Ways to solve Russia’s problem with migrants are named

Various experts and politicians often cite as an example the “dominance” of migrants in Western European countries, in which people who came from Africa or Asia refuse to integrate into the social relations that have developed in the countries that have granted them asylum. The key feature of this situation is that migrants arrive in European countries, as a rule, from states formed on the fragments of former colonial empires. In fact, the descendants of former colonialists are paying for centuries of exploitation of the indigenous population of the territories they captured by the fact that citizens of developing countries use the migration factor to improve their own quality of life.

I have no desire to give any assessment of what is happening with migrants in Western European countries (this is not our question). I just want to say that our situation is fundamentally different. The majority of those who come to work in our country are either those born in the Soviet Union or descendants in the first generation of citizens of the USSR. According to our legislation, all these people are our former fellow citizens who have the right, for example, to participate in programs to support compatriots. With all the complexity of our attitude towards so-called migrants, this factor should also not be forgotten.

So where did the migrant problem come from? Its origins lie in the very collapse of the Soviet Union. Most of the countries of Central Asia found themselves cut off from the common Soviet market, which led to unemployment and significant economic disasters. The economic growth that began in Russia in the 2000s indicated a demand in our country for labor resources, including low-skilled and low-paid ones, which were integrated from the states of the former USSR. According to competent authorities, there are now up to 5 million migrants officially working in Russia, mainly from Central Asian countries. Let us add that many of those who arrived earlier have already become citizens of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the dependence of, for example, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan on transfers by citizens of these countries to their homeland of funds earned in Russia is colossal and accounts for significant shares in the total GDP of these states.

There are different opinions as to whether the Russian economy needs migrants or not. A number of experts believe that newcomers are actually “taking away” jobs from our citizens in the regions. At the same time, other experts note that in Russia, without migrants, entire industries and economic complexes will stand down: construction, housing and communal services, transport companies, the service sector, trade and public catering.

By and large, most of us have nothing bad against immigrants from Central Asia. We all in Russia still preserve the traditions of internationalism and interethnic harmony. But citizens of our country quite rightly ask at least two absolutely justified questions: why do employers have the opportunity to reduce wages to a beggarly level, for which only immigrants from the countries of the former USSR are willing to work, and why migrants are not integrated into Russian society and often ignore our traditions , customs and culture?

And here we come to the fundamental reasons for the appearance of the problem outlined above. They lie in the plane of the collapse of the USSR in 1991, which we have already discussed. Then in Russia, on the one hand, brutal capitalism began to form at an accelerated pace, and on the other, Russia actually left Central Asia.

The consequence of the first reason was the monstrous collapse of the social and economic rights of workers in our country, when the employer received the right to pay the employee a pittance, ignore social and labor rights, and not care about the social conditions of life and activities of workers. And if in the 90s this situation led to a reduction in the rate of economic production and the actual collapse of entire industries and complexes, then with the beginning of economic growth in the 2000s, a large-scale need for workers became apparent.

This need could be solved by increasing labor productivity, training and retraining of personnel, and paying decent wages, but the employer, with the actual consent of the state, took a different path. He, guided by the principles of animal capitalism, chose to save on costs and bring hundreds of thousands of migrants from the countries of the former USSR to the market.

It is worth adding here that there has been no conscious creative integration policy of Russia towards our neighbors on the southern borders for several decades. We, in Russia, in relation to the new Central Asian states have always proceeded from three postulates: 1) they are our friends, 2) they will figure everything out themselves, 3) if they need help, then we will give it to them. In fact, these postulates (no matter how you treat them) led to Russia’s actual withdrawal from active foreign policy in Central Asia, which, given the proximity of this region to zones of global conflicts, could create problems of a higher and larger scale.

At the same time, these decisions and events led to consequences associated with our Russian migration crisis and the general problems of Russia’s political positioning in the region. On the one hand, millions of our former fellow citizens poured into Russia, and on the other, many new republics were unable to build their own self-sufficient politically and economically sound states. And given our geographic proximity to them, this is not only their problem, but also ours.

Our citizens’ objections to the arrival of migrants are quite understandable. Guests (or even new citizens) from the countries of the former USSR often do not want to integrate into Russian society, honor our traditions, or observe our customs. They periodically behave defiantly and sometimes go beyond what is permitted, allowing themselves a disrespectful attitude towards those who created and built our country, towards those who consider Russia their home not because of their residence, but because of their worldview and adherence to the values ​​of the great Russian culture. We also have no right to forget about ethnic crime. So what to do? It is important to pay attention to three key aspects here.

Firstly, we need mandatory social adaptation of those who come to us to work from neighboring countries, and especially those who intend to obtain Russian citizenship in the future. At the same time, efforts to integrate migrants into Russian society should be made not only by the state, but also by the employer. In fact, he must be responsible not only for the organization of the visitor’s work, but also for his behavior outside the production process. As you know, the only effective tool for achieving interethnic accord and social harmony is joint creative work and common victories. It is no coincidence that there are no interethnic conflicts at the front line. It would be good for the state and corporations not to forget about this in peaceful life.

A few words about those migrants who have already acquired Russian citizenship… Modern Russian legislation allows one to deprive acquired Russian citizenship for committing crimes in the field of national security. A number of deputies, primarily from the “A Just Russia – For Truth” faction, advocate an unambiguous expansion of the grounds for deprivation of acquired citizenship, for example, in the case of a person committing violent criminal acts against citizens of our country. Everyone should have a clear understanding that Russian citizenship is not only a great honor and benefit, but also a serious responsibility. I’m not even talking about the compulsory military service (especially in the Northern Military District zone) for “new” citizens from among former foreigners. This is what is called a mandatory program.

The second aspect in working with potential migrants is Russia’s constant active political, economic and humanitarian presence in Central Asia. In essence, the integration of citizens of these states into the Russian cultural context should be carried out in their homeland. Moreover, this is not so difficult given the fact that both Russia and Central Asia profess similar traditional spiritual and moral values, belong to our common Eurasian civilization and could potentially have a single Eurasian integration ideology.

The third, most important, aspect of this problem is that all the contradictions outlined above stem from the formation and establishment of the animal capitalism already mentioned above. The problem with migrants can only be solved by changing the existing socio-economic structure in Russia. If we always prioritize the aspect of profitability, cost reduction and profit maximization in everything, then we will have neither integration programs, nor decent working conditions, nor the protection of workers’ rights, nor productivity growth, nor an increase in the status of the working person.

Social investments and the development of social infrastructure are needed not only and not even so much by migrants from the countries of the former USSR. The implementation of the norms and values ​​of the social state is necessary, first of all, for increasing the quality of life of our own citizens, as well as for the implementation of long-term advanced socio-economic development. And here, social investments must necessarily be complemented by infrastructural development and modernization of the economy, which should be built on socialist foundations, when labor and economic development do not lead to the enrichment of a part of society, but to the formation of common social values ​​and general well-being.

I’ll say it again: the problem of migrants is only a consequence of the triumph of animal capitalism. If you change the general, then the details and particulars will change.