The State Duma has been presented with a proposal to ban foreigners with criminal records from entering Russia for life. A quick check shows this topic has been debated for years, and the core idea keeps resurfacing. Earlier in April, the Liberal Democratic Party introduced a bill almost word for word mirroring the request to bar foreigners with criminal records from entering Russia, regardless of whether the offenses are erased. Now, another party, New People, has put forward a similar proposal with a twist: the text specifies foreigners who commit crimes in Russia and in other states. Does this imply that migrants who commit crimes abroad could be barred too? The deputies have not clearly explained what they are seeking or whether a total ban on entry for foreigners with criminal records is truly on the table.
In truth, the writer remains skeptical about the initiative. The discussion has persisted for decades without delivering results. Even convicts accused of murder in Russia can return; the process is straightforward. They serve their sentence, are released, and then the Ministry of Justice issues a deportation decision that applies for a set period. For serious crimes, the timeline typically ranges from five to eight years. So, after serving a sentence for grave offenses, a person could be at home for several more years before being allowed to stay again. If they survive until old age, they might rejoin society after thirty years or more, and citizenship could be pursued in the meantime.
There are currently many clues suggesting that in our country, the Justice Ministry could lift an entry ban for a person convicted of a crime committed against Russians through court channels.
It is noteworthy how many law firms assist migrants in bypassing entry bans, sometimes even offering free guidance on their official pages. The question arises: why do foreigners in Russia accumulate criminal records in the first place? Why should Russian citizens, lawyers, and defenders engage in such activities to expel criminals who have already harmed Russians? Is money driving this, or is there another motive?
There exists a broader ban on those who commit violence at home, with a potential to tighten further. Yet people still seek loopholes, and discussions about removing biometrics from migrants reappear, though technical hurdles remain. As a result, many criminals return under false names and with forged documents. How will crimes committed on foreign soil be punished, and will the homeland provide comprehensive databases of criminal convictions? There is a sense that Russia is reluctant to request such databases from international partners, perhaps fearing strain in diplomatic ties with members of alliances like NATO.
Setting up fingerprint collection and accurate passenger identification is only half the job. It would involve installing scanners at every border crossing, not accepting others’ biometrics, and cross-referencing with a comprehensive database. The lingering question remains: who will supply the fingerprint databases of criminals?
The concern persists that other states might benefit from recruiting dangerous individuals to their own cause.
Last year in St. Petersburg, the topic of biometrics for migrants resurfaced. The city’s Investigative Committee urged deputies to permit retina scanning and DNA collection from migrants. This line of thinking suggests fingerprints alone may not suffice for identification, and that budget priorities could shift toward DNA tracking if the danger level is high enough.
From a broader perspective, questions arise about the safety of admitting individuals deemed dangerous. The public sentiment hints at a dislike for a wide visa-free regime with several countries and a desire for tighter controls on immigration. Even as traveler numbers may appear smaller, previous migrants often settle with families, complicating public perception. The sense of a problem beyond simple numbers is palpable among many citizens who feel neglected in the policy-making process.
In the political arena, voices across the spectrum have called for tougher immigration measures. In England, the immigration debate has found a home in the State Duma. It has been noted that Alexander Bastrykin has commented on immigration and ethnic crime concerns. Recently, a proposal emerged to prevent foreign workers without high qualifications from bringing their families to Russia. Another development is a call from a movement named Fair Russia – For Truth! to strip foreigners of acquired citizenship for violent crimes, attempts on life, and assaults on government officials. The latter likely followed a sequence of clashes between migrants and law enforcement.
There is a growing argument in favor of depriving foreigners of citizenship when they commit crimes or display anti-social behavior. The aim is to ensure that Russians, especially those who resist the pressures of migration and cheap labor, can rely on a citizenship system that is not vulnerable to corruption. The focus is also on tightening checks on the eligibility criteria for granting citizenship, particularly when there are concerns about forged examinations or compromised paperwork.
A clear principle for migration policy is urged: no import of crime, no erosion of cultural integrity. If an individual has been convicted of theft, the instinct should be to exclude them. If crimes are committed here, expulsion and a ban should follow. The goal is to maintain order while minimizing the cost of keeping offenders imprisoned – ideally, letting them serve punishment at home. If someone accrues enough offenses, the passport should be revoked and ownership of it surrendered. The emphasis is on balancing security with the practicalities of governance.
Today, the sentiment appears widespread among citizens and officials alike. Yet the policy remains uncertain, with a legal pathway needed to ensure that a person who has served time for murder can be appropriately managed within Russia’s borders without compromising public safety.
The author’s stance reflects a personal view, and readers may interpret it differently (Source attribution: editorial perspective).