Be Vestnik Kavkaza
The law on “rubber” flats, which is being discussed by the State Duma, has provoked lively discussions in Russian society.
Commenting on the topic for Vestnik Kavkaza, the former deputy director of the Federal Migration Service of Russia, president of the “Migration XXI century” fund Vyacheslav Postavnin, said that the law is aimed at restricting the arrival in Moscow of residents of the North Caucasus republics. “It contradicts the Constitution, laws, and common sense. They are our citizens. What if a resident of the North Caucasus republic is a Russian? Shouldn’t we let him in as well? This is nonsense. What to do with the republics - Stavropol, Krasnodar, Rostov? How can we limit the flows? No, I think it is totally wrong. It would be wrong, even if such a goal is set. And secondly, I do not see that this goal has been set,” the expert emphasized.
According to him, there is an outflow of the Russian-speaking population from the Caucasus. But it is not associated with certain elections. “There is no difference between one clan or another – a Russian is unlikely to be head of a republic. It's quite obvious. Therefore, from my point of view, it will not stop the process of Russian migration. And there are already two mono-ethnic republics. It's not good. This question is not about elections, it's about the functioning of public authorities. Who permitted such a situation? We cannot protect the Russian-speaking population in the republics of the North Caucasus.”
Criticizing the law on “rubber” flats, Postavnin said: “The head of FMS said that he personally knows that there are 6452 flats, and their addresses are known as well. The question is: why do we need the law on fighting against “rubber” flats, if these flats are well-known? We have a lot of other laws which enable us to fight against them. If they are not registered, it is illegal business activity. If people who live there have fake documents, it is using false documents. These are crimes. We stirred up the whole country because of 6400 flats. However, it is clear that without support of the Interior Ministry and the FMS there would be no “rubber” flats. No illegal migrant can escape a local police officer’s attention.”
“Residence permits were abolished in 1993; the RF law stated that registration would be notifying,” Sergey Skotnikov, member of the Presidential Council on development of civil society institutes and human rights, reminds. “In fact it was quasi-notifying because registration of Russia’s citizen requires documents on possessing accommodation, on the right to use it, and so on. One cannot simply write to FMS: “Please register me, I will live there.” He has to present documents, according to the housing law.
The bill initiated by the president throws us back 20 years. They are trying to return what we have tried to abolish. For instance, such articles of the law as the notion of a “home address” will be connected with registration at a certain address. In the Civic Code and the law On Freedom of Movement, “home address” was defined as a place where a person permanently or mainly lives. Now they made an amendment – “… and is registered at the home address.” What if a person cannot be registered for some reason? People won’t disappear, they will live wherever they want. But now we have repressions against people. What for? What are the constitutional goals? It is not clear.”
“For me the bill takes second place in harmfulness after the Dima Yakovlev Law,” Lidia Grafova, human rights and social activist, says. “It is as vicious for society. A powerful anti-migration process is taking place. It is harmful, unprofessional and very dangerous for Russia’s future. Nazism is being grown by means of migration, hatred toward migrants. A wretched impracticable law is being promoted. As if the authorities are caring about native Russians, but the law is aimed against Russians, first of all. Foreign migration may stop because people can choose where to go, and the ill nature of Russia will soon scare away these people. But internal migration is very strong in Russia. The law requires fantastic fees. Who could initiate 200-500 thousand fees? It will ruin a person’s life. MPs earn 200 thousand and they think it’s not enough.
Corruption will be infinite, because some addresses will be sold. But the most disgusting thing for society is that there will be denouncements. However, there is a hope that people have woken up. The second reading had to take place on March 15th, but it didn’t.”
Lyudmila Zhirova, member of the Presidential Council on development of civil society institutes and human rights, told Vestnik Kavkaza that “the amendments to the law forming a new version of the law on freedom of movement contain the concept of "fictitious registration." The word "fictitious" is used for registration, which is not done in the place where the person lives but in some other place. The term "fictitious" refers to actions that are made using forged documents - say, someone else's passport, for example, forged documents on arrival, etc. In this case, if the person does not live at the place of his registration, it does not mean that it is fictitious. It is produced by its documents, the officer has checked everything, including the documents. We are not saying that he must necessarily reside in this place. But, as for foreigners, it is important for them to indicate their location. He can register himself and his family in one place and live with his friends, for example - sometimes there, sometimes elsewhere. The main thing is that we should be in touch with him. This connection can be carried out either by phone or e-mail.
The term is simply not suitable for this law, because it does not meet the bottom line of what is written there. People are trying to refer to an apartment as a place of residence, although an apartment is only a home address in the residence, and the place of residence is Russia, region and city. And the address of the place of residence may change during the year, depending on the conditions of the contract. Not everyone has their own place of residence and family living close by, but for some reason they need to specify a different address. It is better to specify the apartment where he lives. It becomes fictitious only when he is not registered in the place where he resides. I find this absurd.”
