FMS: "First we will collect all your data, and then we will decide what to do with you"
However, it was impossible to do so at that moment. The amendments to the law were adopted so quickly that the procedures were not coordinated, and their implementation was unprepared. Neither the authorities inside Russia nor the consular services abroad were ready. They held meetings for citizens where they only reassured them but could not explain the procedure. As, for example, happened in the Czech Republic, where, according to local authorities, about 30 thousand Russians live.
In accordance with the amendments to the law, the FMS was supposed to start accepting citizens' applications both in person, i.e., by reporting to the office at the place of residence, and by mail. However, numerous attempts by fellow citizens, who had just come to Russia from their jobs abroad in the summer, to report themselves, long remained unsuccessful.
An acquaintance of the author of this text tried to submit an application starting on August 4, because on August 15 she had to fly out of her native Siberian city. However, at the local FMS she was told that they could not accept the notification. The form of the document had not been coordinated. It was not accepted either at the migration service or at the post office, where, according to the amendments, since August 4 there was supposed to be the possibility to send the notification by mail and receive the coveted "stub" confirming the fact of self-denunciation.
As a result, this girl's attempts to comply with Russian legislation were unsuccessful. The post office refused to accept the documents, and the FMS did too. So by the time the long-awaited bylaw from the FMS was coordinated with other departments and saw the light of day, she had already had to leave.
However, even if she had stayed, it is not at all certain that she would have been able to submit the notification. Proof of this is the story of another Russian woman living abroad. She was registered in the Moscow region and, relying on the FMS regulation and detailed explanations from employees of this body, came at the end of August to "denounce" herself. However, the migration service employees refused to accept her application stating that she had a residence permit outside the Russian Federation. Contrary to previously published explanations, they categorically demanded a notarized translation of the document confirming the residence permit abroad.
After sitting in line for two hours, the woman was refused, and when she demanded a written refusal so that she could appeal it, she was asked to submit a written complaint, which "will be considered within 30 days." As a result, the next day she managed to submit the documents by mail.
Moreover, for the right to denounce oneself, one now has to pay, so honorable, apparently, is this duty. Sending the notification cost 1,200 rubles. Having paid this sum, the woman received the coveted stub. But even this, however, does not guarantee her from further troubles. The amendments to the legislation state that submitting a notification late or in improper form will be considered an administrative offense and may be punishable by a fine. And the decision on whether the requirements of the law were properly fulfilled will likely be made by the same FMS employee who the day before demanded a notarized translation from the applicant.
Thus today, almost a month after the amendments took effect, it is already possible to "snitch" on oneself to the migration service. To do this, a holder of a second citizenship or a residence permit abroad (whether a work visa is its analogue is still not entirely clear) must go to the FMS immediately upon arriving in Russia, or better yet to the post office, pay a quasi-tax on second citizenship, and notify the domestic "authorities." The "stub" obtained after this must be inserted into the passport and guarded like the apple of one's eye. Because in the future this will become the only available proof that the law was fulfilled.
Moreover, in numerous discussions on internet forums, holders of foreign residence permits, citizenships, and nationalities are frightened that without a stub, the first controller at the airport border checkpoint will be able to "turn them away" and almost sentence them to criminal punishment. It would be enough for him to flip through the passport, make sure that they have already been in Russia since the amendments took effect, but did not notify the FMS, since no "stub" is inserted in the foreign passport.
These are, of course, baseless horror stories. First, the responsibility for compliance with the amendments that took effect on August 4, 2014, lies precisely with the migration service. Accordingly, an officer of the FSB border service sitting at border control can only "snitch" on the citizen to the proper authorities. Checking for a notification of second citizenship is, at least for now, not within his power. As, by the way, is declaring a person a tax non-resident of Russia, which many citizens permanently living abroad fear greatly, not wanting to pay a tax of 30 percent instead of 13 percent in their "historical homeland."
Second, the same border guard (like the FMS officer) will hardly be able to competently determine the existence of a residence permit, and even less so citizenship of another state, other than as a result of voluntary admission. If it is not a long-term visa, then the Russian will simply have a second passport or a plastic card. To find out how long he spent abroad can only be done through entry-exit stamps in the country. And even then, it will be a very weak proof. And what if the same FSB officer earlier forgot to put that stamp on exit? And if a person, as the law allows, has two foreign passports, and part of the stamps are in the second one? There are countless variants.
Well, a person is not at all obliged to show their second passport or plastic card confirming their residence permit to Russian law enforcement agencies, since by law, incidentally, they have the right not to incriminate themselves. Especially since we are talking about a criminal offense, for which the norm allowing not to testify against oneself should definitely apply.
So in reality, everyone must choose for themselves. According to Russian laws, of course, one must report oneself. But according to the same Russian laws, one can refuse to testify against oneself, and therefore simply remain silent. And watch what happens next to those who have declared themselves holders of dual citizenship or residence permits.
First, it is possible that the legislation will be changed again. For example, the Republic of South Ossetia, where the absolute majority of the population also holds Russian passports, asked Russia to postpone the entry into force of the requirement to notify about a second citizenship.
Second, it is worth watching: will the home state allow holders of a second citizenship to travel the world peacefully with their 'additional' passports, or will it, as the most fearful assume, soon start mass revocations of their Russian citizenship. Or maybe even imprison them for treason. Anything is possible. It is not for nothing that an employee of one of the capital's FMS departments answered worried holders of a second passport to their legitimate question about why all these notifications: 'First we will collect all the data about you, and then we will decide what to do with you.'
Ivan PREOBRAZHENSKY.
IA Rosbalt