Red = Restrict immigration; Blue = Don’t place barriers; Green = N/A.
This makes sense. The early 2000s saw an all time low in immigration to Russia – the influx of ethnic Russians from the Near Abroad had abated by that period, while the economy was not yet strong enough to attract masses of Central Asian labor.
From the mid-2000s, large numbers of Uzbeks, Tajiks, and Kyrgyz have been rotating in and out, with the occassional dip during recessions.
If there is one thing that Navalny can capitalize on, it is this graph. Still, there’s no need to overstress its significance. After all, discotent with immigration was similarly high by 2011-12, and Navalny’s nativist credentials then were far stronger, but he was unable to turn it into any significant political success.
Isn’t the government also more willing to discourage immigration?
http://rbth.com/arts/2014/12/05/changes_to_migration_regulations_aim_to_legalize_shadow_workers_42011.html
Yes. See the sharp trend reversal in 2011 for the ’emigration’ line on the second graph? It’s not Russians suddenly leaving, it’s recent immigrants going home.
Yes. The government over the past few years has begun to enforce regulations whereby any foreigner who receives more than one administrative violation over the course of a year is automatically barred from reentry, and subsequent entry, to Russia for 3-5 years. This can be something as benign as a minor traffic violation, significant to foreigners who drive, more so for the foreigners who drive (taxis and delivery trucks) for a living. Most Russians don’t know about this. Most of the foreigners living in Russia don’t know about it either, and often find out when they’re turned away at the border.
There is a good argument to discourage this way of thinking. Thinking of Russia as a sparsely populated country which need more people is one of the biggest misconceptions and lies. Russia is an overpopulated country for its natural environment and carrying capacity. 70% of it (12m sq km) is permafrost and the “Far North”, where only 12m live; hardly 30% are left for decent living, so it is rather 140m people on 5m sq km (or less), which is not that impressive. But even that livable and “comfortable” territory means the average temperature below -10 C in January.
http://demoscope.ru/weekly/2003/095/tema03.php
https://geographyofrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/159_1.jpg
https://geographyofrussia.com/ocenka-prirodno-geograficheskix-uslovij-dlya-zhizni-naseleniya-i-xozyajstvennoj-deyatelnosti/
http://www.200stran.ru/maps_group28_item304.html
Compare with Canada. 50% of Canadians live to the south of the 45th parallel north, 90% of Russians – to the north; >70% Canadians live to the south of the 49th parallel north, >70% of Russians – to the north.
http://brilliantmaps.com/half-canada/
No more people are needed in Russia, neither the natives, nor immigrants.
Yes – at least till Putin stops being lazy and fulfills the prophecy* of starting an experimental biodome farming project in the permafrost regions.
(*prophesied by me)
Silliness. Because of the way the global climate works, Russia is much warmer for its latitude than is North America. Montreal is far to the south of Moscow (it is as far south as northern Italy) , yet has Moscow’s climate. Russia could easily and comfortably have 300 million people in its inhabitable zones.
Farmland is irrelevant. Look at Hong Kong or Australia.
self-sufficient green biodomes in an icy landscape would be very cool
Australia is a food exporter, while Hong Kong is a seaport and its success is not scalable.
In any event, as AP has pointed out, Russia could easily feed a twice larger population.
Don’t be silly yourself. You’re saying like I do not know geography. Don’t judge by yourself. I purposely gave links to the TEMPERATURE maps which you somehow failed to notice.
Winter temperature in southern Quebec is above -10…-12 C
https://weather.gc.ca/saisons/image_e.html?format=clim_stn&season=djf&type=temp
Hardly anybody live where there is colder than that. The density just 50-100 km from Montreal drops to 30 and subsequently to less than 10 per sq km.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_of_Quebec
In Russia temperature above -10..-12 C is just the westernmost territory. Literally tens of millions of Russians live in the environment where only a couple of millions of Canadians live.
https://geographyofrussia.com/temperatura-vozduxa/
Maybe when just in Quebec alone there would live 50 million then we may consider that Russia can or even need indeed sustain 300 million.
You can calculate yourself what is the density in the area between the -8 and -12 isotherms
http://www.ecosystema.ru/08nature/world/geoworld/008.gif
http://www.ecosystema.ru/08nature/world/geoworld/056.gif
https://www.populationexplorer.com/
I got 38 for Canada (only the Southeast) and 39 for Russia.
Between -12 and -20 I got 3 for Canada and 15 for Russia. Five times! Why don’t you go to Canadians and explain them that they need five times more population?