Senators and deputies hope to eradicate fictitious marriages of migrants with Russians

Parliamentarians intend to tighten the requirements for migrants trying to legalize themselves in the Russian Federation in spousal or parental status. A bill was introduced into the State Duma on Wednesday, according to which a temporary residence permit (TRP) for migrant spouses of Russian citizens should be issued only after two years have passed from the date of such a marriage. The authors of the amendments also propose to confiscate temporary residence permits from those whose parental rights or marriage were annulled by the court. The innovations are intended to become a protective measure against the practice of fictitious marriages and adoptions, which provide for the issuance of residence permits in Russia to foreigners. The relevance of the problem is confirmed by both experts and deputies, but not everyone agrees with a specific approach to solving it.

A package of amendments to the laws “On the procedure for leaving the Russian Federation and entering the Russian Federation” and “On the legal status of foreign citizens in the Russian Federation” was submitted to the State Duma on November 1 by a group of senators and deputies led by the chairman of the Federation Council Committee on State Building Andrei Klishas. In particular, the clause of the law on the legal status of foreigners, according to which a temporary residence permit in excess of the quotas established by the government is entitled to an applicant who is married to a citizen of the Russian Federation, is proposed to be supplemented with the wording “at least two years.” The authors of the project propose to supplement the article on the cancellation of a temporary residence permit with clauses according to which the permit will be revoked if the applicant’s marriage was “recognized by the court as invalid” or if “by a court decision this foreign citizen is deprived of parental rights in relation to a child born in such a marriage, or the adoption is canceled or annulled record of the act of establishing paternity.”

The bill also provides for amendments to the articles on the issuance of a residence permit (residence permit) and its cancellation. The clause on the extraordinary (without obtaining a temporary residence permit) issuance of a residence permit for parents (adoptive parents, guardians, trustees) of children who are citizens of the Russian Federation, parliamentarians want to supplement with the condition that such children must be born in a valid marriage with Russians. At the same time, it is proposed to issue a residence permit to the applicant if he is the only parent (adoptive parent) of a child who is a citizen of the Russian Federation. The authors propose to deprive a residence permit on grounds similar to those of a temporary residence permit: if the marriage is declared invalid by the court, if the foreigner is deprived of parental rights, or if the mark of adoption (establishment of paternity) has been annulled.

The explanatory note to the document states that the amendments are aimed at “improving migration legislation in terms of eliminating the use of fictitious marriages and fictitious establishment of paternity” for foreigners to obtain official status in the Russian Federation. According to the authors, unscrupulous applicants “often” use “the institution of marriage without the intention of creating a family,” while the marriage norm itself is “one of the simplest and most popular grounds for foreign citizens to obtain legal migration status with the further prospect of obtaining a residence permit and citizenship RF”.

According to the statistical data given in the explanatory note, in 2022, 33.2% (59.9 thousand) of temporary residence permits were issued specifically on spousal grounds, and even more foreigners received residence permits as parents – 167 thousand. At the same time, according to information from regional authorities Ministry of Internal Affairs, cases of applications for residence permits from couples who were not married at the time of the birth of the child have become more frequent. “In these cases, as a rule, the applicant is not the biological father of the child, a citizen of the Russian Federation, is unfamiliar with the relatives of the child’s mother, has been on the territory of the Russian Federation for a short time, is unfamiliar with the child’s mother and does not maintain a relationship with her, and is not involved in raising the child,”— the authors of the amendments emphasize. “Taking into account the above, the bill proposes establishing a minimum period (two years) for marriage to a citizen of the Russian Federation. …And also fixing the conditions for obtaining a residence permit … by foreign citizens with children who are citizens of the Russian Federation,” the parliamentarians summarize.

First Deputy Chairman of the Duma Committee on CIS Affairs, Eurasian Integration and Relations with Compatriots Konstantin Zatulin (United Russia) recognizes the relevance of the problem of fictitious marriages, but considers a different approach to national policy in general necessary: ​​“We already have more than enough different kinds of barriers to obtain citizenship, they just need to be lined up correctly.” Now the position of legislators, as a rule, boils down to “not letting them in,” the deputy complains: “I don’t like this philosophy as a whole. I understand that there are problems, but solving them exclusively using such methods means creating an image of Russia as a country that pushes people away in every possible way.” Therefore, Mr. Zatulin himself proposes to develop “the correct criterion and call those who really are compatriots”, enshrining this term in relevant documents.

The head of the Interethnic Information Center, Nurzida Bensgier, believes that the new bill “definitely makes sense”: “The practice of fictitious marriages really exists, and there are people who obtain citizenship in this way.” However, the procedure is troublesome, the prices for it reach 500 thousand rubles, and the migrants who invest in it “are fully counting on the long term and do not expect quick results,” the expert notes. “The procedure already took about a year – specifically for citizenship. Therefore, I think that those who chose this strategy will take into account the new time parameter and continue to act,” the human rights activist suggests. And she adds that to her personally, the bill “seems to be a somewhat cosmetic measure in order to raise the topic of migration and say that work is being done in this direction.”

Grigory Leiba