Karimjon Yorov: The FSB is putting serious pressure on migrant rights defenders
"Oiina": If Russia cancels residential registration, will it suffer?
K. Yorov: If the residential registration for labor migrants in Russia is canceled, the first to suffer will be those migration service employees who take bribes. It’s safe to say that in 90% of cases, residential registration for labor migrants is carried out for a fee, and migration service employees and intermediaries make huge profits from this.
Once, the registration process in Russia became complicated. When we asked the reason, we were told that the head of the migration service had changed, and he needed to first set the rates.
We knew that one of the heads of the Russian migration service was taking 300 rubles from each registration case. When the Russian migration service operated as an independent department, and Romadanovsky was its head, we were approached by people who claimed that Romadanovsky’s son had cheated them out of three million rubles, which at that time was equivalent to 100,000 dollars. This money was taken from them for obtaining work permits.
When we approached the head of the Moscow migration service and pointed out that work permits were being issued through intermediaries and could be obtained for any citizen, he didn’t believe us. So we arranged for a work permit to be issued for the head of the Moscow migration service himself, presenting him as a Ukrainian citizen. Through intermediaries, we secured a work permit for him.
This was done to prove to the Russian official that with a bribe, anything could be arranged within the Russian migration authorities. When he checked the work permit, he confirmed it was genuine and registered in the database. This caused a major scandal, and several people were dismissed from their positions.
Therefore, I say that the cancellation of residential registration for labor migrants in Russia will only affect migration service employees because they will lose an illegal source of income. The state receives no financial benefit from registering migrants.
Russian authorities claim that registration helps locate migrants in case of an incident at their place of residence. But if local Muscovites commit a crime, they don’t necessarily go to their registered address. We also know that most people in Russia live with their wives. Even if they are registered at their own address, they live in their wives’ homes. So registration for migrants is pointless.
Currently, Russian authorities plan to introduce electronic registration and install GPS devices on migrants' phones and other devices to track their whereabouts. This is being done so that the police can summon a migrant at any time, and if the migrant doesn’t show up, the police can use these devices to find out where they are.
This, of course, is a violation of the rights and freedoms of migrants as foreign citizens in Russia. We consider this a form of slavery. Moreover, they want to use this to check whether the migrant is actually living at their registered address. If it turns out that the migrant is not living there, they will be deported. In the future, the authority to make deportation decisions will be transferred to the police.
"Oiina": You have repeatedly mentioned that crossing the border to obtain a patent and other necessary documents is illegal. A migrant who leaves Russia must return no sooner than 90 days later. But in practice, we see that some migrants cross the border within 24 hours or even faster and receive work and residence permits. Why is that?
K. Yorov: Yes, there is a provision in Russian law, known among migrants as the 90/180 rule. It states that this restriction applies to foreign citizens who come to Russia not for work. The law stipulates that a citizen can stay in Russia for 90 days within six months. In other words, if a Tajik citizen stays in Russia without a patent for 90 days, they must leave the country and can only return after three months. But unfortunately, our citizens didn’t obtain work patents and simply left Russia, crossed the border into Kazakhstan, and returned. The pandemic disrupted this practice.
This procedure has several problems. Firstly, migrants using this method put their lives in danger. Almost every week, we hear about Tajik citizens who got into accidents on the way to the Kazakh border and died.
Secondly, performing this procedure takes two to three days of work time away from migrants. I always told them that they spend around 8,000 rubles for each border crossing, including transportation and food costs. If they lost two to three days, they lost another 3,000-4,000 rubles.
Before the pandemic, if they had obtained a patent, it would have cost 15,000 rubles for three months. If a migrant crossed the border once every three months, it would cost them 12,000 rubles. This way, they saved 3,000 rubles.
If they crossed the border three times a year, they saved 9,000 rubles annually. Even if the savings were 12,000 rubles, these 12,000 rubles along with 12,000 rubles for a patent total 24,000 rubles. Dividing 24,000 rubles over 12 months, that’s 2,000 rubles per month.
Saving this amount carries the risk that the migrant may be banned from entering Russia. Meanwhile, those 2,000 rubles could easily be spent on a meal at a cafeteria. After I explained this to migrants, they agreed that it was better to obtain a patent, but still, some continued crossing the border.
Another issue is that such people are constantly hiding from the police and working illegally. Is it worth facing these hardships just to save 2,000 rubles?
For some people, 24,000 rubles a year may seem like a significant amount. But one must remember that this comes with the risk of being banned from entering Russia for three to ten years. So, it’s better to have a patent.
"Oiina": Every day, the housing situation for migrants in Russia is becoming more difficult. On one hand, legislative restrictions are tightening, and on the other hand, the cost of work permits and temporary residence is rising. At the same time, Russian authorities openly claim that they need migrants. So, what is the purpose of introducing such strict restrictions?
"K. Yorov: It seems that new concepts are being developed that supposedly make life easier for migrants. At first, these proposals look good. But as they move towards the Russian president and become law, most of them change.
Unfortunately, the proposals come from people and departments that do not understand migration issues. These individuals continually complicate matters for migrants, and I don’t know whether this is due to their xenophobia or ignorance of the problem, but they see us as "sheep." They claim to be offering relief, but in reality, it’s "one step forward, two steps back."
Representatives of non-governmental organizations advocating for migrant rights propose useful initiatives, but for some reason, they are not accepted. Those who defend migrant rights are not involved in these matters. Instead, they invite representatives from government-affiliated organizations that support whatever the government says. Most of these organizations are focused on cultural activities and are not aware of the real problems. In other words, these organizations, working with the authorities in Russia and Tajikistan, are merely extorting money from migrants.
We have observed that even Russian and Russian-speaking people who support migrants harbor some degree of resentment towards them. For example, such individuals, in the framework of the compatriot resettlement program, argued that priority should be given to ethnic Russians. Recently, they have even called for an end to these programs because they bring people to Russia who are not ethnically Russian.
Previously, it was said that 80-85% of those arriving were Russian-speaking, but now the situation has changed. However, they fail to consider that the program has been in place for several years, and during this time, most of the Russian-speaking individuals who wanted to relocate have already moved to Russia. Naturally, over time, their numbers decrease because, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is little Russian-speaking population left in Central Asian countries.
Russia depends on migrants. Sometimes, it seems to grant amnesties that are not officially documented but are carried out by order or with someone's permission. There is no law about this. Russia uses a "carrot and stick" approach. On one hand, it eases some processes, but on the other hand, it creates new difficulties. Problems are created first, then they are slightly simplified, and in doing so, they appear to be doing a favor for our people.
Whether Russia likes it or not, in the next 20-30 years, it will not be able to manage without migrants, as its population is decreasing, and the younger generation does not want to work in the sectors where migrants are employed.
Like other post-Soviet countries, in times of economic downturn, Russia again blames migrants to distract society from real problems. In such a situation, it creates the impression that labor migrants are responsible for all of Russia’s failures. For example, in 2021, over two million crimes were committed in Russia. Foreign citizens and stateless persons committed only 36,400 of those crimes. This data shows that the crime rate among labor migrants increased by 5.9%. Of these crimes, 28,500 were committed by migrants from former Soviet Union countries. Some of the crimes were committed against other migrants, meaning that some migrants violated the rights of their own fellow countrymen. Now think about it: 28,500 crimes compared to two million is a very small number. It is estimated that 12 to 15 million migrants live in Russia.
Despite this, law enforcement officials and even the president of Russia claim that migrants commit many crimes. But when we look at the statistics from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia, it turns out that migrants are responsible for only 1.8-1.9% of all crimes. If we include administrative offenses committed by migrants, the crime rate among them rises to 3-4%.
"Oiina": Can Tajikistan improve conditions for its labor migrants in Russia?
K. Yorov: Tajikistan should strive more towards signing agreements to send labor migrants to other countries. However, there are a lot of labor migrants in the world, especially from Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, and other countries. These countries offer very cheap labor, which is preferred by employers in Europe and Arab countries. Therefore, hiring Tajik labor migrants costs employers more. Even Marat Khusnullin, Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister, recently stated that the efficiency of North Korean migrants is higher than that of Central Asian migrants.
Nevertheless, Tajikistan should sign agreements with South Korea, Singapore, and European countries to send its labor migrants there, and at least 10% of migrants should be sent to these countries. I believe that in the future, this share could reach 50%. Even if the share reaches 30%, the income from these 30% of migrants would equal the income from all the migrants in Russia. In other words, if two million migrants in Russia currently send 3-4 billion dollars a year back to Tajikistan, 30% of migrants working in developed countries would be able to send the same amount.
A few years ago, we raised this issue with one of the officials responsible for migration. He said that Tajikistan wants to do this, but Russia is applying pressure and using all means to prevent it.
How justified this statement from the Tajik official is, I don’t know.
"Oiina": Tajikistan and Russia have agreed to provide pensions to labor migrants. Who is covered by this agreement, and how will it be implemented?
K. Yorov: According to this agreement, if a citizen of Tajikistan worked in Russia for a certain period and then in Tajikistan, upon retirement, only the period worked in Russia will be considered for the pension. This period must be at least 15 years. Tajikistan must pay for the remaining portion of the pension.
In other words, Russia does not take into account the work experience this citizen has in Tajikistan, and according to the new agreement, Dushanbe will pay for that period.
Currently, the pension for the period a Tajik citizen worked in Russia is paid by Moscow, and for work done in Tajikistan, the pension is paid by Tajikistan. Russia also requires 15 years of work experience within the Russian Federation, and this experience is only counted from 2002 onward. Therefore, very few migrants will be able to qualify for a pension from Russia. At the same time, more than 90% of our labor migrants work seasonally.
Some of our citizens, even if they have a labor contract in Russia, sign fake agreements. In order to receive a pension, the employer must make contributions to Russia's pension fund. But we know that 80% of our migrants do not have official labor contracts. When they are deported, they complain that they had a patent, but were still expelled. They don’t understand that to receive a pension, they need not only a patent but also a labor contract.
I believe that this agreement does not benefit migrants. Perhaps those migrants who signed contracts this year or in the past year or two, and whose employers contribute to the pension fund, will be able to receive a pension. There are some migrants working in Turkish and Yugoslav companies that do make pension contributions. But how much they will receive in pensions after returning to Tajikistan is known only to God and to those who receive the pension.
"Oiina": The last question concerns migrant rights defenders in Russia: Karomat Sharipov and Valentina Chupik were deported, and Izzat Amon was arrested. Leaving aside Izzat Amon's political views, has it indeed become more difficult for migrant rights defenders to operate in Russia?
K. Yorov: The situation for migrant rights defenders in Russia has significantly worsened after the start of the war in Ukraine, although this process began even before the war. Russia is returning to Soviet-era practices. The FSB is exerting heavy pressure on journalists, independent media, and human rights defenders.
In Valentina Chupik's case, we saw that she was deported for defending migrants and criticizing the police, even though she was a refugee in Russia and had the appropriate documents.
Other individuals have also been pressured, especially Bahrom Hamroev from Bukhara. He and his family were arrested several times, and now he is under arrest again. He collaborated with “Memorial.” "Memorial" was also shut down. The newspaper "Novaya Gazeta," which defended migrants' rights, also ceased its activities. The migrant rights defenders who remain in Russia now cooperate with government structures.
An example like that of Karomat Sharipov shows that the governments of the migrants' countries of origin also play a role in creating difficulties for migrant rights defenders in Russia. Valentina Chupik, Izzat Amon, and I can also be included in this list. Russian authorities claim that their Tajik counterparts, who oppose the existence of migrant rights defenders and ask Russian authorities to create difficulties for them, contribute to Russian officials also acting against these people.
In several conversations with Russian officials, I was told that at the request of the Tajik authorities, their citizenship was revoked, and they were deported to Tajikistan. Both sides were satisfied: one got rid of a critic, and the other was pleased. Moreover, they said that before blaming the Russians, we should pay attention to the actions of our own authorities, which cause frustration.
In general, protecting migrants abroad is the responsibility of consulates. We also have a migration service office in Russia. However, the staff of this department do not have a clear status. Therefore, they do not leave their offices. If they have proposals, they make them, but if not, they have no other options because, by law, their powers are limited.
It would be better to either dissolve Tajikistan's migration service representation in Russia or expand its powers and grant it official status in the country so that the staff could assist migrants. It would also be good to recruit specialists who are well-versed in migration issues and pay them decent salaries so they can support migrants. It would be beneficial if two or three human rights defenders worked in each region of Russia to protect the rights of labor migrants. In this case, our migrants might feel some relief. Although we understand that the protection of migrants' rights should be discussed at a high level in Tajikistan, and the state must guarantee that Russia does not violate the rights of our citizens. Until this issue is raised at the highest level, the violations will continue.
Look at how the rights of Armenian and Azerbaijani migrants are violated less frequently in Russia. This shows that migration issues are discussed at a high level in those countries. When one Azerbaijani was killed, they tried to bring his body from the Lujniki market to the Kremlin. When the Kremlin called Heydar Aliyev and promised to find and punish the perpetrators, the Azerbaijanis stepped back.
Tajiks in Russia face the harshest treatment. Even Uzbeks do not face such treatment. Therefore, Tajikistan's foreign policy, especially the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, must pay special attention to the problems of migrants, as it is thanks to migrants that the economy functions and security is maintained. For this reason, the rights of labor migrants must be defended at the highest level. However, unfortunately, there is a belief in our country that if we defend the rights of migrants, when they return to Tajikistan, they will begin to demand their rights. Therefore, it is considered better that their rights be violated in Russia so that they feel powerless and do not make claims elsewhere.
The fact that our labor migrants in Russia are deprived of rights and live in fear indicates that they are disillusioned with life and know that in Russia, they are nobody and that no one will help them there. This must be stopped so that migrants feel they have support. In this case, their work efficiency will increase.
"Oiina": Thank you for the interview.