Research of the Rights of Migrants in Bulgaria from a Human Rights Perspective

Migrants' Rights Report

1

RESEARCH OF THE RIGHTS OF MIGRANTS IN BULGARIA FROM A HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE

FINAL REPORT

Bulgarian Helsinki Committee Report November 2006

Migrants' Rights Report

This report is published with the financial support of the Open Society Institute.

2

Migrants' Rights Report

3

LIST OF ACRONYMS

BBSS BHC CEE CIS CSKA ECRI EU FRBA FYROM GP ID ILO IMIR IOM NGO NSI OSI SAR UEFA UK UN UNHCR USD USSR

Balkan British Social Surveys (Gallup-Bulgaria) Bulgarian Helsinki Committee Central and Eastern Europe Commonwealth of Independent States Central Sports Club of the Army European Commission against Racism and Intolerance European Union Foreigners in the Republic of Bulgaria Act Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia General Practitioner Identity Document International Labour Organization International Centre for Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations International Organization for Migration Non-governmental Organization National Statistical Institute Open Society Institute State Agency for Refugees Union of European Football Associations United Kingdom United Nations United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees United States Dollar Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Migrants' Rights Report

4

INTRODUCTION 1. Conceptual framework In recent years, the global scale of international migration flows has pushed migration issues high up the political agendas of governments worldwide. From the highly controversial US immigration reform, which led to massive protests and large scale debate over the criminalization of illegal aliens, forms of regularization and naturalization, and a proposed wall along the 2 000 mile border with Mexico, to the French riots of October 2005, which led to a two-month state of emergency and heated polemics on the discrimination and integration of immigrants, migration issues have occupied centre stage in political and election debates across the political spectrum around the globe. The double bind between the economic necessity for liberalization of immigration control regimes, and the political pressure for imposing migration restrictions, contributes to the dynamic character of legislation and public policies.

Immigration has become a point of intersection for various public discourses related to trafficking, counter-terrorism and organized crime, which have had a significant impact on government policies and practices. These often conflicting concerns have produced what can be viewed as two rivalling approaches to migration management. The first one can loosely be termed the ‘law enforcement’ approach to migration, which often ties it to highly debated and controversial issues, such as irregular migration, transnational crime and counter-terrorism. The desire to curb these phenomena has resulted in dubious measures often infringing on human rights and constituting covert discrimination in the migratory process. The second, much less repressive approach is associated with the view of immigration as a human rights issue. Consequently, it attempts to adopt measures that seek to prevent violations of migrants’ rights by enhancing protection measures and mechanisms.

In the new 2005 report on trafficking in South Eastern Europe, Barbara Limanowska argues that due to its inherently ‘repressive’ rather than ‘empowering’ approach, the ‘migration control’ agenda imposed by destination countries has so far yielded limited results and could actually attenuate what it seeks to alleviate by having the adverse effect of increasing, rather than serving to diminish the trafficking and smuggling of migrants (2005: 22-23). Many human rights organizations have good reasons to express fears that governments have ‘hijacked’ the issue by using the populist formula of

Migrants' Rights Report

5

combating organized crime in order to justify and pursue ever more stringent migration restrictions (Anderson & Davidson 2004: 14-15). Legitimate as states’ concerns about the threat posed to national security by the proliferation of transnational organized crime may be, it is difficult to dismiss the fears of populist instrumentalization of migration issues. We need to look no further than the Referendums on the EU Constitution in France (29 May 2005) and the Netherlands (1 June 2005) to see that immigration issues tend to dominate political debates and policy pledges and have an enormous potential to attract or deflect votes.

According to a UK Home Office study, for instance, migrants contributed ₤2.5 billion more in taxes than they claimed in benefits in 1999-2000, and it is estimated that the UK will need approximately 1.2 million migrants in the next few years to replace workforce entering retirement (cited in Kaye 2003:13). As Kaye emphasizes, however, while research data points to the contribution that migrant workers make to the economy and the fact that most developed countries have an ageing population that will soon lead to labour shortages and greater tax burden, governments in destination countries have been reluctant to acknowledge the demand for migrant labour but have instead sought political advantage from the often ‘xenophobic reactions to the issue of migration’ by proposing even tighter immigration controls (2003: 13). Kaye makes it abundantly clear that unless restrictive immigration policies give way to more open ones that recognize the domestic demand for migrant labour and seek to manage and facilitate it, many migrants who are forced to look for work abroad ‘as a means of survival, rather than an opportunity to improve their standard of living’, will be left with no other choice but to recourse to smugglers and traffickers to get access to these jobs (2003: 3).

Border control and migration management issues have also become central to the process of European integration and candidate countries have found themselves under increasing pressure to step up their law enforcement efforts, as they become outside border of the European Union. While one of the positive outcomes of this process has been the increased focus on migration and asylum issues and the adoption of anti-trafficking and asylum legislation with the view of harmonizing border controls and visa policy within the Schengen area, a rather negative one has been the placing of migration within a predominantly law enforcement and border control framework, which has given significant, not to say disproportionate power to the law enforcement authorities in a region plagued by rampant corruption.

However, due to already existing disparities in the bargaining position between origin and

Migrants' Rights Report

6

destination countries, the ‘law enforcement’ approach could lead to further power imbalances between the two categories of countries, since ‘receiving’ countries could put disproportionate pressure on ‘sending’ ones and impose on countries of origin unilateral and asymmetrical restrictions on the movement of people, while failing to meet their own obligations in addressing protection issues within their own borders. The International Labour Organization (ILO) warns of this tendency in its recent report on forced labour and concludes that the forced labour exploitation of irregular migrants in destination countries calls for an urgent and radical rethinking of migration management policies (2005: 84). The lack of administrative control in countries of origin and the dominant philosophy of self-regulation in many destination countries, which also informs the neoliberal policies and practices of many multilateral and bilateral aid agencies in transition countries, could prove highly detrimental to the protection of the rights of migrant workers. There are disturbing disparities between the philosophy of non-interference in the ‘free’ market, frequently employed to justify poorly regulated labour market relations, and the less than laissez-faire policies on immigration. Unfortunately, as Barbara Limanowska concludes, so far, the dominant migration management approaches have been largely ‘repressive’ and protective of state interests, such as prevention of migration and trans-border crime, rather than ‘empowering’ ones seeking to enhance the protection of human rights. There is growing awareness, however, that while the protection of state security might often be a legitimate concern, it can run counter to the protection of migrants (Limanowska 2005: 2).

Clearly, governments so far have interpreted their migration management responsibilities too narrowly and almost exclusively within their repressive law enforcement capacities. There is an expressed need for a change of direction that acknowledges states’ potential to step in poorly regulated areas of the economy that have proved to be breeding grounds for the exploitation of migrants in order to protect the rights of migrant workers. So far many states on the receiving end of migration have failed to meet their responsibilities on that front and have thus been complicit with the perpetuation of the vicious cycle. This is most flagrantly obvious in the fact that the most comprehensive international instrument addressing the rights of migrant workers, the 1990 United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, has to date been ratified only by sending countries. No major receiving country is Party to the Convention, which suggests that even migrants who have accessed these labour markets through regular channels are potentially exposed to serious human rights violations (Kaye 2003:17, 20).

What is more, according to Ann Jordan, many governments have adopted a ‘two-tiered’ approach to human rights within which only citizens are constructed as having rights, even though international

Migrants' Rights Report

7

human rights legislation ‘does not predicate the majority of human rights upon citizenship’ (2002: 30).

2. About the project 2.1. Major objectives These and many other issues prompted the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (BHC) to examine the existing legal framework and migration policies in Bulgaria, in order to find out if there is a similar infraction of balance between the state’s law enforcement and border control concerns and every individual’s right to freedom of movement and residence proclaimed in Art. 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We firmly believe that every successful migration policy depends on striking a balance between protection of national sovereignty and security and the right of migrants to leave their country of origin and settle elsewhere. Furthermore, an adequate and comprehensive migrant protection framework is a main prerequisite for protecting national security and public order and the two concerns should be viewed as complementary rather than antagonistic ones. This study is based on the recognition of migration as a major human rights issue and while the most effective and long-term migration management approach is likely to be a combination of both the law-enforcement and the rights-based model, the latter holds a much greater potential of being more empowering and less repressive for migrants and their families.

The migrants' rights research project also sought to alleviate the dearth of data and publications on migration issues in Bulgaria in the strong conviction that dispelling erroneous and widely held assumptions about immigrants in Bulgaria, is the key to dismantling racial and ethnic prejudices.

This in turn, is likely to be instrumental in strengthening migrant protection in the country and fostering the establishment of a social and political environment that promotes a policy of informed consent in developing and implementing public policies on migration.

2.2. Scope and definitions The migrants' rights research project started in October 2005 and continued through October 2006 with the financial support of the Open Society Institute Internship Initiative. It was conducted by an OSI intern researcher based at the BHC head office in Sofia. The main objective of the project was to assess the degree of compliance of Bulgarian legislation and institutional practices, as experienced by the major stakeholders in the migration process, with international human rights standards and instruments.

Migrants' Rights Report

8

For the purposes of this study, the term 'migrant' was used to refer to a variety of situations: immigrants with a long-term (permanent or continuous) residence in the country, foreigners with a refugee, humanitarian status or temporary protection, and Bulgarian citizens by naturalization of immigrant background. Even though groups of migrants with different status in the country were also included in the quantitative survey, such as short-term residents, they were used solely for comparative purposes and were excluded from the main target group. The major reason for focusing on this particular target group lies in the fact that this has been the migrant group that has remained relatively stable throughout the years and is expected to increase with the forthcoming accession of Bulgaria into the European Union.

2.3. Methodology ď ľ

Quantitative survey

The sociological survey adopted both a qualitative as well as quantitative research methodology.

The quantitative survey was conducted in cooperation with BBSS Gallup among 385 immigrants from various migrant communities in Bulgaria. The primary research tool of the survey was a standardized questionnaire following closely the protection framework outlined by the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

ď ľ

Qualitative survey and target groups

Along with the quantitative survey conducted by Gallup International-Bulgaria, the intern researcher carried out in-depth non-standardized interviews with community leaders and representatives of migrant communities in Bulgaria, including migrant organizations, such as the Council of Refugee Women, Kurdish Information Centre, the Palestinian, Afghan and Ethiopian Associations in Bulgaria, the Arab-Bulgarian bilingual magazine Maraya, as well as the migrant service project coordinators at the BHC Refugee Office, Bulgarian Red Cross, Association for Integration of Refugees and Migrants and Caritas-Bulgaria.1 Interviews were also conducted with a group of foreign prisoners at the only detention facility for foreign nationals in the country - the Sofia Central Prison. In addition, the project researcher monitored several hearings of cases filed by inmates at the Sofia Prison before the Antidiscrimination Commission, as well as refugee and migrant cases before the domestic courts. A database was compiled of all migrant cases heard by the European Court of Human Rights in 1

We would like to thank the organizations and individuals who participated in our survey in one way or another for their cooperation and support.

Migrants' Rights Report

9

Strasburg between 1999 and 2005.

The research methodology combined both qualitative and quantitative research methods in order to achieve a greater degree of precision and representativity across various ethnic, social and age groups. The less standardized interview methodology of the qualitative survey took into account the sensitivity of the subject matter and fostered the establishment of a relationship of trust and a more balanced power dynamic between researcher and respondents. Furthermore, the qualitative research methodology was much more empowering for migrants, as it encouraged them to view themselves as subjects rather than objects of study; it tried to avoid stifling their voices with predetermined research agendas, but sought to make migrants’ voices heard. This approach also helped to make the identification of various issues previously absent from the original research agenda considerably easier.



Gender perspective

The study adopted a gender-lensed approach to migration, in recognition of the need to do away with seemingly gender-neutral models of migration, which implicitly employ models based on male immigrant experiences. We would like to align ourselves with this change of focus in our discussion of migration as a human rights issue in which gender analysis is of paramount importance.

According to the 2004 UN ‘World survey on the role of women in development’, for the fist time in human history have so many women been on the move as today. Estimates show that presently women represent about half of the world’s international migrants, which suggests that we are at a historical juncture when it is no longer possible to study globalization and international migration without taking into account the experiences and contribution of half of the world’s migrant population. As the UN report emphasizes, the incorporation of a gender perspective in international migration theory is long overdue. This change of focus begins with the principle that gender is a core organizing principle of social relations, including hierarchical relations, in all societies. It views the migration of women and men as influenced by beliefs and expectations about appropriate behaviours for women and men and between women and men, which are reinforced in economic, political and social institutions.

A gender perspective acknowledges the influence of gender inequalities that exist in both origin and destination countries and illustrates how those inequalities can empower women towards change but can also handicap them in the migratory process. (2004: 7)

Migrants' Rights Report

10

GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE MIGRANT SITUATION IN BULGARIA 3. LEGAL FRAMEWORK regulating the stay and economic activity of foreign nationals in the Republic of Bulgaria 3.1. Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria 3.2. Primary Legislation −

Foreigners in the Republic of Bulgaria Act

−

Asylum and Refugees Act

−

Civil Registration Act

−

Bulgarian Identity Documents Act

−

Bulgarian Citizenship Act

−

Employment Promotion Act

−

Protection from Discrimination Act

−

Combating Trafficking in Human Beings Act 3.3. Secondary Legislation

−

Regulations for Implementation of the Foreigners Act

−

Regulation on the Terms and Procedures for Issuance of Visas

−

Regulation on the Terms and Procedures for Issuance, Refusal and Revocation of Foreigners’ Work Permits

−

Regulation on the Terms and Procedures for Issuance of Self-employment Permits to Foreigners in the Republic of Bulgaria

−

Regulation on the Terms and Procedures for Issuance of Non-profit Activity Permits to Foreigners in the Republic of Bulgaria

−

Regulation on the Enrolment of Foreigners at Bulgarian Municipal and State Schools

−

Regulation on the Temporary Accommodation of Foreigners in Special Homes for Accommodation of Foreign Nationals 3.1. Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria

As the supreme legal act in the country that no other law shall contravene, the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria is the key measuring rod against which to assess the protection of the rights of immigrants. Article 19 (3) provides for equal protection of the investments and economic activity of Bulgarian and foreign nationals and corporate entities. The Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria

Migrants' Rights Report

11

guarantees the equal treatment of foreigners with respect to all rights and obligations proceeding from it, except those predicated on Bulgarian citizenship by the Constitution or another law (Art. 26.2). One of these restrictions applies to the ownership of land, except through legal inheritance, by a foreign physical person or legal entity. Foreigners may not acquire ownership over land, but they are free to acquire user, building and other real rights (Art.22.1,2). This provision has been recently amended to take into account the forthcoming Bulgarian accession into the European Union and will come into effect with the entry of the EU Accession Treaty into force.

Foreigners residing legally in the country are protected from (arbitrary) expulsion or extradition to another state against their will, except in accordance with the provisions and procedures established by law (Art.27.1). Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Art. 27 also ensure that foreigners persecuted for their opinions or activity in the defence of internationally recognized rights and freedoms shall be granted asylum in accordance with terms and procedures established by law. The Constitution further provides for the free movement of people in the country, their choice of residence on its territory, and protects the right of individuals to leave it (Art. 35.1).

3.2.1. Foreigners in the Republic of Bulgaria Act The primary legal instrument regulating the status of foreigners in the Republic of Bulgaria is the Foreigners Act. The competent authorities for administrative control of foreigners in the Republic of Bulgaria are the Interior Ministry Migration Directorate and its regional Migration Units. The Bulgarian Foreigners Act defines foreigners as persons who are not Bulgarian citizens or nationals of any other state (stateless persons) (Art. 2.1, 2). According to their term of residence on the territory of the country, the Foreigners Act distinguishes between three categories of foreign nationals: foreigners passing in transit (24-hour leave to remain), residing for a short-term or longterm residents.

Upon entry into the country’s territory, foreigners are required to fill in a registration form stating the purpose of their visit and the address at which they will be staying (Art. 18). Natural or legal persons who have provided accommodation to a foreign national must inform the local police authorities within 5 days of his/her arrival. Hotels and similar establishments are obligated to maintain a register of visitors and present it to the local police authorities on a daily basis (Art. 28.3, 4).

ď ľ

short-term residents

Migrants' Rights Report

12

Short-term residents are granted leave to remain in the country for a period of up to 90 days. They shall be in possession of a valid type “C” visa or be nationals of a country with which Bulgaria has signed a bilateral agreement for visa-free entry. The term of residence may be extended exclusively on humanitarian grounds.  long-term residents: continuous and permanent residence Foreigners who wish to reside in Bulgaria for a period exceeding three months shall be in possession of a valid type “D” visa. Type “D” visas grant their holders leave to remain in the country for up to 90 days and could be obtained only from the Bulgarian consulates abroad. More importantly, however, only this type of visa allows foreigners to apply for a long-term residence permit in the country. In other words, foreigners in possession of visa type “C” or another kind of short-term permit do not have the right to apply for long-term residence. Foreigners who already have valid long-term residence permits may enter and leave the territory of the country without a visa (Art. 35.2,3).

Long-term residence is of two types: continuous (for up to 1 year) and permanent (for an indefinite period of stay). The term of residence may be extended for up to 1 year on legal grounds pursuant to Art. 24 of the Foreigners Act: possession of a valid work permit; permit for conducting selfemployment or non-profit activity; registration under the Commercial Act; enrolment in an educational institution; marriage to a Bulgarian citizen or a permanently residing foreigner; family relationship with a continuously residing foreigner, etc.

In order to lawfully carry out commercial activity on the territory of the country, foreign nationals are required to open at least 10 job positions for Bulgarian citizens (Art. 24.1.2).

Residence permit extension is refused on grounds other than the ones on which entry into the territory of the country was granted, except in a case of emergency or marriage to a Bulgarian citizen (Art. 27.1). Extension of long-term residence permits is also refused or such are being revoked when it has been established that the foreign national has not resided in the country for a period of at least six months plus one day during the previous calendar year (Art. 26.1, 2). The maximum extension period is for up to 6 months before the expiration date of the foreign national's passport or travel document. Since 2003, pursuant to Art. 54 (1), the Ministry of the Interior maintains a unified register of foreigners with long-term residence permits.

Migrants' Rights Report

13

Permanent residence is granted to foreign nationals who have lawfully resided in the country without interruption for the past 5 years; have contracted a marriage to a Bulgarian citizen or a permanently residing foreigner at least 2 years prior to application for permanent residence; are under-age children or minors of a Bulgarian citizen or permanently residing foreigner; have made a foreign investment in the country exceeding USD 500 000, etc. Permanently residing foreigners enjoy all the rights and obligations of Bulgarian citizens, except for those reserved for Bulgarian nationals by the Constitution or another law. Permanent residents may acquire Bulgarian citizenship by naturalization no less than 5 years after obtaining a permanent residence permit. Alternatively, Bulgarian citizenship may be acquired by persons who have been residing permanently on the territory of the country for more than 3 years and have been married to a Bulgarian citizen for at least 3 years; or in cases in which the applicant has been granted permanent residence before becoming of age.

3.2.2. The Asylum and Refugees Act ď ľ

refugee status

The Asylum and Refugees Act distinguishes between 3 categories of foreign nationals with respect to their legal status in the country: refugees, persons who have been granted humanitarian status and persons under temporary protection. The competent authority in charged of the implementation of the state’s asylum and refugee policy and the granting of refugee, humanitarian status and temporary protection to foreigners seeking asylum is the State Agency for Refugees. Pursuant to the Asylum and Refugees Act, refugee status shall be recognized to foreigners who owing to a wellfounded fear of persecution on the grounds of their race, religion, nationality, political beliefs, or belonging to a particular social group are unwilling to return to the country of their nationality (or origin) and avail themselves of its protection. The same applies to the spouses or under-age and minor children of foreigners with a refugee status. Refugees have equal rights and obligations with Bulgarian citizens, except for those predicated on Bulgarian citizenship. Persons who have been granted asylum or refugee status may apply for Bulgarian citizenship no less than 3 years after they have acquired such status. ď ľ humanitarian status Humanitarian status is granted to persons who have been compelled to leave or are unable to return to their country of origin owing to circumstances endangering their life, liberty or security of person due to an armed conflict. Such status is also granted to persons who are at risk of being subjected to torture, or other forms of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in their home country. The

Migrants' Rights Report

14

term of humanitarian protection is temporary and is terminated when the initial circumstances that prompted its granting no longer apply. Persons with humanitarian status enjoy all the rights granted to recognized refugees in the country, except for the right to family reunification.

ď ľ

temporary protection

Temporary protection is granted for a definite period of time in the event of mass entry of foreigners who have been compelled to leave and unable to return to their country of origin on account of an armed conflict, civil war, foreign invasion, human rights violations or outbursts of violence on a large scale.

3.2.3. Bulgarian Citizenship Act ď ľ

Bulgarian citizens by naturalization

Pursuant to the Bulgarian Citizenship Act, a Bulgarian citizen is a person who has at least one parent who is a Bulgarian national, as well as every person born on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria who has not acquired another nationality by virtue of his/her descent. Bulgaria is party to bilateral agreements for avoidance of dual citizenship. Foreign nationals may become Bulgarian citizens through naturalization proceedings. The competent authority responsible for conducting naturalization proceedings is the Bulgarian Citizenship Directorate and the Citizenship Council with the Ministry of Justice. Bulgarian citizenship by naturalization is granted by a formal decree issued by the President of the Republic of Bulgaria.

4. GENERAL MIGRATION TRENDS AND STATISTICS ď Ž

dearth of migration data

As previous researchers have noted, there is no reliable, official and systematically collected data on the number of foreign nationals in Bulgaria and the data available in the public domain through various unofficial channels is scarce and controversial. There is a general confusion over the classification of migrants into different categories, which leads to difficulty in disaggregating data and faulty calculations. The most recent and authoritative publications on migration issues in Bulgaria, published by the International Organization for Migration (2003) and the International Centre for Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations (2005) do not follow the categorization by resident status employed by the Foreigners Act, which differentiates between short-term and longterm residents (further divided into continuously and permanently residing), but seem to follow their own classification into temporary, long-term and permanent residents, causing a puzzling terminological conundrum. This in turn leads to widely diverging estimates of the number of

Migrants' Rights Report

15

immigrants in Bulgaria, which range from 60 000 to 108 000. There are also wide margins for the number of irregular migrants in the country: 30 000 to 50 000. According to unofficial data from the Ministry of the Interior cited in the IOM Migration Trends series, in 2002 the number of continuously and permanently residing foreigners in Bulgaria was 60 028 (IOM 2003:30, 93, Jelyazkova et al 2005:21).

In contrast to the lack of reliable data on the number of short and long-term resident immigrants in Bulgaria, there are more or less systematic statistics on the number of asylum seekers and persons who have been granted refugee and humanitarian status in the country, due to the centralised system of data processing and collection at a single government body – the State Refugee Agency. From January 1993 to October 2006, refugee status was recognized to 1 412 asylum seekers, while 3 485 asylum applicants were granted humanitarian status. The number of status terminations, on the other hand, was 357, slightly lower than the number of extensions (381). Thus, the refugees and persons with humanitarian status in the country as of 30 September 2006 are approximately 4 540 (SAR 2006).

There is also comprehensive and systematically collected official data on the number of citizenship applications and persons who have acquired Bulgarian citizenship by naturalization available through the Bulgarian Citizenship Directorate at the Ministry of Justice and the President’s Office.

24 949 persons have acquired Bulgarian citizenship between February 2002 and November 2006, only 2.3 % of whom did not claim Bulgarian descent. Most naturalized citizens had claimed Bulgarian descent and come from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (10 198), Moldova (8 594), Russia (1 339), the Ukraine (1 054) and Serbia and Montenegro (969) (President 2006).

ď Ž

permanently residing foreigners by district

The most reliable and uncontested figures on the number of permanently residing foreigners in the country by the end of 2004 were published by the National Statistical Institute (NSI). The source of statistical data, which is based on the number of permanent residence permits issued to foreign nationals between 1991 and 2004, is the Ministry of the Interior. Data shows that the foreigners with permanent residence status as of 31 December 2004 were 50 756, 3 200 of whom were granted status in 2004. Most permanently residing foreigners in the country are concentrated in big cities and urban areas, as they offer a more cosmopolitan atmosphere and much greater opportunities to find employment or start a business. The capital Sofia and Plovdiv, the second largest city in the country, host the largest immigrant communities in the country, 33.6 % and 8.8 % of permanently

Migrants' Rights Report

16

residing foreigners live in these cities and districts. Other urban centres with sizeable migrant population are the port cities and districts of Varna (8 %) and Burgas (4.9 %), followed by the towns and districts of Stara Zagora, Pleven, Blagoevgrad, Pazardzhik, Russe, Veliko Tarnovo and Shumen (NSI 2005: 307). It is important to note that apart from the employment and business opportunities, all the cities that tend to attract immigrants also offer very good educational opportunities.



permanently residing foreigners by nationality

The NSI publication also offers disaggregated data on the number of permanently residing foreigners by nationality. Its approach, however, is inherently problematic, as it presents a mixture of geographical and political classifications. This, once again, is a source of confusion, as Russia, the Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova, for instance, fall into the category of “other European countries” and Armenia is subsumed under the heading “Asia”, while there is a separate category labelled “CIS countries”, which is the political designation for all above-mentioned states, plus other former Soviet Republics in Central Asia (NSI 2005:308, 9).

Europeans (mostly from non-EU countries) represent 69.8 % of permanently residing immigrants in the country, followed by Asians (13.9 %), nationals of South and North American countries (1.2 %) and Africa (1 %). Most permanently residing foreigners as of December 2004 were from the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (61.6 %), primarily the Russian Federation.

The majority of permanently residing EU nationals are citizens of the 10 new member states.

Immigrants from neighbouring countries represent 9.5 % of all permanent residents; stateless persons are approximately 3 % of the permanently residing immigrant population (primarily Palestinians and Kurds). Clearly, the predominance of permanently residing foreigners from the former Eastern bloc and the USSR can be put down to the long-standing 'East-East' migration pattern inherited from the former communist regimes.  indications of changing migration trends The data on the number of permanent residence permits issued in 2004 alone can offer an interesting comparison with the previously discussed statistics covering the permits issued from 1991 to 2004. Though a tentative one, this could be a helpful indicator to gauge changes in migration trends. This juxtaposition seems to indicate that in 2004 there was considerable reduction in the number of foreigners from CIS countries who wished to settle in Bulgaria (only 33.9 %), compared to 61.6 % in previous periods. The tendency is also reversed between new and old EU

Migrants' Rights Report

17

member states, with a declining number of nationals of EU member states from the CEE region who wished to establish themselves in Bulgaria and a rising number of ‘old Europe’ citizens wishing to reside permanently in the country. This being said, however, it is important to point out that EU nationals represented only 8 % of foreigners who were granted permanent residence in 2004.

Even though Bulgaria still remains primarily a transit country, there are clear indications that the country is becoming more attractive as a final destination for immigrants. There is growing interest from nationals of neighbouring states towards settling in Bulgaria. 28.9 % of the permits issued in 2004 were granted to citizens of Greece, Turkey, Romania, FYROM, and Serbia and Montenegro, compared to only 9.5 % between 1991 and 2004. Most striking is the sharp increase in the number of permanently residing immigrants from Turkey, from 3.7 % between 1991-2004 to 25 % in 2004.

A similar upward trend in the number of migrants from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is evident in the number of Macedonian nationals applying for Bulgarian citizenship.

The interest of Turkish and Macedonian immigrants in settling in Bulgaria is most likely due to the perceived opportunities arising from the pending Bulgarian accession to the European Union. The growing interest of migrants from China and Armenia could be similarly accounted for. Conversely, while, the number of immigrants from the African continent (mainly Nigeria and North African countries) applying for permanent residence is falling down and so is the number of Latin American immigrants, the percentage of North Americans wishing to establish themselves in Bulgaria is going up (NSI 2005: 308, 9). Since 1990, there has been a steady rise in the number of naturalization applications, with a more than 20-fold increase between 1990 and 2005. The peak was reached in 2004 with the unprecedented number of 29 493 applications throughout the year; since then, however, there has been a slight but perceptible decrease (President 2006).

While the country is gradually becoming more attractive to economic immigrants, it is becoming less so to persons seeking asylum. This has been a steady trend worldwide, as the number of asylum applications in the industrialized countries fell to its lowest levels in nearly 20 years (BBC News 2006). Throughout 2006, the number of asylum seekers in Bulgaria continued to fall and stood at 445 as of 30 September 2006. Over the course of 2005, asylum applications were filed on behalf of 822 individuals from 38 countries - a 27 % decrease in comparison to the 1 127 people from 42 countries who applied in 2004, and a decline of 47 % in comparison with 2003. The top 10 countries of origin of asylum applicants between 1993 and October 2006 were Afghanistan, Iraq, Armenia, Serbia and Montenegro, Iran, stateless, Nigeria, Algeria, Turkey and Bangladesh (SAR

Migrants' Rights Report

18

2006).

The main reason for this decrease is the increased government control of the country's borders over both legal and illegal immigration, in line with the process of Bulgarian EU integration. Little progress has been made, however, for accelerating the processing of asylum applications at the country's main points of entry by establishing regional offices of the State Refugee Agency. Thus, at present, access to the country's territory and the observance of the principle of non-refoulement2 is not yet fully guaranteed (BHC 2005: 27).

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS Helpful as this statistical data may be, it is highly insufficient to draw a portrait that does justice to the diversity of immigrant communities and migrant's experiences in the country. This provoked us to draw a detailed questionnaire for our quantitative survey, in order to develop a migrant profile that would serve to dispel erroneous, wholesale assumptions about migrants and migration, which are often based on prejudices, as well as covertly xenophobic attitudes and public discourses. As Anna Krusteva, one of the leading Bulgarian researchers of migration, puts it: The academic community has the civil responsibility to ensure that research and analysis forestall political slogans, so that we manage to get to know and understand immigrants before they get instrumentalized for selfish political interests (Krusteva 2005:17). 3

5. MIGRANT PROFILE 

Gender and age structure

The gender ratio within migrant communities in Bulgaria is in favour of male migrants, who represent 62 % of all immigrants in the country. 93.4 % are of working age (most of whom are between the ages of 26 and 45). The gender and age structure of the general population, on the other hand, is almost reversed, with 62.4 % of the population of working age and women representing 51.5 % of the total population (NSI 2005). The gender and age structure of immigrant communities 2 A core principle of refugee law that prohibits states from returning refugees to countries in which their life or freedom may be threatened. It is generally considered part of customary international law and is therefore binding on all states, regardless of their status as parties to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

3 “Гражданското предизвикателство пред научната общност е теоретичните анализи да изпреварят политическите лозунги, да се опитаме да опознаем и разберем имигрантите, преди да позволим да бъдат употребени за егоистични политически интереси”. Translation mine.

Migrants' Rights Report

19

in Bulgaria does not diverge significantly from global migration trends in which the prototypical migrant worker is young and male. The gender disparity is most pronounced among Arab, African, Turkish, Kurdish, Afghani, Iranian and Vietnamese immigrants, which is most likely due to prevailing social and cultural norms in the countries of origin, where female immigration is viewed as appropriate only in the company of male family members. Surprisingly, however, more recent migration flows, like migration from EU member states follow a similar male-dominated pattern, notable examples are migrants from Greece and the UK. The gender ratio among Chinese, Armenian and Macedonian immigrants is more balanced, while the ratio is even reversed for migrants from Russia (women represent 80 % of Russian immigrants in Bulgaria), other CIS and CEE countries. This specifically female migration pattern is largely due to intermarriages between the 1960s and '90s, when there was intensive educational and labour exchange between Bulgaria and the USSR. While there is a tentative tendency toward gender parity among permanent residents and Bulgarian citizens by naturalization, there is a significant disparity in favour of men among short-term and continuously residing foreigners.

ď ľ

Civil status

Most immigrants (61.8 %) seemingly chose to migrate on their own, while 38.2 % were accompanied by another family member or a close friend: spouse/partner (21.6 %), child/ren (13.8 %), parent/s (6 %), friend/s (6 %), etc. The majority of migrants in Bulgaria are married or in factual cohabitation with a partner (63.4 %). There is a considerable percentage of intermarriage with Bulgarians (57.4 %), which is higher among women (61.1 %) and slightly lower among men (55 %). The average immigrant family has one (42.7 %) or two children (41.8 %), 46.8 % of whom are Bulgarian citizens.

ď ľ

Educational attainment and language skills

The average immigrant in Bulgaria is very well-educated: most migrants (54 %) have completed secondary education; 37.1 % hold a university degree (Bachelor's or Master's), 2.1 % hold a higher academic degree, and the same percentage of migrants have only primary education. This level of educational attainment, which is higher than the level among the general population, is largely due to the fact that a significant proportion of established immigrants first came to Bulgaria as university students. Bulgarian citizens by naturalization demonstrate even higher level of educational attainment compared to immigrant groups with resident status: 33.9 % hold a university degree and 3.2 % a higher academic degree. Around half of all migrants (51.4 %) had no knowledge of Bulgarian when they first arrived in the country, 30.9 % of them, on the other hand, did not speak

Migrants' Rights Report

20

English at all.

ď ľ

Term of stay and legal status

Most immigrants in Bulgaria have resided in the country for more than 10 years (36.4 %), while a similar percentage (34.8 %) have been residents between 5 and 10 years. Likewise, the majority of migrants in the country are permanent (42.1 %) or continuous residents (31.2 %); short-term residents and Bulgarian citizens by naturalization of immigrant background represent similar proportion of the overall immigrant population in the country (approximately 8 %), while refugees, persons under temporary protection and those with humanitarian status are less than 3 % of all migrants in the country. It is quite likely that at least some portion of the 4.2 % of respondents who refused to identify or were uncertain about their legal status in the country are irregular migrants.

ď ľ

Previous migration history and motivation

A considerable proportion of migrants (77.1 %) had no migration experience prior to their arrival in Bulgaria. 60.8 % of all immigrants consider themselves established in the country and express their intention to remain so, while the remainder are still undecided or planning to settle elsewhere. The established status of the majority of the immigrant population and the fact that the dominant reason for settling in Bulgaria for a considerable portion of them has been employment (33.5 %) (closely followed by the second and third major motives - education (25.7 %) and marriage (21.6 %)) points to the conclusion that immigration to Bulgaria is a classic example of economic migration.

Interestingly, however, there is a peculiar diversity among the different status groups as to the factor that had most decisive influence on their decision to settle in Bulgaria. Short-term residents and Bulgarian citizens by naturalization motivate their choice with educational opportunities in the country; for continuously residing immigrants the leading motive was employment, while permanent residents were drawn to Bulgaria through marriage and family reunification. It is hardly surprising that refugees, persons with humanitarian status and under temporary protection chose to settle in Bulgaria because of fear of persecution and other forms of violence in their home countries.

It is important to note, however, that there are gender differences in the 'pull' factors that prompt male and female migrants to leave their countries of origin and settle in Bulgaria. The dominant factor for the majority of male migrants has been employment (44.2 %), whereas most women were motivated by marriage or family reunion (37.9 %). This difference in motivation patterns is significant because it indicates that women often arrive in the host country as 'dependants', which tends to have an adverse effect on their bargaining position within the family. In more conservative

Migrants' Rights Report

21

communities, like certain sections of the Arab community/ies, for instance, men immigrate on their own and are subsequently joined by their spouses. Thus, women find themselves in an unfamiliar and culturally alien environment to which they need to adjust with very limited (not to say) nonexistent Bulgarian language skills. Since a great number of them are housewives, they have limited social contacts, almost exclusively within their own community, which offer few opportunities for language practice. Consequently, some women from close-knit migrant communities tend to become heavily dependent on male members of the family for their very subsistence and every information from the 'outside' (non-domestic) world gets filtered through their husbands. In this way, the men effectively become gatekeepers of the community and every researcher wishing to get access to its female members needs to get male authorization first. While very supportive in some respects, this practice could pose a number of problems in abusive family situations, leaving women with virtually no-one to turn to for assistance or advice, in an alien social setting of which they know very little about and which, for that very reason, could often feel intimidating.

ď ľ

Employment levels

Contrary to populist manipulations about employment levels among the migrant population and unemployment benefits claimed by migrants in many destination countries, it is noteworthy that the employment level of migrants in Bulgaria (73.8 %) is considerably higher than the national average.

Employment figures are consistently high across migrant groups and are most prominently so among permanent residents (83.3 %) and naturalized immigrants (83.9 %). 63.5 % of refugees, persons with humanitarian status and temporary protection are employed as well. Only 3.2 % and 9.5 % of Bulgarian citizens by naturalization, and refugees and persons who have been granted asylum have never applied for employment or worked on the territory of the country. The figure for permanent residents is comparable and gravitates around 10 %. It is also indicative that 68 % of our respondents’ spouses are employed as well, which goes to show that most immigrant families have two breadwinners. The high employment levels among immigrants in the country, compared to that of the general population, is most likely due to their age structure and level of education and qualifications.

ď ľ

Labour contracts

The majority of working migrants have permanent or temporary labour contracts with their employers (52.5 %). Evidently, much more women than men, 66 % compared to 45.5 %, seek to formalize and secure their employment with a contract, probably in view of legitimate concerns about maternity or other social security benefits. Thus, men are much more likely to work in the

Migrants' Rights Report

22

informal economy than women.

The second largest group on the employment market, after the group of migrants working for other employers on a labour contract are the group of self-employed persons (23.6 %, mostly represented by male migrants). This goes to disprove the common assumption that immigrants take up job positions that would otherwise be filled by the local population. On the other hand, the high proportion of self-employed persons among the immigrant population may be an indirect indicator of labour market discrimination and limited access to actual job positions on a competitive basis, which compel migrants to choose other, less restrictive alternatives.

Furthermore, a disturbing proportion of immigrants (22.2 %) are uncertain about the contractual relationship with their employer or clearly work without any formal contract. The most vulnerable migrant groups in this respect appear to be short-term (23.5 %) and continuously residing foreigners (19 %), most likely on account of unavailability of work permits, as well as those who tend to be most vulnerable to various forms of exploitation – refugees, persons with humanitarian status and under protection (16.7 %).



Discrimination on the labour market

6.2 % of working migrants report discrimination on the basis of perceived race or skin colour in their access to the labour market. The majority of respondents who allege that they have been discriminated against when their job application was rejected or they were given only menial work, are predominantly Chinese, African, Arab, Iranian, Afghani and Armenian men. Women seem to be much less likely to face discrimination on the grounds of race or skin colour. The reported level of discrimination based on ethnicity and nationality is slightly higher than the one on racial grounds – 10.2 %. The gender and ethnic picture here is much more diverse: this time women appear to be more sensitive to such forms of discrimination and so are Chinese, Vietnamese, African, Russian, Ukrainian, Afghani, Iraqi and Iranian immigrants. The forms of discrimination in this category are more varied as well: from rejecting applicants on the grounds of ethnicity and nationality, to giving them only menial work, paying them less than Bulgarians for the same type and amount of work or constraining their promotion.



Correspondence between job position and education and qualifications

Though 63 % of respondents believe that the job they are doing corresponds to their education and qualification, 30.5 % of men and 48.7 % of migrant women are not satisfied with their jobs because

Migrants' Rights Report

23

they view them as less qualified than they deserve for their level of education and qualifications.

These figures are likely to be partly due to the problems encountered by 19.1 % of our respondents in getting their education and qualifications from foreign educational institutions recognized.

Nevertheless, the figures indicate that women more often than men, feel under the compulsion to accept low qualified job positions. Likewise, a greater proportion of women consider their rate of remuneration inadequate to their education and qualifications (23.6 %).



Working hours and paid leave

Due to the fact that a significant percentage of migrants in Bulgaria are small entrepreneurs, they clearly tend to work overtime on a regular basis. 25.7 % work more than 8 hours a day and 16.4 % (mostly men) work 7 days a week without taking even weekends off. Moreover, 11.2 % are not allowed or do not take paid annual leave and 28 % do not even know they are entitled to it.



Social security

A considerable percentage of migrants do not have social security (31.7 %) or are unaware if they have or they do not (6.8 %). This figure, however, is percentage of the total immigrant population and includes the 26.2 % who are not employed on the labour market, some of whom are students, as well as migrants employed in the informal economy. Employers cover the social security contributions of 30.6 % of migrants, most of them women; self-employed persons are responsible for paying their own social security contributions (29.4 %).



Standard of living

The majority of our respondents find their standard of living and level of remuneration comparable to the national average (41.8 %). While 29.3 % of migrants consider their salary higher or more than two times higher than the average, 14.8 % think that their standard of living and level of pay are lower or much lower than the country average. Disaggregation of data by gender, however, demonstrates a palpable misbalance between the level of pay of women and men. Only 17.2 % of migrant women, compared to 36.1 % of men, consider their rate of pay higher or 'much higher' than the average. On the other hand, whereas 25.4 % of women find their standard of living lower or a great deal lower than the national average, only 8.8 % of men think of theirs in similar terms. There is gender parity only among the group of respondents who consider their standard of living close to the average.

This finding seems to confirm Anna Krusteva’s observation that there are no poverty-stricken

Migrants' Rights Report

24

immigrants in Bulgaria (refugees are not included in the target group of her study), and while there are very few immigrants employed by Bulgarians, there are quite a few Bulgarians employed by immigrants. It is more accurate to say that they create, rather than occupy job positions (Krusteva 2005:16).



Health insurance and medical care

The situation with healthcare insurance is almost identical with the one discussed under the subheading ‘social insurance’ and rather similar to the one faced by a number of Bulgarians.

Approximately 23 % have no health insurance, whereas 66.4 % either cover their health insurance contributions as self-employed persons individually or are insured by their employers. 70.3 % of women and 60.4 % of men are registered with a General Practitioner (GP), yet quite a few immigrants prefer to use the services of a physician from their own community and, like many Bulgarians, pay additionally for medical services, although they have healthcare insurance and are registered with a GP. The figures show that once again men are more likely to choose this alternative and unofficial route than women (68.8 %).



Housing

Even though, the majority of immigrants in Bulgaria do not own the property in which they live permanently, quite a few of them do – 36.4 %. 58.9 % rent their accommodation and one would be hard pressed to find an immigrant in the country who has not fallen prey to landlords/ladies eager for quick and easy gain. Despite stringent legislative provisions, double-pricing has proved virtually intractable. Furthermore, although refugees in Bulgaria have the legal right to apply for council housing, in actual fact it is highly unlikely that with the extremely reduced capacity of council house estates they would ever be treated on equal footing with the Bulgarian citizens on the milelong waiting lists.



Discrimination in daily life and institutional practices

Immigrants reporting discrimination in daily activities and dealings with institutions describe their experiences in the following way: being treated with disregard and disrespect, verbally abused with xenophobic and racial slurs or suspected of terrorism. 7 % allege to have been subjected to discrimination based on race and skin colour and more than 12 % claim that they were treated in discriminatory way on account of their ethnicity or/and nationality, including immigrants from Russia, Ukraine, Macedonia, Moldova, Germany, Greece, China, African and Arab countries, Armenia, Turkey, India, Iran, Afghanistan, as well as ethnic Kurds.

Migrants' Rights Report



25

Familiarity with immigration legislation

Most immigrants in Bulgaria claim a good familiarity with immigration legislation pertaining to their residence status in the country: 28.1 % are familiar with the key legal acts, 11.9 % have familiarized themselves with most provisions and 5.5 % assert that they know Bulgarian immigrant legislation very well. Nevertheless, some 38.2 % frankly admit that they are fairly unfamiliar with it. Interestingly, this general legal competence seems to be highest among refugees, persons with humanitarian status and temporary protection, and lowest among continuously residing foreigners.

According to practitioners from the NGO sector on the ground, this is probably best explained by the fact that the UNHCR has lobbied extensively for the adoption of a comprehensive refugee and asylum protection framework and funded numerous initiatives to popularize it. The institutional and legal framework on asylum and refugees is much more straightforward than the one dealing with the status of economic immigrants in the country. There is no single, independent institution developing and implementing a consistent and systematic immigration policy, which creates a climate of uncertainty and confusion that is baffling not only for immigrants but also for experts and officials.



First port of call in emergencies

In the event of problems relating to their lawful rights in the country, immigrants tend to rely heavily on their social networks, comprised of family members, friends, acquaintances, co-workers and compatriots, rather than on the institutions and authorities of either their host country or their country of origin. For 21.8 % of our respondents, members of their social network are the first port of call, only 9.5 % would turn to the government institutions and authorities if faced with a problem concerning their legal rights, further 5.8 % would look for a lawyer or legal adviser, 5.7 % would contact the embassy of their home country in Bulgaria and only 1.4 % would seek assistance from an international organization or a domestic NGO. This goes to demonstrate that immigrants still place very little trust in government institutions and their willingness and capacity to protect human rights, and are ready to go out of their way to find an alternative and less bureaucratic solution.



Major problem areas

Last but not least comes immigrants’ own evaluation of the main problems encountered by foreigners in Bulgaria due to their specific non-citizen status in the country. As similar surveys

Migrants' Rights Report

26

among Bulgarians have shown, however, there is nothing peculiar to foreigners on 3 from all four counts listed by immigrants as highly problematic – limited knowledge of Bulgarian legislation (and its loopholes) 53.2 %, rampant corruption (24.9 %) and the offensive behaviour of the law enforcement authorities (5.2 %). Surprisingly, 65.5 % of our respondents have identified only one problem that truly applies only to foreigners, namely the lack of Bulgarian language skills.

PRIMARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6. Absence of consistent migration management policy The major problem that looms large in the field of migration in Bulgaria is the expressed lack of a well-formulated and consistently implemented migration management policy in the country. The issue still occupies a marginal position in public debates despite the fact that the country is in a critical demographic situation with a negative population growth (the lowest among all EU member states and candidate countries) and net migration rate. Politicians clearly not only fail to pay heed to the entreaties of demographers but also to the ones voiced by employers associations, who insist on changes to help alleviate the chronic shortage of qualified employees for key sectors of the Bulgarian economy. The growing interest from economic immigrants is poorly channelled and facilitated in order to be of mutual benefit to both migrants and the sectors of the Bulgarian economy where they might be needed most. This evident mismatch between labour force supply and demand recently prompted the chair of the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce to advocate for amendments to the Employment Promotion Act lifting the 10-percent restriction on the number of foreign nationals employed by a single employer for certain sectors of the economy.

Unfortunately, however, there is no political consensus on the need to manage and facilitate migration. The changes to the Bulgarian legal framework so far have been prompted solely by the EU accession process and although legislative harmonization has undoubtedly been a positive development, it cannot and should not be hailed as a substitute for a national migration management policy tailored to the specific economic and social context in which such legislation is to be implemented. This apparent policy gap has lead to the unproductive casting of migration into a predominantly law-enforcement framework, which seeks to prevent and restrict migration flows into the country, rather than to manage and facilitate them to its advantage.

There is much more to migration than the administrative control of borders and of foreigners within

Migrants' Rights Report

27

these borders. Migration has linkages with various policy areas – social, economic, political, trade, labour, public health and security ones, to name but a few. This goes to say that a successful migration management policy should adopt a holistic approach to migration, which takes into account all cross-cutting issues and areas. As the latest Caritas-Europa report emphasizes, however, unlike nationals who by virtue of their voting rights could put pressure on their political representatives, immigrants have hardly any influence on the process of decision-making, even on issues that directly concern them (2006:85). This is another obvious explanation why the development of an immigration policy has been low on political agendas, as people who have no electoral rights are no priority for politicians seeking (re)election. Thus, in the decision-making process it is essential that the interests and views of the major stakeholders in the migration process are no longer overlooked but are duly taken into account through consultations with their representative organizations in the country.

7. Systematic statistical data and rigorous research It is impossible, however, to make informed policy decisions without accurate, comprehensive and systematically collected statistics. In Bulgaria, such statistical data is not publicly available, especially as regards short- and long-term resident foreigners. The Ministry of the Interior Migration Directorate is in the position to provide official and consistent data on the number of short and long-term residents, persons who have been granted asylum in the Republic of Bulgaria, as well as Bulgarian citizens by naturalization, as it has been tasked with collecting and processing such data (FRBA, Art. 54.2) and maintaining a Unified Register of Foreigners. This data should be available to the National Statistical Institute and become part of its ongoing surveys of the population and demographic trends; it should be no less detailed than public data on the general population.

Authoritative migration research and statistics are vital to the formulation of a coherent state migration policy. Moreover, such data is essential in order to ensure that government bodies dealing with immigration receive adequate budgetary allocation to implement the policies and measures envisaged by it. Accurate research and statistical data could also serve to disprove popular misconceptions about immigrants and migration, preventing populist manipulations and political instrumentalization. Conversely, it could be used to generate an informed public debate on migration issues.

Independent research could also be encouraged through the popularization of migration issues and

Migrants' Rights Report

28

support for migration studies programmes at higher education institutions in the country.

8. Administrative Framework A variety of ministries and agencies in Bulgaria are engaged in one way or another with the migration management process: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issues visas, the Ministry of the Interior is responsible for the border and administrative control of foreigners by issuing identity documents, residence permits, as well as issuing and executing expulsion orders and managing administrative detention centres. The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, on the other hand, issues work permits and self-employment activity permits; the State Agency for Refugee recognizes refugee and grants humanitarian status in the country, the President of the Republic of Bulgaria grants asylum and together with the Ministry of Justice is responsible for naturalization proceedings, while the Ministry is also responsible for non-profit activity permits. It could probably be said that the bulk of responsibilities lie with the Interior Ministry, yet the Ministry could hardly be viewed as a body coordinating migration management efforts, not least because its main responsibilities are related to the enforcement of various administrative regimes, while neither it nor any other institution in the country seems to be responsible for the social integration of immigrants.

There are diverse approaches as regards the administrative migration management framework and the degrees of its centralization or decentralization, but Bulgarian institutional practice shows that the wide dispersal of responsibilities among various government bodies is a recipe for inefficiency, lack of transparency and accountability and ultimately for proliferation of corruption practices. As the International Organization for Migration cautions: If there is no clearly articulated migration policy, backed up by authoritative legislation, the management of migration becomes diffused among a multitude of different departments and agencies of government. In such circumstances, migration objectives are unlikely to be spelled out clearly, and there will be little coherence or coordination in the migration management process. The public will be poorly informed about migration issues and may lose confidence in their government’s competence to manage this important area of public policy (IOM 2006).

Clearly, in such an institutional context, a greater degree of centralization of government migration management efforts could prove much more beneficial than more decentralized approaches. The creation of a single, autonomous, multi-disciplinary body tasked with implementing and coordinating the state policy on migration, based on the existing model of the State Agency for

Migrants' Rights Report

29

Refugees, is likely to be one viable solution, which could help change the focus from administrative control to the crucial but largely neglected issue of immigrant integration into society at large. Such a government body would also have the institutional capacity to collate national statistics on migration collected by a variety of ministries and agencies, to produce its own migration research and lobby for legislative amendments and fine-tuning of the national migration management policy.

9. Social integration of immigrants 

national integration programmes

If migration management is poorly understood and implemented than a social integration policy for immigrants is simply non-existent. The only attempt at setting integration objectives is seen once again as regards the integration of vulnerable groups, i.e. refugees and persons with humanitarian status. The Integration Centre at the State Agency for Refugees provides Bulgarian language classes and vocational education, training and certification to recognized refugees in the country. In addition, in 2005 an inter-governmental working group drafted the first comprehensive National Programme for Refugee Integration covering the period 2005-2007. It envisages state support in refugees' access to the labour market, social services, housing, healthcare, Bulgarian language classes, vocational education and training, as well as assistance to refugee children from resource teachers in state schools.

While there is some, if still rudimentary, attempt at implementing a social integration policy for persons who have been granted asylum in the country, no such policy is yet in sight for economic immigrants. Despite this, most long-term immigrants are well-integrated into the Bulgarian society, as a significant number of them have come to Bulgaria as university students and/or have Bulgarian spouses. As one of our Arab respondents pointed out, social tension between ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ population of the type that recently assailed a few traditional ‘immigrant countries’ (most notably France) could never take place in Bulgaria. The main reason for this lies in the fact that Bulgaria does not have a history of colonial domination and there is little social stratification between immigrant communities and society at large. Besides, the power dynamic is more balanced, as a significant proportion of immigrants are in the position of employers rather than employees in the country.



migrant organizations

Migrant organizations so far have relied on support only from the UNHCR and non-governmental organizations, such as the Bulgarian Red Cross, Caritas, the Association for Integration of Refugees

Migrants' Rights Report

30

and Migrants and the Refugee Office of the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee. With such assistance for finding premises and official registration, for instance, were established the Council of Refugee Women, the Afghan Cultural Society and the Ethiopian Association in Bulgaria. Even though a number of migrant communities in the country have registered organizations, most of them have no official premises, and quite a few have been refused assistance in obtaining municipal ones. Most of them find it difficult to maintain offices due to the often exorbitant rents. This is detrimental not only to the migrant communities because it makes it difficult to ensure premises for various celebrations and cultural and educational activities, but it also makes migrant research an extremely laborious enterprise. It hampers access to community leaders and representatives, and researchers have to resort to their own personal networks or contacts of their organizations in order to get in touch with representatives of migrant organizations. This, in turn, invariably leads to getting access through 'gatekeepers', which on a number of occasions constrains access to less mainstream and more marginalized groups within the community.

It seems that it is still low on government priorities to ensure that migrants’ voices are heard and integration effectively perceived and enacted as a two-way process. In the long run, however, the absence of immigrant integration framework is likely to breed estrangement from societal affairs and discontent on the part of immigrants of their underprivileged position, as well as unwarranted hostility on the part of the majority population. This, in turn, could lead to marginalization and social exclusion and be highly detrimental to social cohesion. There is no legitimate reason, for instance, why migrant organizations should be excluded from participating in the National Council for Cooperation on Ethnic and Demographic Issues along with organizations of indigenous ethnic minorities and receive financial support for their cultural activities or publications like other minority organizations.

ď ľ

multicultural education

Another pressing problem arising from the absence of migrant integration policy in the country is related to the isolation and segregation that children of immigrant background or mixed marriages often face at Bulgarian state schools. Most teachers have not been trained in intercultural communication and teaching in multicultural settings and seem unable to cope when such needs arise. As already mentioned, the refugee integration programme envisages resource teacher support for refugee children in their adjustment to the different language of instruction and school curriculum. This provision, however, has to be extended to other groups of migrant children, in order to ensure their full integration and socialization into mainstream education.

Migrants' Rights Report

31

On account of problems providing multicultural education in Bulgaria, many parents choose to enrol their children at private schools, like the Iraqi, Lebanese, Palestinian, Syrian, Turkish College, etc. One of the major problems of private school education, however, is the fact that it often results in encapsulation within one’s own community and offers little quality interaction with children from other cultural backgrounds or ones belonging to the host culture. Another downside of community private schooling is the difficulty it subsequently poses for students who wish to continue their education at local universities.

Parents in mixed marriages, on the other hand, find it difficult to teach children their native language on a par with Bulgarian and prefer to enrol them at state schools where they could learn both languages, like school No 76, also known as the Armenian school, and high school No 18.

They choose these schools not only to avoid the often unaffordable tuition fees in the private school sector, but also because they want to encourage their children’s interaction with other Bulgarians and ease their integration into the Bulgarian society. A good practice that is worth replicating are the Arabic classes offered at the Armenian school, which started with 13 children several years ago, to reach 45 kids last year and 70 children this year. 4 This arrangement, however, is more of a product of good will and personal and community initiative than an integrational educational policy.

Diversity in Bulgarian schools should be further promoted by teacher training in multicultural education, as well as pluralist textbooks reflecting the differences between various communities in the country and encouraging children to bring to the classroom varying cultural experiences.

10. Racism, xenophobia and ethnic/racial profiling ď ľ

racially-motivated crime

Another problem arising from the lack of vision for the social inclusion of immigrants and diversity education and training is the number of incidents of racially-motivated violence and racial hostility in the country. Two recent cases in point were the UEFA fine imposed on the Bulgarian football club CSKA for the cannonade of racist insults hurled at the Liverpool striker Djibril Cisse during a match between the two teams in 2005, and the harrowing experiences of the British holidaymaker Aisha Bingham, who was subjected to racial and threatening abuse at a Bulgarian seaside resort in 2006.

While according to most of our respondents the number of such incidents has decreased over the 4 Information obtained from the Palestinian Association in Bulgaria.

Migrants' Rights Report

32

years, with its peak during the mid and late 1990's, it is still deeply disturbing that there is hardly any black immigrant who has not been subjected to physical or verbal abuse during his/her stay in Bulgaria. A survey among black immigrants conducted in 2004 by the BHC Refugees and Migrants Legal Protection Programme revealed that 75 % of those interviewed had been attacked by skinheads at least once and as many as 85 % of respondents claimed to have been the target of xenophobic statements and/or actions by the police (Makitou 2005: 9).

Unfortunately, the slight drop in the number of racially-motivated incidents in the past few years, is not due to a rising level of tolerance towards ethnic, racial and cultural diversity in the country or clear determination on the part of the law-enforcement authorities and the judiciary to address racially-motivated violence, but is mostly due to the cautious behaviour adopted by the majority of black immigrants as a result of prior incidents. During our non-standardized interviews, our black respondents reported that they rarely use the public transport and tend to avoid crowded public spaces, including areas popular as meeting places and stadiums, which considerably restricts their freedom of movement. Furthermore, the perpetrators of racist crimes are hardly ever brought to justice, which results in a feeling of insecurity and distrust in the will and capacity of the lawenforcement authorities to tackle such offences and meet the positive obligation of the state to guarantee the liberty and security of person to every individual within its jurisdiction.

As the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance emphasizes, even though the Bulgarian Criminal Code penalizes a number of acts inspired by racism and xenophobia, the implementation of these provisions remains rather unsatisfactory. In its third report on Bulgaria ECRI urges that racist motivation in common offences be explicitly constituted as an aggravating circumstance in the Bulgarian Penal Code. ECRI also reiterates its previous recommendation that the Bulgarian authorities give priority to the prosecution of offences of racist and xenophobic nature, compile accurate statistical data on the number of racially-motivated crimes and convictions, as well as train and build the capacity of law-enforcement officials and magistrates to tackle and bring to justice acts of racist violence and hatred (ECRI 2004).

ď ľ

racial/ethnic profiling

Another issue that needs special attention and illustrates the multifarious guises racial discrimination could assume is the disproportionate number of stops for identity checks of black immigrants conducted by police officers on the beat. The great majority of our black respondents report being stopped by police officers patrolling the city centre on more than a regular basis. What

Migrants' Rights Report

33

is particularly disturbing about stops and checks of this nature is the fact that they are rarely based on information from intelligence or suspicious behaviour, but are frequently motivated by prevailing racial or ethnic stereotypes and prejudices, could be a humiliating experience for persons subjected to them and be effectively turned into a lucrative corruption practice rather than an identity verification procedure. If they do not have their identity documents on them, foreigners often have to pay a bribe of 10 to 20 Euros or they risk being taken to the police station or detained in a so-called ‘home’ for temporary (or more likely permanent) accommodation (or strictly speaking detention) of foreigners.

While it is true that the Bulgarian Identity Documents Act authorizes the competent lawenforcement authorities to conduct ID checks at their discretion, Art. 4.3 of the Bulgarian Antidiscrimination Act forbids all forms of indirect discrimination or the treatment of individuals of particular race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, etc. less favourably than others through a seemingly neutral regulation, criteria, or practice. In order to stop enforcing the law in a biased and arbitrary way and be in compliance with the above-mentioned anti-discrimination provision, the lawenforcement authorities must register each ID check, as well as the perceived and self-determined ethnicity of the persons whose identity is thus being verified (Boev, Makitou 2005: 8,9).

11. Media coverage of migration issues Last but not least, we need to highlight the key role of the media in both reflecting and shaping public opinion on migration issues. A recent monitoring study of print and broadcast media conducted by the Centre for Independent Journalism and presented on 16 November 2006, the International Day fоr Tolerance, indicates that migration issues still occupy a marginal position in media coverage in Bulgaria – with prevalence of narrative news content (82 %) inspired by foreign media publications/broadcasts produced by predominantly uncredited authors (62 %) over analytical material, as well as focusing on local and regional concerns, rather than the global picture of migration flows and debates. The monitoring, which covered 16 print and electronic media outlets, was carried out between 17 April and 16 July 2006 and registered 556 items concerning migrants, 86.5 % of which covered economic immigration and 13.5 % asylum issues. Immigrants were most often covered in connection with politics (29 %) and crime (23 %), which demonstrates the considerable impoverishment of the migration debate and a tendency towards negative portrayal of the issue and the major stakeholders associated with it.5 5

Data presented at the official presentation of the major findings of the monitoring study entitled ‘Refugees and Media’ financially supported by the UNHCR. The presentation took place on 16 November 2006 at Mati Hall, Sofia.

Migrants' Rights Report

34

The rhetoric often deployed in media coverage is also indicative, rather frequently, migration is portrayed as a sort of natural calamity or even a military invasion; migrants are often compared to invading and besieging armies or sweeping waves. Headlines of the kind ‘The wild East of Europe is ready to go West’ or ‘Refugees assail us from January, 1 st’ sound like reports by war correspondents from the front line and could form a climate of opinion that perceives migration as a threat and be inadvertently complicit with political cooptation of migration issues by xenophobic nationalists.

While it might be true that migration is a double-edged sword or a two-(if not more) sided story, so far we have been presented only with what has been constructed as migration’s ‘other’ side. It is high time that the media and information campaigns treat us to the somewhat brighter side of migration that figures do not refrain from imparting. The untold story is perfectly summed up by the latest Caritas-Europa report on migration: [I]t should not be forgotten that immigrants make a significant contribution to the wealth of their country of origin by transferring remittances which are twice as high as official development aid, as well as contributing to economic prosperity in their receiving country. Contrary to commonly-held prejudices, the value of the monetary contribution made by immigrants to the social system in their receiving countries exceeds the costs of social benefits granted to immigrants. It is widely recognised that immigrants contribute to the diversity and level of innovation of the receiving societies through their entrepreneurship and the culture, skills and services that they bring with them from their countries of origin (2006:19).6

This migration story is yet to be told…

REFERENCES 6

Based on International Organization for Migration, World Migration 2005: Costs and Benefits of International Migration, IOM, Geneva, July 2005; IOM, ‘Too Many Myths and Not Enough Reality on Migration Issues, Says IOM’s World Migration Report 2005’, Press release, No 882 – 22 June 2005; IOM, World Migration 2005: Costs and Benefits of International Migration, op. cit., p. 188.

Migrants' Rights Report

35

Anderson, B. and J. O’Connell Davidson. (2004) Trafficking – A Demand Led Problem: Review of Evidence and Debates. Stockholm: Save the Children.

BBC NEWS. (2006). Special Reports. Asylum numbers continue to fall. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4814598.stm> [Accessed 17 March 2006].

Boev, B. (2005). ‘Identity Documents, Please’. In Obektiv: Digest in English, May – July 2005, 8-9. Sofia: BHC.<http://www.bghelsinki.org/index.php?module=resources&lg=bg&id=249> Bulgarian Helsinki Committee. (2006). BHC Annual Report for 2005. Sofia: BHC. Caritas Europa. (2006). Migration, A Journey Into Poverty? Brussels: Caritas.

European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. (2004). Third Report on Bulgaria.

Strasburg:ECRI. <http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/ecri/1%2Decri/2%2Dcountry%2Dby%2Dcountry_approach/ Bulgaria/Bulgaria_CBC_3.asp#TopOfPage> [Accessed 12 September 2006]>.

International Labour Organization. (2005). A Global Alliance against Forced Labour: Global Report under the Follow-up to the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

Geneva: ILO. <http://www.ilo.org/dyn/declaris/DECLARATIONWEB.DOWNLOAD_BLOB? Var_DocumentID=5059> [Accessed 30 May 2005].

International Organization for Migration. (2006). Developing an Administrative Framework. < http://www.iom.int/jahia/page353.html> [Accessed 20 October 2006] ___. (2003). Migration Trends in Selected EU Applicant Countries Vol. 1: Bulgaria. IOM. Jelyazkova, A., V. Grigorov and D. Dimitrova. (2005). 'Immigrants from the Middle East and Central Asia'. In Immigration in Bulgaria, ed. A. Krusteva, 19-73. Sofia: IMIR. (Желязкова. А., В. Григоров и Д. Димитрова. (2005). 'Имигрантите от Близкия и Средния Изток'. В Имиграцията в България, ред. А. Кръстева. София: ИМИР.)

Jordan, A. (2002). ‘Human Rights or Wrongs? The Struggle for a Rights-based Response to Trafficking in Human Beings’. In Gender, Trafficking and Slavery, ed. R. Masika, 28-37.

Oxford: Oxfam.

Kaye, M. (2003). The Migration-Trafficking Nexus: Combating Trafficking through the Protection of Migrants’ Human Rights. London: Anti-Slavery International.

Krusteva, A. (2005). 'The Bulgarian Immigration Phenomenon'. In Immigration in Bulgaria, ed. A. Krusteva, 19-73. Sofia: IMIR. (Кръстева, А. (2005). 'Българският имиграционен феномен'. В Имиграцията в България, ред. А. Кръстева. София: ИМИР.)

Limanowska, B. (2005). Trafficking in Human Beings in Southeastern Europe: 2004-Focus on Prevention. UNICEF, UNOHCHR, OSCE/ODIHR. <http://www.osce.org/publications/odihr/2005/04/13771_221_en.pdf> [Accessed 2 May 2005] Makitou, A. (2005). ‘Tariffs for Coloured People’. In Obektiv: Digest in English, May – July 2005, 9. Sofia: BHC. <.<http://www.bghelsinki.org/index.php?module=resources&lg=bg&id=249> National Statistical Institute. (2005). Population and Demographic Processes 2004. Sofia: NSI. ______.

(2006).

Population and Demographic Processes 2005. <http://www.nsi.bg/Population/Population.htm> [Accessed 10 October 2006].

President of the Republic of Bulgaria (Official Website). Bulgarian Citizenship. <http://www.president.bg/v_pravo_txt.php?mtype=8&type=110> [Accessed 12 November 2006].

State Agency for Refugees (Official Website).

Statistics and Reports. <http://aref.government.bg/?cat=21> [Accessed 10 October 2006].

UN. (2004). ‘World survey on the role of women in development: Report of the Secretary-General: Addendum: Women and international migration’. A/59/287Add.1. New York: UN, 30 September.

Migrants' Rights Report

36