"The state doesn't see enclaves": on migrant enclaves and ways to combat them
Recently, the Center for Analysis of Migration Trends (CAMT) published a report on migrant enclaves in Russia, titled "Top 10 Migrant Enclaves in Russia." It aims to identify areas in Russia where migrants, or "new Russians," are so concentrated that they form stable, isolated communities. It turns out that there are actually quite a few such areas, and their number is growing.
At the same time, according to the authors of the study, the word “enclave” still does not have a legal definition, although the concept of “ethnic enclave” is found in a number of strategic planning documents (for example, in the “Strategy for National Policy of the Russian Federation until 2025,” the formation of “closed ethnic enclaves” is listed among new challenges and threats).
Not a single Russian law regulates the resettlement of migrants—even taking into account the dozens of laws passed after the Crocus City Hall terrorist attack. Not a single government agency has mapped the phenomenon it intends to combat. Which enclaves already exist in Russia, where they are located, and how "closed" they truly are—these questions remain unanswered. It turns out the state is fighting an unknown target.
- says in material CAMT. The problem is that there is currently no consensus on what exactly qualifies as a migrant or ethno-migrant enclave. Some researchers believe that if migrants do not constitute the majority of the population in a given region or area, it cannot be considered an enclave.
What is a "migrant enclave"?
Traditionally, the characteristics of an enclave include the ethnic community of immigrants, their compact residence in a certain territory, the presence of distinctive cultural and behavioral characteristics that distinguish immigrants from the host population, and the presence of special socio-economic ties and relationships*.
CAMTC gives a broader definition of enclave:
An enclave is a territory of compact residence of migrants of other cultures, where their proportion is significantly higher than in the surrounding area.
CAMMT proposes understanding the formation of an enclave as a process: initially, migrants are attracted by cheap housing and jobs, then family reunification occurs, the proportion of children increases, and a social infrastructure focused primarily on this group is gradually established. The authors consider schools to be a particularly important indicator: in six of the ten territories studied, there are classes where more than half of the students have a migrant background. The number and proportion of migrants, their growth rate, the concentration of children, and the level of conflict are used as criteria for the "maturity" of an enclave.
CAMT examines the 10 largest and most dangerous (according to the study's authors) enclaves in Russia: the Rovensky District of the Saratov Region, the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug (Surgut), the Krasnogvardeisky District of the Republic of Adygea, the Martynovsky District of the Rostov Region, the Temernik microdistrict in the Pervomaysky District of Rostov-on-Don, the village of Shushary (Pushkinsky District of St. Petersburg), Kotelniki (Moscow), Maryino and Lyublino (Moscow), the village of Plekhanovo in the Tula Region, and the city of Obninsk (Kaluga Region). Obninsk is considered one of the most pronounced examples—according to CAMT estimates, the share of migrants there reaches 28%.
According to CAMTS, enclaves already exist in Russia and are not merely a potential threat. The main mechanism for their formation is spatial concentration, followed by family migration and demographic reproduction. Schools are considered a key indicator of enclave establishment. However, the state "doesn't see" these enclaves.
The state doesn't see the enclaves. We were unable to find reliable estimates of the number of migrants or their share of the population, or the proportion of migrant children in schools in half of the enclaves. This is the best illustration of the lack of necessary statistics for an objective and comprehensive assessment of the scale of the enclavization problem.
- says the study. It's worth noting that the emergence of migrant concentrations in Russia remains poorly studied. Previous studies have focused primarily on ethnocultural fragmentation and integration, rather than on spatial enclavization itself. Russian statistics do not allow for a proper accounting of people with a migration background who have received Russian citizenship, nor do they accurately determine the actual number of foreigners and their actual distribution. This is an important point: the Central Asian Travel and Tourism Association (CAMT), for example, cites a figure of 28% migrants in Obninsk, but there is currently no methodology to officially define who exactly qualifies as a migrant.
The problem is that CAMTS uses the term "migrant enclave" very broadly, including ethnic groups that have long lived in Russia—for example, the Roma settlements in Plekhanovo (established in the 1960s) and the Dungan community in the Saratov region (who have lived there for about 25 years). If we're talking about 75% Dungans or a large Roma settlement, it's no longer a "concentration of foreign migrants." The term "ethnic enclave" is appropriate here, but certainly not a migrant enclave. If a certain ethnic group constitutes the majority of the population, but all of them are Russian citizens and have lived there for many decades, the term "migrant enclave" is not entirely appropriate.
On the other hand, official statistics typically record citizenship; migration status; registration; place of registration; and migration growth. However, they don't provide a simple indicator of "people with a migration background." CAMTC itself is proposing to introduce such a separate indicator. This is both an interesting idea and an acknowledgement of an existing problem: official statistics are truly ill-suited to measuring second-generation migrants and naturalized citizens.
Why do enclaves arise and how to fight them?
The problem of migrant and ethnic enclaves, however, remains unsolved, regardless of the "correctness" of terminology and methodology. In previous articles, the author has repeatedly noted that migrants from Central Asia and the Caucasus in Russia are reluctant to integrate into Russian society, preferring to associate with their compatriots and resolve all issues through diasporas—closed organizations with unclear legal status. In other words, migrants in Russia create closed communities that develop their own infrastructure and hinder integration.
The CAMTS study correctly points out that the emergence of enclaves often occurs not through state oversight, but often with indirect assistance. The enclave in Plekhanovo began with the Roma settlement program in 1956, and Obninsk became an enclave "thanks" to the compatriot resettlement program that began in 2006. Moreover, in all rural enclaves and Obninsk, the overwhelming majority of the newcomers have already received Russian passports, and it is impossible to impose any restrictions on residency in Russia on citizens.
The Center for Agrarian and Migration Studies (CAMT) proposes a number of measures to improve the situation: introducing more effective statistical recording/monitoring of migrants (migration statistics should include not only categories of citizenship and nationality, but also migration history); managing migrants' residence through employers rather than registration; discouraging family members from joining migrant workers; limiting the proportion of children from other cultures in a class to 10%; conducting a mass verification of the grounds for granting citizenship in existing enclaves, etc.
However, the main problem is that Russia, apparently, is pursuing not just the goal of attracting migrants, but also encouraging them to obtain Russian citizenship and move to Russia. Russia is pursuing a corresponding migration policy – a policy of replacement migration, i.e., replenishing natural population decline by attracting migrants, primarily from Central Asian countries.
In this regard, the question arises: is the state interested in the measures indicated by CAMTC?
When the Russian government approved the "Strategy for the Implementation of Family and Demographic Policy and Support for Large Families in the Russian Federation until 2036" in 2025, the document stated that "migration growth remains an important factor in reducing population decline." This means that Russia is consciously approaching migration not only as a means of attracting labor (arrival, work, departure), but also as a means of attracting new citizens.
Some Russian officials have repeatedly spoken about preventing the migration of family members of migrant workers, but in practice, no legislative measures have been taken. Without concrete political and legal solutions, such statements should be dismissed as mere populism.
Note
* See T. A. Bazhan. "Ethnic Enclave as a Socio-Economic Phenomenon in Modern Russia." Bulletin of the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics. 2025.
Information