At the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, a new stage clearly emerged in the immigration policies of Western countries. The main vector is tightening. Moreover, not only in "Old Europe" but also in the countries of "classical immigration" – the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. In 1999-2005, new, stricter immigration laws were adopted almost synchronously in the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands, Greece, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, Italy, Germany, and the Czech Republic. This was a response to the growth of illegal immigration, the increase in terrorist threats, and the exacerbation of the problem of integrating immigrants, especially from the Islamic world. The landmark events that sharply accelerated changes in immigration policy were the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in the USA, March 11, 2004, in Madrid, July 7, 2005, in London, the rioting of immigrant youth in October-November 2005 in France, and the "cartoon scandal" in February of that year.
Countries of "classical immigration": a departure from traditional liberalism
Already on October 26, 2001, the USA adopted the "Patriot Act," which provided for stricter rules for entry into the United States, introduced a system of special registration for certain categories of persons, introduced special (biometric) control of persons entering and leaving the USA, and the requirement for a passport for automatic scanning for citizens of the 27 countries participating in the "Visa Waiver Program" came into effect. On May 14, 2002, the "Law on Enhancing Border Security and Reforming the Procedure for Issuing Entry Visas" was adopted. And finally, on November 25, 2002, the "Homeland Security Act" was adopted, and on March 1, 2003, the Ministry of National Security was created, to which almost all services responsible for immigration policy were subordinated. These acts immediately affected our citizens both directly and indirectly. For example, visa requirements for participants in educational and exchange programs became stricter, and they began to receive far more refusals.
Serious changes in US immigration policy inevitably entail changes in the immigration policies of many other countries by the "domino principle." Thus, Canada's new immigration law, which came into force on June 28, 2002, significantly increased the number of points that an applicant for an immigration visa must score, thereby turning emigration to Canada for many into an unattainable dream.
Under the influence of the September 11 terrorist attack, New Zealand raised the passing score for immigrants in the professional category (General Skills) on October 7, 2002, and reduced the immigration quota to 45,000 people per year. In addition, the requirements for knowledge of the English language have been significantly increased. According to expert estimates, even Australia, which has always been a rather difficult country for immigration, is now more accessible for immigrants than New Zealand.
"Old Europe" – new barriers
In Great Britain, starting from the mid-90s, the policy of the authorities acquired a clear focus on restricting immigration. Efforts were concentrated on tightening visa rules and asylum rules, simplifying the procedure for deporting illegal immigrants, and limiting or even completely depriving them of social assistance. As the threat from Islamic "radicals" grew, tests of loyalty to the British Crown, British law, and way of life were introduced into the immigration procedure. After the July 7 terrorist attack, Prime Minister Blair himself announced a "change in the rules of the game" in immigration policy.
According to the government's five-year program, a list of "unacceptable actions" has been established that may entail the deportation of immigrants who threaten national security. Unacceptable actions include, in particular, inciting ethnic or religious hatred and inciting terrorism orally or in writing. The British Home Office previously also had the right to prevent foreigners from entering the country and to expel them from the country on the grounds that their presence threatens national security. However, the authorities preferred not to use it because, as a participant in the European Convention on Human Rights, Britain undertook not to deport individuals who might face the death penalty at home. But agreements have already been concluded on the rights of extradited persons (non-application of the death penalty to them) with Jordan, and negotiations are underway on the same with Tunisia, Algeria, and Egypt.
At the center of the government's plan is also the introduction of a points system that will allow identifying those who are useful to the British economy, and the wholesale fingerprinting of foreigners with visas. This step should put an end to the practice where visa holders destroy their documents. After all, such people cannot be expelled from the country because it is unclear exactly where to expel them. Another measure is aimed at combating so-called chain migration, when a foreigner who receives a residence permit brings in a bunch of relatives. Here is what Home Secretary Clarke said: "We think it is fully justified that a person coming here to work brings with him his wife or husband and his children. But the rest, in my opinion, is no longer necessary..."
It is also planned to introduce restrictions on the right to obtain permanent residence. In particular, foreigners who have lived in Britain on a work visa for four years will no longer be able to automatically obtain permanent residence, as was previously the case. Residency will be granted only to qualified workers who are able to support themselves financially. In addition, at the initiative of the opposition Conservative Party, discussion has begun on the possibility of introducing immigration quotas – an annual limit on immigrants, including refugees.
In France, after the November riots, parliament approved a government plan to tighten immigration policy. It is proposed to increase the minimum period for obtaining citizenship by foreigners who have married French citizens, as well as complicate family reunification rules and, conversely, facilitate the deportation procedure. In addition, it is proposed to conduct a more thorough selection of foreign students coming to study in France.
In Germany, new rules have recently come into force, according to which anyone wishing to become a German citizen must not only pass a language exam, but also sign a so-called loyalty declaration requiring respect for the foundations of the German constitution and adherence to democratic values. And to make sure that the future German citizen really holds democratic views, during several months before he receives citizenship, employees of the citizenship service regularly talk with applicants and inquire about their behavior with the police.
Moreover, recently the interior ministries of the federal states of Baden-Württemberg and Hesse proposed introducing a special questionnaire containing about fifty questions. Those wishing to obtain a temporary or permanent residence permit are asked to honestly answer what they think about gender equality, forced marriages, polygamy, blood revenge, the Zionist conspiracy and the Holocaust, the publication of cartoons on religious topics, and so on. Officials intend to analyze the answers for compliance with democratic standards. Moreover, potential immigrants are invited to take the oral and written test at home – at German consulates. True, it is not a fact that the proposal of the Interior Ministry of Baden-Württemberg and Hesse will be accepted – it has already provoked fierce controversy in Germany.
Be that as it may, there are things that cannot be ignored: according to polls, 66% of Germans believe that the country suffers from an influx of foreigners. Almost a third of Germans admitted that they feel like foreigners in their own country. And this is quite understandable, because a significant part of immigrants, primarily from Muslim countries, not only cannot but also do not want to integrate, preferring to live in closed communities, not recognizing local laws, language, culture and way of life. And they not only do not recognize them, but impose their own rules on the host countries.
So, a story in one Austrian school made a lot of noise: fathers of two students (a Jordanian and a Chechen) demanded that all female school employees, including the director, appear at work only in headscarves, that Muslim students be allowed to address the teacher with the informal “you” (since a woman deserves nothing more), and that Muslim teenagers be exempted from singing lessons, which are “prostitution.” The fathers’ complaint was left unsatisfied, but both Austrians and Germans took this signal very seriously. Aliens dictate the rules of life to us – that was the leitmotif of most comments. And now, in response, initiatives are appearing locally: at the Herbert Hoover school in Berlin, where 90% of students are immigrants, a decision was made to forbid schoolchildren from speaking to each other in languages other than German, even during breaks.
To finish with Germany, it should be noted that in 2005 the rules for admitting the so-called “limited immigration contingent,” that is, Jews from the former USSR, were significantly tightened. In a year or a year and a half, this immigration program is planned to be completely closed. Back in the mid-90s, the requirements, primarily linguistic, for the admission of “late settlers” – foreign ethnic Germans – were strengthened, and the annual quota was reduced from 225,000 to 150,000 (true, by the mid-90s this quota was already “not filled”). The admission of “late settlers” will end in 2025.
Tightening of immigration policy also took place in the Scandinavian countries, which until recently were distinguished by an extremely liberal approach to immigrants. By the way, the proposal of the Interior Ministries of Baden-Württemberg and Hesse to introduce a system of loyalty tests is based on the example of Denmark, where such a system already operates. The Danish government, back in the spring of 2002, tightened previously existing rules, in particular those concerning the reunification of spouses or applicants for political asylum. Immigrants and refugees living on benefits lost the right to invite relatives to come live with them permanently, regardless of their age. Applicants for political asylum can now obtain a permanent residence permit only after 7 years of legal residence in Denmark (previously 3 years). Moreover, those who do not have permanent resident status cannot count on any social benefits, including unemployment benefits.
After the “cartoon scandal,” in the center of which Denmark found itself, voices for further tightening of immigration rules became even louder there. The former minister for refugees, citizenship and integration, Bertel Haarder, spoke out more sharply than others: “Foreigners are a burden on our society. We spend more on them than they bring us. We must put an end to this.” While in 2001 more than 6,000 people received refugee status, in 2005 only 1,500 foreigners did.
In Sweden, too, refugee admission rules have been tightened, in particular, the rules for deporting illegal immigrants have been simplified, above all those who lack documents. The Dutch Minister for Foreigners, Rita Verdonk, proposed in mid-January mandatory testing of those wishing to settle in the country for knowledge of the Dutch language. In the minister's opinion, the testing should be carried out by consulate staff while the future immigrant is still in their homeland. Here she sees as an ideal model the decision of the Rotterdam magistrate, where last year residents were officially recommended to communicate in public places – at school, at work, in shops, with neighbours – only in Dutch. All Dutch people should follow the example of Rotterdam residents, the minister said, and even demanded that Dutch be declared the only language permissible in the public sphere.
Salutary "Selection"
One can, of course, assume that all these severe measures are aimed primarily against people from the Islamic world, and that Russian-speaking immigrants, who are much closer to Western Europeans in civilizational terms, will be little affected. But, firstly, no European legislation will ever specify that a particular norm applies only to persons of a certain religious or national affiliation. Consequently, all restrictive measures apply equally to everyone. But the main thing is not even that, but the very general vector toward curbing immigration, which is objectively aimed at not making distinctions between one immigrant and another.
Under these conditions, even the Schengen zone, which seemingly facilitated movement across Europe, is becoming a serious obstacle on the path of already established migration routes. This is especially evident as it expands eastward.
Take, for example, emigration to the Czech Republic, which has been popular in the countries of the former Soviet Union since the early 1990s. Having capital of about €8,000 plus €750 to €1,950 for a mere six-month immigration procedure makes emigration to that country quite affordable. Moreover, the Czech Republic's entry into Schengen in 2007 also allows free movement to almost all EU countries. But here is where the problem arises: the Czech Republic's Western partners demand that it unconditionally tighten its immigration procedure. And so in February of last year, the Czech Interior Ministry announced the need to stop "emigration tourism," and then a law was passed on new rules for granting political asylum. One must assume that a correction of immigration programs is also not far off. Consequently, within a year or two, leaving for the Czech Republic will be no easier than for Germany itself.
In essence, a barrier is once again being erected in the path of our compatriots' migrations. This, firstly, interrupts our close migration ties with Eastern European countries. Secondly, and more dangerously, it gives rise to widespread doubts about the sincerity of Western countries that once condemned Soviet order. Thirdly, it contributes to the growth of retrograde sentiments about a "special path" and the like. Thus, the need for quick decisions aimed at expanding opportunities for citizens to leave for Western countries – both temporarily and for permanent residence – is absolutely clear, if only so that our country does not again become a big and unpleasant problem for the West itself.
Unfortunately, progress in increasing the intensity of individual ties between Russians and the Western world is still extremely insignificant. The recent initialling of the framework agreement on readmission between Russia and the EU somewhat improves the situation and makes it possible, in the opinion of the most optimistic experts, to introduce a visa-free regime for Russians in about 2008. But the distance from possibility to reality is not always short. Meanwhile, the EU is discussing the possibility of raising the cost of visas for non-residents of the European Union from €35 to €60.
Moreover, the West should by no means view easier entry as a favour only for Russian speakers. Speaking without the notorious political correctness, our migrants and immigrants are needed by the West itself. It cannot stop immigration anyway, since it cannot do without it, primarily for demographic reasons – an ageing population, low birth rates, and the resulting catastrophic shortage of labour to service the economy and maintain the level of well-being. Therefore, the only way out (along with combating illegal immigration) is the "selection" of the immigration contingent, that is, selecting its most "high-quality" and non-dangerous part, meaning the part that is civilizationally close. And, accordingly, cutting off the most low-quality, non-integrable and therefore dangerous part.
I think it is clear who can be classified among the latter and who among the former. Our compatriots certainly belong to the first category by all parameters; moreover, with their fairly high "qualities" (education, qualifications, civilizational proximity), they are also ready to settle for low incomes by Western standards.
And some signs of movement in this direction already exist. For example, Australia, where there is a clear oversupply of students from China and Southeast Asia, is showing an interest in attracting more students from the countries of the former Union. In Germany and Denmark, measures related to the planned introduction of the green card system could attract our qualified specialists to those countries.
In general, mutually beneficial prospects are opening up, as they say. The main thing is not to miss them, if the West really wants to remain the West.