Migrants' Rights Report 1
RESEARCH OF THE RIGHTS OF MIGRANTS IN BULGARIA
FROM A HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE
FINAL REPORT
Bulgarian Helsinki Committee ReportNovember 2006
Migrants' Rights Report 2
This report is published with the financial support of the Open Society Institute.
Migrants' Rights Report 3
LIST OF ACRONYMS
BBSS Balkan British Social Surveys (Gallup-Bulgaria)BHC Bulgarian Helsinki CommitteeCEE Central and Eastern EuropeCIS Commonwealth of Independent States CSKA Central Sports Club of the ArmyECRI European Commission against Racism and IntoleranceEU European UnionFRBA Foreigners in the Republic of Bulgaria Act FYROM Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia GP General PractitionerID Identity DocumentILO International Labour OrganizationIMIR International Centre for Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations IOM International Organization for MigrationNGO Non-governmental OrganizationNSI National Statistical InstituteOSI Open Society InstituteSAR State Agency for RefugeesUEFA Union of European Football AssociationsUK United KingdomUN United Nations UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for RefugeesUSD United States DollarUSSR 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 neo-
liberal 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
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.
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 Anti-
discrimination 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 long-
term 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).
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 self-
employment 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
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 well-
founded 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.
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.
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
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
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 long-
term 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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) non-
existent 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.
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.
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 mile-
long 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.
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
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 law-
enforcement 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).
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 law-
enforcement authorities to conduct ID checks at their discretion, Art. 4.3 of the Bulgarian Anti-
discrimination 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 law-
enforcement 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, 1st’ 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