No abstract

No abstract

This paper examines the Russian migration and citizenship regime as encountered by forced migrants from Ukraine who fled to Russia during the period of 2014–2016. Based on legal and other official documents, media articles, and interviews, it gives an account of these migrants' reception in Russia in theory and practice. Russia made great efforts to accommodate them, and in Russian media they were often spoken of as an easily integrated labor resource and as potential citizens. In 2015–2016, around 165,000 Ukrainians acquired Russian citizenship. While ethno-cultural similarity does privilege Ukrainian migrants in Russia, full asylum has been granted sparingly, and citizenship is not unconditionally granted. As this paper shows, Russian authorities have rather tried to control and distribute these forced migrants for the benefit of the state, according to principles of selectivity and economic interests — giving privileged access to permanent residency and citizenship to working-age people willing to settle in regions where population growth and more workers are deemed necessary. However, permanent residency and citizenship are also available to those able to circumvent or pay their way through the obstacles encountered — taking advantage of the flexibility inherent in a system that is not totally consistent.

The State Program for Voluntary Resettlement of Compatriots Abroad was launched in 2006/2007 as a strategy to attract new citizens who were already fluent in Russian and accustomed to Russian culture, in a situation of gloomy demographic prospects. During its first years of existence the program proved quite inefficient, but in 2012–13 it was revised to become more attractive and extended to include more Federal Subjects (now 58). Whereas in September 2012 RIA Novosti reported that there had been 80,000 repatriates since the start of the program, the FMS (the Federal Migration Service) stated in 2014 that more than 200,000 compatriots had been resettled. The paper focuses on this period of revival and investigates what the discussions and representations of the State Program in Russian public discourse reveal about ideals of citizenship, membership, and statehood in Russia. Discourse analysis is combined with references to theoretical debates on states’ policies of inclusion and exclusion. Researchers have already pointed to the concept of “compatriots” as ambiguous, because it only vaguely defines who the program is open for. Even though the initial aim of the program was to secure economic development in the regions and improve the demographic situation in the country, it clearly intervenes in other discourses that relate to the image of the Russian nation and the boundaries of the imagined “we.” One is the idea of Russia as the historical homeland of “compatriots,” and connected to this the idea that “compatriots” are discriminated against in other countries and therefore implicitly want to return to Russia. The debates also bear witness to an explicit dichotomy between “compatriots” and “migrants,” where “migrants” are construed as unqualified, unwanted and not rightfully belonging in the country, whereas “compatriots” are skilled and desired labor, easy to include into the Russian “community of value.” From spring 2014 onwards, the State Program became an issue also in relation to refugees from Ukraine who fled to Russia during the escalating conflict and war. This study shows how at that point the State Program suddenly turned into a means of effective integration of Ukrainian refugees–“compatriots.” I argue that although in the media representations the program acquires several other functions, the pragmatic aspect–Russia wanting to attract skilled labor–is present throughout and stands out as the most important.

No abstract