research of the rights of migrants in bulgaria from a human rights perspective

Migrants' Rights Report 1

RESEARCH OF THE RIGHTS OF MIGRANTS IN BULGARIA

FROM A HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE

FINAL REPORT

Bulgarian Helsinki Committee ReportNovember 2006


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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)


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.