Transcript Slide 1

Migration policy in Latvia:
fears, trade-offs and solutions
Dace Akule,
European policy researcher, PROVIDUS
Emigration
• Lithuania (3.5 million inhabitants): 300,000 citizens left the
country in 1990-2004. Additional 48,000 left in 2005, 32,000 in
2006. In 2005 Lithuania was the first in EU in terms of emigrants
per 1000 residents. A resolution adopted in the Lithuanian
Parliament calls economic migration ‘the single biggest non-military
threat to the Lithuanian society’. The number of well-educated
emigrants is increasing.
• Estonia (1.4 million inhabitants): estimates say 30,000 have
emigrated.
• Latvia (2.3 million inhabitants). Approximately 86 thousand people
from Latvia are currently (2007) working or studying in other EU
countries. That comprises approximately 9% of Latvia’s labour
force. Some estimates suggest that 200 thousand people would
have left until 2015.
Why?
• Better paid jobs in other EU countries,
• Better working conditions: relations between employer and
employee, better worker rights’ protection,
• Social security and stability,
• Better opportunities for education and employment.
Where? Biggest groups in UK, Ireland (English). Commuting from
Estonia to Finland.
Problem: Many people with higher education and qualification
work in low-skilled sectors, a bank clerk picking strawberries.
Not accurate to associate emigration with EU accession only because
emigration has been a strategy of people’s everyday politics since 90s.
• Resistance to the form of government, for example, comodification of social services, education and transformation in
labour market during the process of transition. Lack of social and
economic security as guaranteed by the state.
• Manifestation of ethical reasoning – protest against low
political responsibility, corruption, populism and inefficiency in the
output of policy.
•
Silent form of resistance – silent emigration.
Remaining in emigration is a conscious political claim for ones
respect of rights – a particular resistance to state government.
Ķešāne, I., “Governmentality and Labour Migration: The Case of Latvian Labor
Migrants in Ireland”, MA thesis, 2008 Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg i. Br.
(Germany) and the University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban (South Africa)
Common problems:
• Demographics – 90s was the ‘anti-baby boom age’, very low birth
rates. Today Baltic countries still have one of the lowest birth rates
in the EU.
• Aging populations
• Emigration: citizens using their right to freedom of movement, not
finding enough attractive work places at home.
• Labour shortages: unemployment levels decrease.
• The return rate will not compensate for the large outflow of labour
in the next decade.
Labour shortages: Latvia
• 2-3% of Latvian companies felt shortage of labour in 2004, 1320% felt the shortage of qualified workers.
• According to research of 2007, biggest shortages are felt in
construction sector, mining industry, manufacturing (similar tendencies in
Lithuania and Estonia)
• In 20% of cases when new workers are hired in construction
sector, lower qualifications (education and experience) are accepted,
in comparison to their predecessors.
• Researchers have estimated that larger or smaller labour shortages
will be felt in 86-112 of 120 professions.
• Many people ‘re-qualifying’ to better paid professions, e.g. teachers
becoming painters.
• 20,000 vacancies available in 2007.
Hoping:
• for the return of Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians,
• Labour shortages solved by internal resources,
• Replacement of workers with technologies.
Immigration
• Lithuania: In 2005 only 12,5% of residence permits issued were
given to economic migrants. There is an increase in economic
migration since 2001 when 9% of residence permits were issued to
migrant workers, 6% in 2002, 8% in 2003 and 15% in 2004. Most
migrants work in biggest cities and regions with industrial
enterprises, working in industry, ship building, transport, services
and construction. Unsurprisingly, 95% of migrants are male.
• Estonia: 745 residence permits issued for migrant workers. But
employers want to invite 1500 workers per year. Migratory flows are
regulated by a quota – 0.05% of Estonia’s permanent inhabitants
can be migrants.
Immigration: Latvia
• Approximately 2000 foreigners came to Latvia to work in 2005,
• 2400 in 2006,
• 4040 in 2007,
• Most of migrants come from Russia, Ukraine and Moldova. Most
of them male, due to the sectors where they work in.
• The number of illegal migrants increases: 86 detained illegal
migrants in 2004, 112 in 2006,
• The number of irregular migrant workers increases: 28 detained
irregular migrant workers in 2005, 131 in 2006, 101 in 2007
Two main pull factors:
• impressive economic growth and salaries that attract migrant
workers from countries with lower income,
• labour shortages due to large outflow of labour from Latvia.
• For many migrant workers Latvia is not the first destination of
migration and also not the first choice due to better income
possibilities in other European countries. Relative geographical
proximity to home country, as well as cultural and linguistic affinity
and the possibility to communicate in Russian.
• As a result of restrictive migration policy Latvia’s labour market is
not easily accessible for third country nationals due to the
cumbersome employment procedures. That also is a push factor for
illegal migration that is increasing in the last years.
IOM report about the challenges of Belarus, Moldavian and Ukrainian citizens in the
labour markets and society of Latvia expected in May 2008.
Public opinion: Latvia
• In 2003 Latvians had the most hostile opinions against
foreigners in the EU.
• Research in 2004 found that people fear tensions between
ethnic groups and social dissatisfaction.
• European Citizens’ Consultations in 2007 gathered randomly
selected people from all regions, different professions,
education, who agreed that they expect controlled immigration
and emigration. Similar attitudes towards emigration from Baltic
countries in the ECC results of the other states.
• Research has found that Latvians behave as the endangered
majority.
Slight positive tendencies in public opinion in the last years.
In 2005 (SKDS) attitudes towards possible immigrants are ‘very
negative’ or ‘rather negative’ - 69.8% of respondents.
In 2007 (SKDS) 62.1% of respondents had ‘very negative’ and
‘rather negative’ attitudes towards guest workers, indicating a
decrease in negative attitudes. The proportion of respondents with
‘very positive’ and ‘rather positive’ attitudes towards immigrants
grew by 6.9% (16.3% in 2005, 23.2% in 2007).
Two reasons:
pressure from employers to introduce more liberal regulations for
the recruitment of third-country nationals,
increased understanding of the general public about the local
labour shortages that have been visible in the last years.
• As public opinion dictates migration policy decisions and it is the
main reason why migration until recently has been a taboo topic for
politicians, it is the main challenge for migrant workers.
• For Russian-speaking migrant workers the challenge is linked to
Soviet heritage when many thousands of Russian-speaking people
from Slavic Soviet Republics came to live in Latvia. Now there are
concerns that migrant workers will significantly increase the size of
the Russian-speaking population in the country.
• Coalition party, nationalistic TB/LNNK in April 2008 issued a
resolution about restricting migration. Support for policies enhancing
the emigration of non-Latvians, restricting the immigration of nonLatvians and enhances the assimilation of non-Latvians in Latvian
environment. Minister of Economy from TB/LNNK.
Migration concept in the context of employment (Ministry of
Interior) suggests three solutions:
1. Not changing the existing strict immigration policy, according to
which the procedure to invite workers from third countries is
long and expensive. State fee of 35 LVL a month for the employment of one
foreign worker. 170 LVL for work permit and residency permit. 3-6 months to
complete the paper work. Procedures in Lithuania and Estonia are quicker and
less expensive.
2. Decrease state fees and easing the bureaucratic procedure for
inviting migrant workers,
3. In addition to easier procedure and smaller fees, lay out criteria
for ‘emergency’ situations when quotas of specific professions
could be filled on easier conditions. But these migrants would be
able to stay for a short term, no family reunification rights.
This government paper was expected to be adopted in 2007, has not been done.
New government as of December 2007.
Plans to improve business environment for 2008 (Ministry of
Economy) include plans to establish:
• one-stop agency for the issuing of work permits and residence
permits,
• Decrease fees for work permits and residence permits,
• Decrease the length of the procedure.
Not adopted yet in Cabinet, waiting as of February 2008.
Prejudices:
• Migrants may not be loyal to employer in the long term,
• Latvia could only be a transit country to enter other EU states
with higher income levels,
• Hopes that migrant workers will be highly qualified are not
grounded,
• More liberal immigration policy would “threaten national identity”,
lead to ghetto suburbs where migrants would live, with higher
unemployment and crime rates.
Assumptions about integration problems: country will have
to invest in the integration of migrant workers or the fighting of
consequences of unsuccessful integration.
• Legal migrants pay taxes, contribute to country’s GDP and new
work places being created, therefore expenses connected to
integration policies are justified.
• Problems with the integration of immigrants stem from
unsuccessful integration policies that governments have adopted,
• Assumptions are based on the assessment about the integration
of Russian speaking minority – immigrants won’t learn Latvian,
will increase the use of Russian language.
What is missing?
• Human rights discourse: human rights to live where one chooses
• Data about the migrant workers already working in Latvia,
• Economic reasons for migration,
• Discussions about the trade-off between no immigration and
slower economic growth to reach average EU income level OR
more liberal immigration policy,
• Not discussing the main reasons for the hostile public opinion
against immigrants.
• Hoping that government won’t have to work with this issue:
slowdown of economic growth – less demand for labour – less need
for migrant workers.
• Responsibility of all countries to be ready to welcome immigrants
because immigration is a reality one can’t stop. Latvians, like most
other nations, are migrants in other countries for centuries.
• We expect that Latvians in Ireland are treated well, but what does
Latvian government do to try to establish similarly positive
environment for migrants living in Latvia?
• Migrant Integration Policy Index from 2007 ranked Latvia as the
worst country among 28 countries assessing Latvian legislation
linked to the integration of immigrants.
Recommendations:
• Need to start a wide debate about the negative attitudes towards
immigrants,
• Stop focusing on whether “we need migrants” and work to
establish integration policies because migrants are already living
in our societies, they are largely invisible and unprotected
because of the lack of policy in this field.
• Need to learn from the integration of Russian speaking minority,
as well as the experience of other EU countries,
• Terminology ‘new immigrants’ imply the existence of ‘old
immigrants’ (Latvia and Estonia), excluding 35% of Latvia’s
population,
• Need to learn appreciating all human resources available in the
country.