Measuring Family Migration in Russia: Sources of Data and Problems of Its Interpretation

The article presents the results of a study aimed at generalizing the sources of data, available in Russia, that characterizes a significant but little-studied phenomenon of family migration. The paper considers data from the Main Directorate for Migration Issues of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia on issued temporary residence permits (TRP) and acquisition of citizenship, Rosstat materials on the number of marriages with foreigners, as well as statistics on migration flows, which indicate family reasons. Considerable attention is given to the analysis of the Main Directorate for Migration Issues data on issued TRP and citizenship acquisition, on family reunification grounds. Based on the analyzed information, it is concluded that family migration is the major part of the flow of foreigners receiving TRP, and its share amounts to at least 35% of the total. Taking into account that a significant part of the TRPs is issued to the accompanying family members of the participants of the State Programme to Assist Voluntary Resettlement of Compatriots Living Abroad, the share of family migration can be increased to almost 50% of the TRP recipients. The percentage of migrants who acquired citizenship based on family ties with Russian citizens also amounts to about 36% of the annual flow and taking into account family members of participants of the State Program it makes almost 60% of all foreigners naturalized in 2014-2018.

Analyzing the Russian statistics on citizenship acquisition available since 2010, the author notes that after the changes in the citizenship law in early 2010s, citizens of states that do not have international agreements with Russia actively use marriages with Russian citizens to simplify citizenship acquisition, and the number of such cases is growing rapidly. The basic growth rates of this category of naturalized migrants in 2018 compared to the level of 2010 reached 300 times among the citizens of Tajikistan, 110 times among the citizens of Moldova and almost 60 times among the citizens of Azerbaijan. The author suggests that there is an expansion of the practice of marriages of convenience to overcome the complexities of Russian immigration law. This hypothesis needs to be tested. It is also necessary to study the phenomenon of “transnational marriages”. The disparity in the number of foreigners, men and women who married Russian citizens, revealed by Rosstat data, also requires further study. On average, there are 15 foreign grooms per 10 foreign brides, for Tajikistan citizens this ratio amounts to 32, for Azerbaijan citizens 26, for citizens of Uzbekistan 17 and Moldova 14. The article ends with an analysis of Rosstat’s annual reports on the reasons for move and shows a limited potential of this information. The author makes recommendations for the development of administrative statistics and sample surveys to study family migration and use new types of data in research.

1. OECD. International Migration Outlook 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2017.

2. West D.M. Creating a “Brain Gain” for U.S. Employers: The Role of Immigration. Brookings Policy Brief No. 178. Washington, DC: Brookings; January 2011. Available from: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/01_immigration_west.pdf.

3. Coleman D. Mass Migration to Europe: Demographic Salvation, Essential labour, or Unwanted Foreigners? In: Messina A.M, Lahav G. (eds.) The Migration Reader. Exploring Politics and Policies. Boulder, London; Lynne Rienner Publishers: 2006.

4. Council of Europe. Realising the Right to Family Reunification of Refugees in Europe. June 2017. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/librarydoc/realising-the-right-to-family-reunification-of-refugees-in-europe.

5. Perruchoud R., Redpath-Cross J. (eds.) Glossary on Migration, 2nd Edition. International Migration Law, Series No. 25. Geneva: International Organization for Migration; 2011.

6. European Migration Network. Misuse of the Right to Family Reunification. Marriages of convenience and false declarations of parenthood. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; June 2012. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/whatwe-do/networks/european_migration_network/reports/ docs/emn-studies/family-reunification/0a_emn_misuse_family_reunification_study_publication_bf_en.pdf.

7. European Migration Network. Family Reunification of Third-Country Nationals in the EU Plus Norway: National Practices. EMN Synthesis Report for the EMN Focussed Study 2016. Migrapol EMN [Doc 382]. European Commission; April 2017. Available from: https://emn.ie/publications/family-reunification-of-third-country-nationals-inthe-eu-plus-norway-emn-synthesis-report/.

8. Global Migration Group. Handbook for Improving the Production and Use of Migration Data for Development. Washington, DC: Global Knowledge Partnership for Migration and Development (KNOMAD), World Bank; 2017. Available from: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/events/coordination/15/documents/Final%20Handbook%2030.06.16_AS4.pdf.

9. Grote J. Family Reunification of Third-Country Nationals in Germany. Focussed Study by the German National Contact Point for the European Migration Network (EMN). Working Paper 73 of the Research Centre of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, 2nd revised edition. Nuremberg: Federal Office for Migration and Refugees; 2017. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/11a_germany_family_reunification_en_final.pdf.

10. Walsh P.W. Family Migration to the UK. Migration Observatory briefing, COMPAS, University of Oxford; April 2020. Available from: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Briefing-Family-Migration-to-the-UK.pdf.

11. Family Reunification of Third-Country Nationals in France. Third Focussed Study 2016. French Contact Point for the European Migration Network. January 2017.

12. OECD. Recruiting Immigrant Workers: Germany. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2013. Available from: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264189034-en.

13. Hooper K., Salant B. It’s Relative: A Cross-Country Comparison of Family-Migration Policies and Flows. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute; April 2018. Available from: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/cross-country-comparison-family-migration.

14. OECD. International Migration Outlook 2019. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2019.

15. Family Reunification. OHCHR Migration Papers. November 2005.

16. Duleep H.O., Regets M. Family Unification, Siblings, and Skills. GLO Discussion Paper, No. 271. Maastricht: Global Labor Organization (GLO); 2018. Available from: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/183512/1/GLO-DP-0271.pdf.

17. Carr S., Tienda M. Family Sponsorship and LateAge Immigration in Aging America: Revised and Expanded Estimates of Chained Migration. Population Research and Policy Review. 2013;32(6):825-849. Available from: http://europepmc.org/article/PMC/3884518.

18. Yu B. Immigration Multiplier: A Method of Measuring the Immigration Process. In: Proceedings of the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, 30 March 01 April, 2006. Available from: https://paa2006. princeton.edu/papers/61643.

19. Vaughan J. Immigration Multipliers. Trends in Chain Migration. Center for Immigration Studies; September 2017. Available from: https://cis.org/Report/ImmigrationMultipliers.

20. Gelatt J. Explainer: How the U.S. Legal Immigration System Works. Migration Policy Institute; April 2019. Available from: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/content/explainer-how-us-legal-immigration-system-works.

21. Kerwin D., Warren R. Fixing What’s Most Broken in the US Immigration System: A Profileof the Family Members of US Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents Mired in Multiyear Backlogs. Journal on Migration and Human Security. 2019;7(2):36-41. Available from: doi: 10.1177/2331502419852925; https://cmsny.org/publications/jmhs-kerwin-warren-052119/.

22. 2016/2017 Migration Report: Key Results. Nuremberg, Germany: Federal office for migration and refugees; February 2019. Available from: https://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/EN/Forschung/Migrationsberichte/migrationsbericht-2016-2017-zentrale-ergebnisse.html.

23. OECD. Making Integration Work: Family Migrants. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2017. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264279520-en.

24. Florinskaya Yu.F. Migration of Families with Children to Russia: Integration Problems (Based on the Materials of Sociological Queries Conducted by the Center for Migration Studies). Studies on Russian Economic Development. 2012;(4):118-126. (in Russ.) Available from: https://publications.hse.ru/articles/68808508.

25. Tyuryukanova E.V. (ed.) Women Migrants from CIS Countries in Russia. Moscow: Maks Press; 2011. Available from: https://publications.hse.ru/mirror/pubs/share/folder/pfwv3yiwye/direct/81010041.

26. Poletaev D.V. Women’s Labor Migration from Central Asia to Russia (An Example of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan). In: Women’s Migration: Forms, Trends, Consequences. ISPRRAS, Series Demography. Sociology. Economy. Volume 3, No. 1. Moscow: 2017. (In Russ.)

27. Omelchenko E.A. Education of International Migrants’ Children: A Contribution to the Sustainable Development? Vestnik RUDN. International Relations. 2019;19(2):306-316. (In Russ.) Available from: http:// journals.rudn.ru/international-relations/article/viewFile/21469/17114.

28. Biryukova S.S. Contribution of International Migrants to Fertility and Nuptiality in the Regions of Russia. In: Chudinovskikh O.S., Donets E.V. (eds.) Contemporary research of migration: Collection of articles. (“Demographic Research”, Vol. 26). Moscow: Faculty of Economics, the Lomonosov Moscow State University; 2015. (In Russ.) Available from: https://www.econ.msu.ru/sys/raw.php?o=30120&p=attachment.

29. Donets E.V. Migrant Families in the Russian Federation: The Ethnic Dimension (On the Basis of the Population Censuses of 2002 and 2010) In: Chudinovskikh O.S., Donets E.V. (eds.) Contemporary research of migration: Collection of articles. (“Demographic Research”, Vol. 26). Moscow: Faculty of Economics, the Lomonosov Moscow State University; 2015. (In Russ.) Available from: https://www.econ.msu.ru/sys/raw.php?o=30120&p=attachment.

30. Simonova S.V. Family Reunification as the Tendency of Contemporary Migration Policy: Problems of Implementation and Perspectives of Improvement. Actual Problems of Russian Law. 2016;(4):53-61. (In Russ.) Available from: https://aprp.msal.ru/jour/article/view/112.

31. Portnova E.V., Shcheglova D.D. Problematic Aspects of Marriage Between Citizens of the Russian Federation and Foreign Citizens. Electronic scientific journal “Science. Society. State”. 2019;7(1). (in Russ.) Available from: https://esj.pnzgu.ru/page/43030.

32. Dadayan E.V., Storozheva A.N. On the Issue of the Practice of Sham Marriages of Foreigners on the Territory of the Russian Federation. In: Main Problems and Trends in the Development of Modern Jurisprudence. Collection of Scientific Papers on the Results of the International Scientific and Practical Conference, Volgograd, August 2014. (In Russ.) Available from: http://izron.ru/articles/osnovnye-problemy-i-tendentsii-razvitiya-v-sovremennoy-yurisprudentsii-sbornik-nauchnykh-trudov-po-i/sektsiya-3-grazhdanskoe-pravo-predprinimatel-skoe-pravo-semeynoe-pravomezhdunarodnoe-chastnoe-pravo/k-voprosu-o-praktikezaklyucheniya-fiktivnykh-brakov-na-territorii-rossiyskoyfederatsii-inostrannym/.

33. Kamalyan M.A. Fictitious Marriage in the Migration Framework: Issues of Identification and Combating. Constitutional and Municipal Law. 2018;(3):56-58. (In Russ.) Available from: https://urfac.ru/?p=314.

34. Filimonova I.V. A Sham Marriage as a Kind of Fictitious Family Law States: Problems of Legal Regulation. Modern scientific researches and innovations. 2014;(11). Part 3. (In Russ.) Available from: http://web.snauka.ru/issues/2014/11/40644.

35. Chudinovskikh O.S. Policies and Trends in Acquiring Citizenship of the Russian Federation in 1992 2013. Demographic Review. 2014;1(3):65-126. (In Russ.) Available from: https://demreview.hse.ru/article/view/1810.

36. European Commission. Handbook on Addressing the Issue of Alleged Marriages of Convenience Between EU Citizens and Non-EU Nationals in the Context of EU Law on Free Movement of EU Citizens. Commission Staff Working Document. Brussels: 2014. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=SWD:2014:0284:FIN.

37. Brettell C.B. Marriage and Migration. Annual Review of Anthropology. 2017;46:81-97. Available from: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev- anthro-102116-041237.

38. Charsley K. et al. Marriage Migration and Integration Report. Bristol, UK: University of Bristol; 2016. Available from: https://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/ethnicity/documents/Marriage%20Migration%20and%20Integration_final%20report.pdf.

39. Kalter F., Schroedter J.H. Transnational Marriage Among Former Labour Migrants in Germany. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung. 2010;(22):11-36. Available from: https://www.budrich-journals.de/index.php/zff/article/viewFile/3591/3075.