FOM: Public Opinion Foundation (Russia) > Immigrants in Russia: Uninvited Guests

POF database > International > Former Soviet Republics

25.04.2002, Presnyakova L.

Immigrants in Russia: Uninvited Guests

L. Presynakova
Immigrants in Russia: Uninvited Guests

The last decade in Russia has marked an incredible growth in immigration. This process was especially painful for megalopolises and large cities whose residents feel the presence of strangers in the streets more strongly than others:

Question: In your estimate, are there many or few immigrants in your town or village - people who came and settled in your area over the past five or ten years?

	All respondents	Type of residency
	All respondents	Moscow	Megaplopolises (excluding Moscow)	large cities	small cities	villages
we have no immigrants	2	0	1	2	1	3
many	78	96	91	84	78	63
few	15	2	4	7	13	30

"Moderator: Let's talk about the people who were forced to leave their native place and found themselves in "our land," in Samara. Do you feel the presence of these strangers?

Taisia: Yes.

Galina: Sure.

Yelena: Yes (DFG, Samara).

Apart from this, the percentage of those believing that the number of newcomers in their regions is great has substantially grown, while the number of those holding an opposite point of view declined.

Question: In your estimate, are there many or few immigrants in your town or village - people who came and settled in your area over the past five or ten years?

	February 1999 (A 1999 poll asked the question in a slightly different wording: "In your estimation, are there many or few people in your town or village who came from other Russian areas or from abroad to seek work or a temporary residence permit?". See: Russia: emigrants, immigrants, refugees. In Soobschenia Fonda Obschetvennoe Mnenie, 1999. 27 (http://classic.fom.ru/week/t1027_4.htm). )	April 2002
we have no immigrants	50	78
many	25	15
few	11	2
hard to answer	14	6

The growing number of "alien" people in the streets is a frustrating factor for residents of megalopolises and large cities, who lived there all their lives or a greater part of it (according to a poll, these amount to 90% in megalopolises and 80% in large cities). Especially strongly it was felt at the focus group sessions held in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Novosibirsk, Voronezh and Samara, where the immigration issue was discussed very emotionally – the keynote of debates was the opinion that because of a growing number of newcomers the native residents feel themselves to be guests.

"It didn't use to be like this in Moscow. Fili was always a quiet neighborhood. Now you can hear everywhere "Gau, gau" – you can't live any more! Even in the metro, I don't hear Russian speech, as if I'm abroad, not home." (DFG, Moscow).

"They feel themselves masters of Voronezh. But who are they? They are guests." (DFG, Voronezh).

It is worth noting, that the mass attitude towards immigrants in megalopolises and large cities is considerably more negative than in the other residencies. While the number of those believing that newcomers negatively affect the situation in their towns or villages account for 43% average in Russia, in megalopolises and large towns this view is widespread.

Question: Do the immigrants in your town or village affect the situation there, or not? If they do, is their influence positive or negative?

	All respondents	Type of residency
	All respondents	Moscow	megalopolises (excluding Moscow)	large cities	small cities	villages
the immigrants don't affect the situation in our town (village)	31	5	11	23	28	53
positive	9	8	7	10	10	9
negative	43	75	67	51	43	22

As little as 9% say the immigrants have a positive influence. Nearly one-third of those surveyed (31%) suggest that the newcomers in no way affect the situation in their towns or villages. Yet urban residents are much less likely to agree with this point of view.

Most often, the immigrants' influence is negatively assessed in the Southern Federal District (52% vs 43% average in Russia). In the Far-East the "alien" influence is not felt at all (46% vs 31% for Russia), while in the Urals it is more likely to be appraised as positive (15% against 9% for Russia).

In the public mind, negative attitudes towards newcomers are closely tied up with nationalistic views. So, at the discussion focus groups, even without the moderator's prompt, talk about the "alien" and immigrants immediately boiled down to the ethnic issue.

Moderator: Okay. But who are the "aliens?"

Participant: I don't know, it means 'non-Russians.' Just non-Russians, that's all." (DFG, Samara).

The respondents named particular "newcomers"

Moderator: And now let's talk about the people who had to immigrate to our land from the areas they were born and lived for years. Do you feel presence of those people in our town?

Participant 1: You can see them at the market, the Chinese, the Caucasians. No Russians at all.

Participant 2: Gypsies hanging around the houses.

Participant 3: Yes, they are. Begging. And the Georgians.

Participant 4: The Armenians come to make money here..

Participant 5: It was like an invasion last year: the Tadjiks, or others, I don't remember how they are called... They fixed a camp near the town, women, children, men... The young ones look healthy, sitting on the cement steps, begging. Running after you and begging for money... Horrible!

Participant 6: Those of the Caucasian nationality are alien. We are Russia. We are the original inhabitants of Russia." (DFG, Novosibirsk).

A connection between the negative public stance on the newcomers and "alien" can also be found in the nationwide opinion survey findings. Those assessing the newcomers' influence as negative are more likely than average to hold nationalistic views.

	All respondents	The immigrants' influence
	All respondents	no influence	positive	negative
Question: Is it helpful or harmful for Russia to be a multi-ethnic state?
more helpful	41	49	62	34
more harmful	34	25	25	45
hard to answer	24	26	13	21
Question: And speaking of you personally, are there any ethnic groups you dislike?
yes	32	19	23	46
no	65	79	75	49
hard to answer	4	2	2	5

As we can see from the above table, 32% average explicitly voice nationalistic views. These are basically high-income groups (37%), Muscovites (39%) and residents of large cities (41%). Even more strongly ethnic intolerance manifests itself in the North-West (37%) and the Urals Federal Districts (37%). No dislike or irritation with other ethnic groups is found among those above 50 years old (70% vs. 65% average), villagers (73%), residents of the Volga Basin (73%) and the Far-Eastern districts (73%), and Zyuganov's sympathizers (70%).

Which ethnic groups are an object of ethnic intolerance in Russia? These are primarily the so-called "persons of Caucasian nationality" – residents of Transcaucasus (Azerbaidjanis, Armenians, Georgians, Abkhazes) and North Caucasus (Chechens, Dagestanis). These particular groups were named by the overwhelming majority of those who responded to the open-ended question about what ethnic groups arouse their irritation or dislike (84%, or 22% average in Russia). Member of other ethnic groups (Gypsies, Tadjiks, Kazakhs, members of the East Asiatic community) were mentioned less often.

The interviewees were also offered to rate the spread of nationalistic feelings in their regions. They were asked a question about whether there are any ethnic groups in their towns or villages causing irritation to a greater part of the local population. 40% confirmed the existence of such groups, primarily well off respondents (49%) and university graduates (46%). More likely than average in the sample the same situation is found in the North-Western (61%) and the Urals Federal (49%) districts.

According to the responses to the open-ended question about what kind of ethnic groups arouse dislike to most of Russia's population, the main targets of it are again the "Caucasians" – they were mentioned by 88% of those who answered this question (or 30% in the sample).

Nearly one half of those polled (48%) hold an opposite view – in the areas where they reside there are not ethnic groups causing irritation to a greater part of the population. This view is more likely to be held by low-income respondents (56%), residents of the Volga Basin (64%) and the Far East (71%) Federal districts.

A follow-up question asked the interviewees why the ethnic groups they listed caused dislike and irritation to a greater part of their neighbors. Remarkably, almost all of those interviewed see the cause for negative attitudes towards the immigrants in the immigrants themselves. Half of those who answered to this question (or 18% in the sample) say that the immigrants behave extremely provocatively.

"Provocative behavior, "defiant," "impudent," "arrogant," "pushy," "aggressive, unpredictable, behave like masters, vindictive." (open-ended question).

The same appraisals can be found in the findings of the group discussion sessions:

"They are more pushy, impudent, behave provocatively." (DFG, Moscow).

"They can demonstratively offend you in their language looking at your face." (DFG, Moscow).

"What makes us feel uncomfortable is that they feel bad about Russians. Sometimes very arrogant." (DFG, St. Petersburg).

One-quarter of those interviewed (or 9% in the sample) explained dislike for the members of these ethnic groups by their criminal behavior.

"They only steal and deceive," "thieves, moneychangers, rogues, they kill, rape, corrupt society, they don't give a shit to Russians," "quarrels, murders." (open-ended question).

"Smuggling drugs," "drug sale," "drug dealing." (open-ended question).

The same motives aroused in the course of group discussions:

"If you see a Gypsy, or a "black," be sure they are criminals." (DFG, St. Petersburg).

"Drug traffic goes through the Caucasians. Georgia, Armenia, Chechya, Turks, Tadkiks bring drugs here." (DFG, Voronezh).

Another 11% of those who answered the question (or 4% average) explained the dislike for some of the ethnic groups by their "economic" behavior:

"Markets are entirely occupied by the Caucasians, they own all shops," "they captured all markets in the town"; "bought up all markets, we work for them"; "they control all markets and trade." (open-ended question).

The "market" issue aroused heated debates at the DFG sessions:

"Who is trading at the markets? These are not vendors from the nearby towns and villages, they buy up everything from them." (DFG, Moscow).

"Caucasians. A sort of people not willing to work in their homeland, they just buy up everything from the old people in the countryside and sell it in the markets. They keep prices and don't let others sell cheaper." (DFG, Moscow).

"If some time ago we could encounter a Belarus or a Baltic seller, now there are exclusively persons of Caucasian ethnicity." (DFG, St. Petersburg).

Some part of those polled (8%, or 3% average) indicate that the members of those ethnic groups lead a wasteful life.

"Begging around the houses, don't want to work." (open-ended question).

Any other reasons for dislike of the "alien" ethnic groups are seldom encountered. So, 1% of those polled linked this kind of attitude to the Chechen conflict ("associate it with the military actions in Chechnya," "because our boys are dying fighting them"); another tended to explain such a stance by unpleasant appearance ("don't wash, dirty," "unpleasant appearance," "skin color"). As little as 2% explained the reasons for disfavor for the "alien" not only by some situational factors (such as behavior) but deeper, socio-cultural and religious distinctions ("other culture," "other mentality," "they live under the 'law of mountains,' we don't live this way," "they are of different faith, a different way of life.")

So, the interviewees who were asked to give the reasons why the majority of the population in their regions feel bad about the members of certain ethnic groups, blame the immigrants themselves for the negative attitudes they arouse among the majority of the population in those regions. The DFG participants, elaborating on the reasons for their personal dislike for the "alien," would put forward the same arguments as the participants of a nationwide poll. This gives us grounds to suggest that when asked about a general opinion in their regions about the "alien," the interviewees often project into responses to this question their own thoughts and emotions they are afraid to express explicitly. This means that the real level of nationalism can be several times higher than the recorded 34%, who make no bones about their dislike for certain ethnic groups.

It is worth noting, that in describing and explaining their negative sentiments towards the "alien" ethnic groups, most of those polled would refer to their own experience in dealing with the members of certain ethnic groups – at markets, in the streets, at work, or even in own houses.

"We come across them basically at markets, 80% of them are criminals." (DFG, St. Petersburg).

"There was an incident downtown. A few passengers get in a bus, I don't know what was their nationality, they refused to get off. The conductor couldn't drive them out. "We have no money. Walking? Do it for me!" (DFG, Novosibirsk).

"I feel it at my work. These blockheads are contracted for work – we, experienced workers, are not hired, but they are, they are paid much more than we, staff workers." (DFG, Novosibirsk).

"Just a few days back someone knocked on my door begging for money. A young chap. These blacks are different from ours, that's true." (DFG, Novosibirsk).

We can assert thus, that the images of "unpleasant" nationalities are formed based on every day experiences (which, as we have already noted, is not always positive), than on some ideological generalizations about the supremacy of one nation over another. We rather deal here with not so much "ideological" nationalism (that is more or less deliberate recognition of nationalistic views) as a conventional one.

Yet, conventional nationalism easily prompts in the public consciousness myths and phobias about other nationalities. It gradually transforms into "ideological" nationalism, which "explains" the negative behavior of individuals by the general cultural, religious and ethnic specifics of a particular nation.

"Life shows it's true. Take the Chechens, for instance, they can handle a submachine gun since childhood, and a Japanese, who can do much on a computer at a two-years' age – these are completely different people. Diametrically opposite poles." (DFG, Moscow).

"There are many reasons for this hatred. It can be religion – the Azeris are Muslims, the Armenians and Georgians are Christians." (DFG, Moscow).

Especially strongly "ideological nationalism" manifested itself in focus group sessions – the participants argued wether they would vote for a mayor if he were not a native Russian.

Moderator: If an Azeri or a member of other ethnicity balloted as the mayor of Moscow, would you vote for him?

First female participant: If he had just arrived, of course, not.

Second female participant: I would right away suspect him of mercantile interests.

Third female participant: If he's from the Caucasus, family ties are especially strong there, they would immediately push through their clan. I wouldn't.

Fourth female participant: He must obey the eldership. If he gets back to his native place, an elder can tell him: my nephew is in Moscow now, settle him, please. He can't disobey the elders. (DFG, Moscow).

Participant 1: Only Russian.

Second female participant: I would do, too. Because a man of a different nationality ... would feel the pressure of his entourage, his compatriots. (DFG, St. Petersburg).

We should again note that ideological nationalism is actualized in the public mind not spontaneously, by a mere mention of ethnic "aliens," but is prompted only after a long discussion on that issue. In this context, "conventional" nationalism distinguishes from the "ideological" one. In the instance of "ideological" nationalism, the image of "national enemy" becomes clear-cut and integral – furthermore, the "enemy" is ascribed an intentional hostile motivation. As for "conventional" nationalism, we have described above, the image of "unpleasant" ethnic groups is far less clear. It is very often difficult to determine a specific ethnic membership of the "alien" ("a person of the Caucasian nationality"), moreover, there is no need to do that.

Moderator: Could you tell an Azeri from an Armenian?

First participant: Аnd can they tell each other themselves?

Second female participant: No, I wouldn't, the ways of life are different.

Moderator: But who can you distinguish?

Third female participant: I can distinguish an Ukrainian from an Azeri. But when it comes to a market, it makes do difference who you're dealing with, an Azerbaijani or an Armenian.

Fourth female participant: By their behavior.

Fifth participant: What's the big deal! The Vietnamese, what's the big deal! The Chinese in the Far East – does it make any difference?" (DFG, Moscow).

These people are seen rather as "alien" than "enemies."

"They don't do as the Romans do. They behave completely different, improperly, that's the trouble. " (DFG, Moscow).

We should note that nationalistic views, including those stemming from "conventional" nationalism, are opposed by internationalist stands. A result of extensive Soviet propaganda of "the people's friendship," this position prevents nationalistic views from being publicly accepted and verbalized. The focus group participants indicate that national traits mustn't serve as a criterion for assigning a member of any ethnic group to the "alien" category.

"Black," "white" – I don't distinguish people according to that feature... What's most important for me is that a man should be a good man. I don't care if they're black or white, if I don't have to deal with them." (DFG, Samara).

Some respondents suggest behavior as the main criterion:

"We can divide them into two categories: those who came here to seek job and earn money, and those – gypsies, for instance – who are hanging around and begging." (DFG, Novosibirsk).

"Some of them are good hardworking people. What makes me feel anger is their criminal elements." (DFG, Moscow).

The interviewees also say that among the members of "alien" nations there can be decent and clever people.

"Armenian and Azerbadjani scientists, for example." (DFG, Moscow).

"I know many Tadjik and Uzbek builders – excellent workers." (DFG, Samara).

"I have friends, Caucasians. We have a very good relationship, I can't tell anything bad about them. But it's my opinion – they are university students, educated people." (DFG, Voronezh).

Remarkably, both conventional nationalism and internationalist views quite often peacefully co-exist in the minds of the same people.

A distinctive feature of conventional and ideological nationalism is their intolerance. Judging from the group discussions, the level of this intolerance towards the "alien" (particularly the Caucasians) among some people is extremely high. So, the DFG participants are even ready to approve of employing «strong arm methods» to "squeeze out" strangers, from deportation to skinhead actions.

"Those who hamper us here, must be expelled." (DFG, Voronezh).

"Honestly, I don't object to cleansing. I wouldn't say I support it, but I wouldn't mind." (DFG, Voronezh).

"Let the skinheads clear up the markets. There is no one but them to handle this..." (DFG, Moscow).

"There was order under Stalin. Cruel but..." (DFG, Novosibirsk).

Yet, in the respondents' reasoning on this topical issue, the word "law" is quite frequently encountered. In the opinion of discussion participants, the law should regulate ethnic relations.

"Laws must be passed preventing the violation of public order, obligatory for top officials and other citizens... If you come over to someone, you wouldn't put your legs on the table, would you? You can possibly do it at home to give your legs a rest. The same things must be here." (DFG, Moscow).

"When we have the law, then there will be no "alien," "ours," none. There is a law – you can enter. If there is no law – you can't" (DFG, Samara).

It is also worth noting that the public views on ethnically "alien" people include, apart from nationalistic and internationalist components, infra-group patterns of a more "universal" nature. Any social group needs to distance from the "alien" for purely identification purposes. In this sense, the image of the "alien" serves as a sort of mirror for self-perception. Interestingly, for the majority of the "natives," this comparison – by certain parameters – turned out not to be in their favor, which partly explains the reasons for frustration and negative sentiments towards the newcomers.

As the focus group findings demonstrate, the interviewees see the newcomers as being better adapted to local conditions than the natives – they "take a hold of our markets" "occupied all key positions," regretting at the same time that the local population stays away from it.

First female participant: I only regret that our people can't. Why those can, and we can't? I wouldn't say I'm sorry for someone, I'm sorry for the Muscovites, because the Caucasians rob us, but why do we stay so passive?

Second female participant: Newcomers are always active " (DFG, Moscow).

Other respondents, on the contrary, see the newcomers as a low status group.

«The matter is that we ourselves create this situation. There is much talk about the Caucasians building something and taking others' job. But they are a cheap workforce. They are paid much less for this. They work for a Russian businessman who employs illegal workers instead of paying good wages to good workers. So he hires the Caucasians or others to make it cheaper.» (DFG, Moscow).

"This is unskilled labor. It's only natural that only those agree to do it that can't find better varieties. This is normal." (DFG, Moscow).

Another reason for irritation and dislike for the "strangers" is a view representing the newcomers as a highly consolidated group.

"Clans. They support each other and capture all leading posts." (DFG, St. Petersburg).

"They seek to live in communities, like the China Town in America" (DFG, St. Petersburg).

Infra-group thinking stereotypes, self-evaluation through comparison with the "alien," nationalistic components of a pattern of perception of the "alien" – all of these are sources of negative and frustrating feelings. In the meantime, the fact that the image of the "alien" is being formed primarily through ethnic categories, is another, although indirect proof, that the potential for nationalism in the Russian public consciousness is fairly high.

The poll findings indicate that negative sentiments towards the newcomers are exclusively wide spread in Russian society, especially in megalopolises and large cities, more than in other population centers affected by immigration. Attitudes towards the "alien" (be they immigrants from the CIS states, or the native Russian ones) to a greater extent are colored with nationalistic prejudices. According to survey data, the level of nationalism in Russia is very high – about one-third of those interviewed openly expressing their dislike for the members of other nationalities. What we face here is rather "conventional" nationalism, based not so much on rational views of supremacy of one nation over another, as on a negative every day experience in communicating with the members of other nationalities.

Judging from highly emotional public response, a problem of relations with foreign immigrants is very acute – as one of the DFG participant noted "the abscess is growing." The conventional nationalism we have described above is becoming a serious source of intolerance. What reassures, though, is that the respondents are more inclined to settle relations with the newcomers than uproot the members of alien ethnic groups.

POF database > International > Former Soviet Republics > Immigrants in Russia: Uninvited Guests