Non-governmental organizations OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development UK United Kingdom UN United Nations UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 6 Executive Summary The purpose of this study has been to provide evidence to support the ongoing development of administrative and legislative frameworks that facilitate the return of migrants from the European Union to the Russian Federation. The main strength of this study is to provide some insight into a “migrant view” of migration regimes and policy. The collection of robust quantitative data did not prove possible but the study design enabled the collection of qualitative data from migrants. This data has provided unique insights into the lives and experiences of migrants in irregular situations in the European Union as well as upon their return to the Russian Federation. This study surveyed: • migrants in the European Union who had travelled from the Russian Federation (n.58) including non-Russian citizens who had crossed the territory of the Russian Federation prior to entering the European Union; • Russian migrants who have returned to the Russian Federation (n. 23) from the European Union; • migrants by means of an interview process that was conducted in Slovakia (n.30), Poland (n. 22), the Czech Republic (n. six) and the Russian Federation (n. 23). The main findings of the study: • International instruments promoting individual human rights clearly advocate that migrants should have the opportunity to return to their home countries voluntarily and the European Union and the Russian Federation have stated clearly that forced return should be avoided. However, this study indicates that some irregular migrants from the Russian Federation living in the European Union do feel that they have no alternative but to return to the Russian Federa- tion even when it would be their preference to stay in their country of migration. In some cases, migrants indicated that while they may be acquiescing with the authorities in accepting return, this was not a truly voluntary choice. • Lack of adequate information played a role in this sense of “involuntary” return as not all migrants felt they had been provided with sufficient information to make an informed choice. Those mi- grants considering return should be provided with sufficient information to allow them to make a positive decision that is in their own best interest. To enable this informed decision, migrants need clear information about how they will be returned and what services and support they can expect on return – this information is even more important for those facing imminent return.