Although Russia's legal system establishes a Western-style migration regime, in practice the system is restrictive and corrupt, according to Matthew Light, visiting assistant professor, Department of Political Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Speaking at a recent Kennan Institute talk, Light described a system in which all migrants in Russia are required to register with local authorities, a continuity in function, if not in name, with the Soviet-era propiska system. The Russian Constitution guarantees freedom of movement to all citizens and legal residents, Light noted, but in practice, the selective abuse of registration means that migrants can effectively be rendered "illegal," in some cases, even if they are Russian citizens or legally resident aliens.

In order to shed light on regional variations, Light presented case studies of four regions: Moscow city, Belgorod oblast, Krasnodar krai, and Stavropol krai. All of these regions vary in the degree to which they encourage or discourage migration, he said. Moscow is one of the biggest magnets for migrants in Russia, he said, due to the economic dynamism of the city. At the same time, he characterized Moscow as a difficult environment for migrants. The registration system is frequently abused, the police are corrupt, and there are frequent instances of police brutality, he said. In addition, there is a strong bias against people from the Caucasus, especially Chechnya, he noted.

The situation in Belgorod oblast is different, he said. The regional government, according to Light, treats migration as a mechanism for regional development, sometimes using its own money to encourage migrants to settle there. The registration system is relatively non-corrupt, and there are less frequent document checks. One reason for the comparatively tolerant approach to migration, according to Light, is that Belgorod is a relatively stable region of Rusia. For example, the economic collapse precipitated by the fall of the Soviet Union affected Belgorod less than other regions. Although its migration regime is relatively liberal, Light noted, the region may nonetheless be encouraging ethnically Russian migrants to the exclusion of non-Russians.

Light said he chose Stavropol and Krasnodar as cases because they are two regions that are close to the highly unstable region of Chechnya, and he was interested to see how this might affect their migration policies. Light found that both regions were affected by the conflict, but that Stavropol and Krasnodar differed greatly from one another in their official migration policies. Stavropol is a mostly tolerant environment, while Krasnodar is one of the worst regions in Russia for migrants, he said.

Light emphasized the role of the federal government in regulating the integration of migrants into Russian society in all regions. According to Light, the federal government has been weakened by its failure to effectively regulate migration across Russia. Certain regions might even have an incentive to create a repressive environment for migrants, because they may be able to request more money from the federal budget, Light explained. The complicated relationship between the federal and local governments may be one factor that could explain the variation among regions.

Light ended his talk by presenting some of his main conclusions. The level of corruption in a region appears to be correlated to the repressiveness of its migration system, he stated. Also, while xenophobia exists everywhere, it has to be activated for it to become an important force in the migration system. Lastly, the federal government of Russia has remained, for the most part, passive in its migration policies vis-à-vis the regions, according to Light. He ascribes this to the state "choosing its battles" with the regional governments, meaning that the federal government does not perceive migration rights as a high priority. Instead, he said, the central government appears to be more concerned with regional policies that it perceives to have a direct impact on its own interests, such as taxation and control over resources. As a result, the federal government tolerates a high degree of illegality and malfeasance in regional migration enforcement, Light explained.