Migration policy in Latvia: fears, trade-offs and solutions

1. Migration policy in Latvia: fears, trade-offs and solutions Dace Akule, European policy researcher, PROVIDUS

2. 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 Lithuaniawas 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.

3. 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.

4. 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, co-modification 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)

5. 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.

6. Labour shortages: Latvia • 2-3% of Latvian companies felt shortage of labour in 2004, 13-20% 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.

7. Hoping: • for the return of Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians, • Labour shortages solved by internal resources, • Replacement of workers with technologies.

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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 non-Latvians and enhances the assimilation of non-Latvians in Latvian environment. Minister of Economy from TB/LNNK.

14. Migration concept in the context of employment (Ministry of Interior) suggests three solutions: • 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. • Decrease state fees and easing the bureaucratic procedure for inviting migrant workers, • 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.