5

Migration and integration: the case of Latvia

Dace Akule, policy researcher, Centre for Public Policy PROVIDUS

Latvia’s population

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Foreigners, %

Non-citizens, %

Citizens, %

Source: Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs

Migration balance

-60000

-40000

-20000

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Immigration

Emigration

Migration ballance

Source: Central Bureau of Statistics

Immigration stock

Source: Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs

2352

7

2451

6

2546

6

2697

6

2948

7

3082

0

3305

5

3435

4

3624

9 4205

4

4432

8

4739

1

6676

6886

7547

7429

8003 96

56 1281

5

1471

5

1378

5

1355

7

1595

7

1871

60

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013

Permanent Residence Permits

Temporary Residence Permits

1821

1846

2631

2437

2212

2154

1896

2061 23

96 2928

4831

4609

2388

2495

4824

6171

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

First-time issued temporary residence permits

Source: Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs

Number of issued permits by reason of entry98

1

3048

460

342

907

2836

529

33758

6 908

472

34257

4 854

534

533

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2007 2008 2009 2010

FamilyreunificationEmployment

Studies

Other

Source: Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs

Origin of immigrants in 2012

2534

605

277

197

191

102

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Russia Ukraine Belarus Kazakhstan Uzbekistan Turkey

Source: Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs

Stock of foreigners in 2013Russia 44586Lithuania 4031Ukraine 3735Belarus 2318Germany 1536Estonia 1025Bulgaria 698Sweden 564Poland 527United Kingdom 518United States of America 505Kazakhstan 466Uzbekistan 444

Source: Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs

Labour immigration• Employment becomes more popular reason for residence in Latvia: 40-45% of residents with temporary permits in 2008-2010.

• If only 2000 foreigners acquired a work permit in 2005, the number exceeded 4000 in 2007.

• Top countries: Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. Top sectors: manufacturing, transport and logistics, trade and repair. Most dramatic drop in demand for migrant workers was in construction sector – 36% work permit in 2007, and only 3% in 2010.

• Pull factors – labour or skills shortages in specific sectors (also due to emigration), cultural and linguistic, geographic proximity. More important than comparatively low income levels (compared to EU average).

Labour immigration: sectors

374 380

163283 331

555631

1734

719

360449

10541085

628

1081

295

426

962

625

82

503

234312

684

271 220144 151

1406

1320

664

11145

234

158

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Manufacturingindustry

Construc-tion service

Transportation IT, science Trade Other

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Source: Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs

Labour immigration• Access to labour market depends on purpose of immigration and type or residence permit (e.g. free access to family reunification migrants who joined a citizen, non-citizen or permanent resident; restricted to labour immigrants), knowledge of Latvian language.

• Third country nationals recruited by employers to work in Latvia are linked to the employer who invited them, with no option to freely change employers or their employment position within the company (new work permit needed).

• If migrant worker with a temporary residence permit become unemployed, his/ her residence permit is cancelled and the persons needs to leave the country.

• These persons are also not entitled to unemployment benefits and services.

Labour immigration• Legislation stipulates that migrant workers must receive at least the average national gross monthly salary of the previous year – 481 LVL (685 EUR) in 2012. Minimum wage in 2013 set at 200 LVL (285 EUR). Plan to increase to 225 LVL (320 EUR) in 2014. Protection of low-skilled local labour, but also leaving the low-skilled jobs to the locals.

• No formal work permit quotas, but the procedure and costs related to recruiting third country nationals were higher than in Estonia and Lithuania, and possessed a serious obstacle.

• Changes in July 2008 – decreasing costs, establishing ‘one-stop agency’ for work permits. Employer had to pay a monthly fee of 35 LVL (50 EUR) for recruiting a third country national. In 2008 this became an annual fee, and in 2010 it was waived altogether.

Policy?• In 2007 government failed to adopt a migration policy document due to lack of interest in this issue (nationalistic party among coalition parties). The same situation in the present, when government’s action plan includes a goal of adopting a migration policy paper in 2013.

• The action plan says that the aim is to establish a balanced system for the entry of foreigners that is in line with Latvia’s interests and facilitates economic growth. Based on this paper, new immigration legislation should also be adopted by the end of 2013.

• Also need to evaluate the norm allowing third country nationals to get a temporary residence permit for 5 years after a purchase of a real estate (price tag for Riga, Riga region and other cities: 100,000 LVL, other places: 50,000 LVL)

Policy?• Ministry of Economy has estimated that approximately 120 thousand jobs would be created by 2030 as a result of economic growth. Additional 100 thousand jobs would become vacant due to the elder generation leaving the labour market.

• Who will fill these vacancies? Competition for human resources with other EU countries and beyond. Why would people choose Latvia?

• Working on the return of Latvians having emigrated. A plan to facilitate return migration adopted in the government in January 2013. But return migration mostly depends on the general socio-economic situation of Latvia.

• Surveys show that 65% of emigrants don’t plan to return in the near future (5 years).

How large threats do the following aspects cause to Latvia?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Latvia's inhabitants emigrate

Latvia loses its economic independence since largeforeign companies take over and force locals out of

People from other countries come to Latvia to look fora better life

Traditional moral standards change due to standardsthat come from other countries and regions

The arrival of different (untraditional to Latvia)religion

The arrival of different cultures and traditions

Mixed marriages between Latvia's inhabitants andpeople of different etchnicities and skin color

very large threat

small threat

no threat at all

difficult to say/ noanswer

Source: Market research centre SKDS. ‘Nacionālo ideju popularitāte sabiedrībā, Latvijas iedzīvotāju aptauja’ (Popularity of nationalistic ideas among the population. A survey of Latvia’s inhabitants), July 2012, commissioned by the Alliance of European Conservatives and

Reformists.

What is your attitude towards the willingness of people from other countries to come to work and live in Latvia?

Source: DnB Nord Latvijas barometrs, survey conducted on February 2011, N= 1005 Latvia’s inhabitants, respondents could agree to multiple statements

From which countries or groups of countries would it be desirable to let in immigrants from? %

Source: Market research centre SKDS. ‘Nacionālo ideju popularitāte sabiedrībā, Latvijas iedzīvotāju aptauja’ (Popularity of nationalistic ideas among the population. A survey of Latvia’s inhabitants), July 2012, commissioned by the Alliance of European Conservatives and

Reformists.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Diffi cult to say/ no answer

Immigration should not be allowed under nocircumstances

Other countries

African countries

India

China

Countries of Middle East

Other countries of NIS

Russia, Belarus, Ukraine

EU countries

Attitudes towards migrants’ impact on social and economic processes

Source: NI: Dimensijas. Vēsturiskā atmiņa. LU SZF. Survey conducted in 2010, N= 1004 Latvia’s inhabitants, % of respondents according to ethnic origin (identification), “absolutely agree” and “rather agree” answers were summed up. Quoted in: Human Development report of Latvia 2010/2011

• Latvians behave as the “endangered majority”: everyone should live where they were born

• 18% Latvians think that citizenship should not be granted to people who want to keep their traditions and culture, 7% Russians agree. 36% Latvians think that citizenship should not be granted to migrants, 15% Russians agree. (2010 survey, LU)

• Cultural and linguistic assimilation?!

• 70% do not support state budget expenditure on immigrant integration, thus the main funding source remains the European Fund for the Integration of Third Country Nationals (75% EU funding, 25% national co-funding; activities since 2009 are sporadic due to institutional changes)

• Since 2009 the institutional responsibility for migrant integration policy has changed 4 times!

Public opinion

• Comparing the legislation of 31 European and North American countries, Latvia’s situation was evaluated as the least favourable for migrants and their children (2011 study, data for May 2010)

• Latvia has projects, but no coherent strategy on migrant integration

• Catching up, but not enough: still last of all 31 countries (keeping the worst record as in the 2007 study)

www.mipex.eu

Migrant integration policy index (MIPEX)

Conclusions• Question about people: who will live in Latvia? Whom do we want to live in Latvia? How do we manage public services with limited resources – weaker provision of services, higher taxes, or more people contributing their resources?

• To enhance the return of Latvians, the society needs to realize and be ready to increasing diversity of Latvia’s population, with spouses from other countries and more ‘mixed’ children living in Latvia.

• Immigration is inevitable, a reality. Need to manage risks, mainly due to lack of policies and negative public attitudes thanks to the Soviet migration experience, integration of Russian-speaking population, especially as the majority of migrants come from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus able to survive without learning Latvian language.

• Experience with the Russian-speaking population in Latvia has shown that we should not build isolated communities. We need cooperation instead of parallel worlds. But we don’t need melting pots or 2 salad bowls. • Communities developing together, but people keeping their own chosen identities. Practicing that all people living in a country are shaping this community.• Need to ensure equal rights and responsibilities – paying taxes, observing legislation, participating in decision making (only citizens are allowed to vote in local (municipality) elections; consultative council for immigrant integration established in 2013)• Need to support people learning Latvian language while also keeping the knowledge of mother tongue • Need to support access to public services and institutions (migrants don’t know the local situation!)• Need more open citizenship policies – newly born, high school graduates, dual citizenship (adopted in May 2013)

Conclusions