Immigration Reform From the Outsider's Point of View

I met him at one of the oppositional democratic protests in Moscow four years ago. We quickly found common language. Alexey was a student of Moscow Power Engineering Institute, a radical supporter of liberal and democratic changes in Russia, and a big fan of … the United States.

When I first came to visit him at his place, I found him living with his father and brother in a usual relatively small, soviet-style apartment. His room was full of books that he studied for his classes and for himself, mostly about programming and computers. There were two computers in the corner and a big, covering the whole wall of the room American flag.

- Where did you get it? - I asked jealously.
- My father’s friends immigrated to the United States right after the Perestroyka. They brought it when they once came to visit us, because they knew how precious this present would be for me. It's good to have a real-size symbol of freedom and opportunity in your room. It makes you feel hopeful even if there is no hope to see around me in my own country.

I have never heard him talking about immigration. He was almost desperately engaged in political activity trying to bring his own country closer to his ideals – those symbolized by the flag in his room. But he was very upset when I saw him last time before I left Russia to go to the US to study. I met him to give him my English textbook that he agreed to accept after I long convinced him that he should consider going abroad to work or study where he could better fulfill his talents.

- I was going to go to the US for the vacation, he suddenly interrupted one of our usual conversations about politics in Russia.
- Oh, great! You will have a visa and will be able to visit me in New York easily soon! I burst.
- I didn’t get the visa. They said I wasn’t able to prove close connections with my country… I am a student, not married, no children – no hostage to leave in Russia. They probably also didn’t like that I was going to visit my father’s friends – those who gave me the flag, remember? I thought it was not going to be a problem since one of them was a university professor… But the man at the window at the embassy seemed very annoyed and probably had his own thoughts about it. He didn’t share them with me though.

When I myself first applied for a tourist visa to go to the US, I shivered. I talked to people who were accepted and who were rejected, and there was no way to understand the logic. Should I seem intelligent, confident, and fluent in English? - They might think that I am smart enough to immigrate. Should I be shy and speak Russian to them? - They would think that I am maybe hiding something. It was a riddle without a chance to find a right answer. So I went to the embassy gambling and apparently backed the right horse. Apparently, Alexey backed a wrong one. Stuff happens.


Before I came to the US I believed that even if its immigration system seemed strange, it had some of its own logic. America was a desirable place to live for millions of people and of course not all of them should be allowed in. That, I thought, justifies having a complicated system that would allow America to choose the best people for itself. With this I explained the somehow humiliating note posted at the American embassy’s web page saying that the consular officer is obliged by the law to “presume that all applicants for a non-immigrant visa do, in fact, intend to immigrate.” I calmed myself down by these thoughts when a woman working at the embassy in Moscow who was deciding whether to give me the visa or not, talked to me as if I was a hooker. I repeated it to myself when I found out at the airport in New York that the officer at the passport control counter had the right to decide how long I was allowed to stay in the US regardless of my own plans and my return ticket date… I took it easy when I was told that the visa I have as a student right now requires me to go back to my homecountry as soon as my study is over.

So, I was surprised when after my first month of living here as a student I realized that it was not quite what was happening. And that while I and Alexey were patiently going through different unpleasant procedures just to visit the country that we admired, millions of people not only didn’t care to keep with its law that we thought was the very sense of American democracy, but also were supported in this by American government… I can’t be indifferent to what is going on. I can’t just accept that all my and my friends’ sufferings went in vain in the country that has long served for us as an ideal of fairness and democracy. Therefore, I would like to present here my own views on the problem.

Last month Obama Administration announced that it is preparing a new immigration legislation. Obama promised to announce his policy in May but it is already clear that the main question the legislation is going to address would be that of millions of illegal immigrants. And the solution that supposedly is going to be offered is their unconditional legalization.

Most experts say that taking into account how strong was Obama’s support by Latino voters, this has always been the most likely decision for Obama. As NYT notes, Obama has already showed his favor of this idea at a town meeting in Costa Mesa, California where on March 18 he said that, immigrants who are long-time residents but lack legal status “have to have some mechanism over time to get out of the shadows.”


The hottest discussion started around this announcement, but surprisingly enough the major thing that is discussed is the quantity of immigrants who were about to enter American market, but not their quality and the general effect of the fact that millions of people who broke the law will be given amnesty. Here is a paragraph from the New York Times article to demonstrate its blindness:

The White House is calculating that public support for fixing the immigration system, which is widely acknowledged to be broken, will outweigh opposition from voters who argue that immigrants take jobs from Americans. A groundswell among voters opposed to legal status for illegal immigrants led to the defeat in 2007 of a bipartisan immigration bill that was strongly supported by President George W. Bush.

Administration officials said that Mr. Obama’s plan would not add new workers to the American work force, but that it would recognize millions of illegal immigrants who have already been working here. Despite the deep recession, there is no evidence of any wholesale exodus of illegal immigrant workers, independent studies of census data show.

Opponents of legalization legislation were incredulous at the idea that Mr. Obama would take on immigration when economic pain for Americans is so widespread.

The debate ignores one important issue that seems to me crucial in the question of American immigration policy.

There are two main characteristics of immigrants that should be taken into account when dealing with this question:

- Skilled immigrants/non-skilled immigrants
- Legal yet-to-be-immigrants/illegal immigrants

Each of these categories of immigrants (skilled legal yet-to-be-immigrant, skilled illegal immigrant, non-skilled illegal immigrant, or non-skilled legal yet-t0-be-immigrant) should be clearly distinguished and should have different privileges in getting a work permit or American citizenship.

Mixing all the categories of immigrants together and approaching them all from one position of immigration’s opponent or of immigration’s supporter (no matter what the motives and explanations of such positions are) would, to my opinion, be unproductive. It is as if a company would consider whether or not it should hire any workers instead of considering what workers and with what skills it should hire.

But prior to turning to all these categories to distinguish what privileges or hindrances they should have on their way to American dream, Americans should ask themselves what their priorities are in the question of immigration (or probably in any other question of international politics). I suppose following list to be exhaustive:

1. What is best for America and its economy and financial situation of people who are already American citizens
   
2. What is best for the support of American ideals of fairness, freedom, and equal opportunities (American dream) and therefore American image abroad
   
3. What is best for those who are non-Americans (even if they already live on the US territory)

I think (prove me wrong) that these factors should be considered exactly in the order I put them. And according to these principles here is how, I think, different types of immigrants should be treated.

Skilled legal yet-to-be-immigrants

The main concern that exists regarding skilled immigrants is that there would be too much of them and it would devaluate skilled jobs and take job positions from native Americans. These approach seems to me pusillanimous and somehow non-American. This approach means to avoid a single problem in the present at the cost of many future problems.



If America should let any immigrant in at all (I myself don’t think there is such a question), it should for sure let in skilled immigrants who would not just compete with other Americans for jobs and by that would raise the overall level of skills of workers in the country (consider this next time you have an appointment with your doctor: how many people with what level of skills did he compete to open his practice?) but also would create new jobs by starting new businesses. The study showed that immigrants are more likely to start new businesses than native Americans.

But starting a business will of course take time, one might say. What if all these immigrants come to America tomorrow and take my job?

Well, I guess, in these global economy, when state borders' importance diminishes, where if not immigrants come to take your job at home, your job might go abroad, as it happens to all those call-centers where you usually call if your computer breaks down and if you need some assistance on how to open a bank account that now went to India (Thomas L. Friedman is talking about it in his book The World Is Flat), everybody should be ready to compete globally. And I would say instead of trying to turn the river of the world's development backwards, one should get prepared to compete in the new world by working more and better. Or there always will be an option of moving to another, less competitive country.

Thus, by considering whether or not to allow skilled immigrants in, the first priority will definitely be satisfied: skilled immigrants will make America a better place to live for today’s Americans and for themselves.

It will also support American ideals since the system that would grant the precious gift – American citizenship – to hardworking and talented people will be fair. It will treat people equally and will acknowledge the right of everyone to freely come to the US if he or she deserves it.

Moreover, it is going to play a significantly positive role for non-Americans who if having a goal to live in the US, would orient themselves on achieving success in their study and work and would know that this success would be fairly repaid.

Skilled illegal immigrants

Although I put this type of immigrant into a separate category, I don’t really believe that this type exists on any considerable scale. It might be represented by just a few separate and individual cases. For example, if you look at Pew Hispanic Center research for this year you will find a chart depicting main occupations illegal immigrants have in the US. None of them belongs to the category of high-skilled jobs.

This is by itself a very important fact. That despite draconian policy toward skilled immigration in the United States, there is no significant illegal immigration of this category. People with higher education are less inclined to break the law. I think this is exactly the type of people you guys want here, right?

Here is an interesting story told by an H-1B visa immigrant from Russia who talks about his experience of getting American visa. Reading it, one would wonder how it is possible that people come to the US legally at all…

Taking this into account, I believe that giving amnesty to those few who happened to get in the situation of being illegally in the country where his skills are valuable, even if partly contradicts the second principle of fairness, still can be considered as reasonable solution, but only as a matter of exception, not as a rule.

Unskilled legal yet-t0-be-immigrants

Not every country can afford to be selective in its attitude toward immigrants. For example, if Russia today announces that it will accept only those immigrants who have at least a college degree, tomorrow its immigration officers in embassies around the world would have no work to do. Russia has nothing to offer not only to skilled immigrants but to its own skilled citizens who are eager to leave it for better life in America or Europe.

There is no doubt that America is an absolutely different case and is not only one of the countries who can select its immigrants, but the first of them. And in its attitude toward unskilled immigrants it should take into account that, as was mentioned above, unskilled immigrants take jobs, skilled immigrants create them.

As Wall Street Journal reports, according to National Foundation for American Policy study,
“Among S&P 500 firms, 'the data show that for every H-1B position requested, U.S. technology companies increased employment by 5 workers...' And 'for technology firms with fewer than 5,000 employees, each H-1B position requested in labor condition applications was associated with an increase of employment of 7.5 workers.' Far from stealing jobs from Americans, skilled immigrants expand the economic pie.”

But unskilled legal yet-to-be-immigrants hardly present any significant problem today. If there are any unskilled immigrants who enter the United States today, they don’t apply for a work visa or a work-based green card, but come to the US as family members or similar.

The most restless problem today is the one that became the main issue of Obama’s about to come policy, the problem of illegal and unskilled immigrants.

Unskilled illegal immigrants

It seems difficult to find any plausible reason why America should want to accept immigrants of this category. Yet, it seems like in today’s public discussion there are more and more people who support this idea. Some because they say that (1) it is inhumane to reject all those people who have already lived in the country for some time and have friends and families that they would need to leave if deported, and that they have the same rights to strive to a better life and it doesn’t really matter how they fulfill this aspiration. Others argue that (2) these immigrants play a significant role in American economy by doing all the work that Americans don’t want to do. Moreover, some say, (3) there is no real way to solve the problem other way than just legalizing these people because it is physically impossible to control the border.

All of those explanations seem however corrupt.

1. It is inhumane… to break the law and to be encouraged in it

Imagine coming home from a long vacation and finding unknown people living in one of the rooms of your house. They broke in while you were away because they found their own house not quite as comfortable as yours. Will you ask them to stay? Will it be inhumane to ask them to leave? I can imagine that you for some reason might feel compassionate with these people and in this case would probably not call the police… But I can’t believe that anybody would agree with letting them stay in the house (even if you are the owner of a huge hotel), just because a crime is humiliating and should not be encouraged in any way, and because you would hardly feel comfortable living next to such roommate. As wouldn’t feel comfortable those of your guests who call in advance to just come to visit.

I found it interesting to find on the New York Times web page a comment by a legal Russian immigrant who was writing about his feeling about the presumable legalization of illegal immigrants.

I still remember the time, more than 10 years ago, when my family and I moved to the United States from Russia. All the trials and tribulations we, and especially my parents, had to go through to secure our status!

Yet according to our current president, who I actually voted for last fall and whom I still deeply admire, you don't really have to abide by the established rules. The proposed legalization of 12 million (!!) illegal immigrants is not just a political move to placate Latino voters, but also a slap in the face of my parents and other legal immigrants who had to endure enormous legal and financial burdens on the path to American citizenship.

Legalizing illegal immigrants will not only overburden the already struggling healthcare and education systems, but also encourage more illegal immigration despite our best efforts to protect the country's borders. I deeply sympathize with the pain and suffering of illegal immigrants, some of whom are truly desperate for a better life, but breaking the law should not be the first step in achieving the American dream. Thank you.

The procedures of deportation that the US practice today might really be inhumane and should be also addressed by immigration reform (you know what I mean if you watched a movie Visitor), but how humane is it in relation to those legal immigrants and immigrants-to-be?

2. By solving one economic problem you create many others

As I said before, not all countries can choose what immigrants to accept, and US is one of them. By legalizing all illegal immigrants just because somebody should do the job they can do, America looks like a very rich and prestigious company that can afford hiring best employees, select the best from numerous candidates who want to work in it. But instead it just hires everybody who has entered its headquarters building.

America can afford to accept people who are best suited for any given job in the amount that it needs them and in order to maintain competitiveness of its economy as high-technology oriented. To give citizenship to illegal immigrants just because they are already inside the country would be a discouraging gesture towards those immigrants who do their best today in their home countries in order to qualify for America’s requirements. It will also discourage America’s own people to improve their own skills. What can be worse for American economy?

3. No solution is not a solution

By legalizing illegal immigrants the United States doesn’t solve the problem that caused it, but just trying to deal with its consequences. Legalization will not prevent new waves of illegal immigration; only new effective system of control over the boarders will. Instead, legalization can worsen the problem since it gives future illegal immigrants more incentives to break the law.

Moreover, such an amnesty will kill any hope to assimilate all those people who can’t even speak English right now. Being given citizenship without having to fulfill any requirements, immigrants will find it very difficult consequently to adjust.


Having all this in mind one could wonder, what is the best way to deal with the existing situation if not by legalizing illegal immigrants?

Well, I don’t know. But as a potential immigrant I can say that I would like to have clear understanding what makes me or doesn’t make me eligible for becoming American citizen.

An idea that looks to me very appealing and reasonable I found again on the New York Times web page and again not in the article of some established journalist by in the readers comments section:

So what do we do? Here's a plan that makes sure 12 million workers don't vanish from the economy, and also provides a path for illegal aliens to become legal, but ONLY if they can compete against other would-be immigrants:

-Reform legal immigration by putting in place a points-based system that grants work/residency visas and green cards based on objectively quantified skills, with a high overall limit (say, 2 million per year -- much higher than currently) but no quotas per country;
-Have a two-year plan to grant 12 million visas/green cards to the most qualified applicants from all over the world -- the Oklahoma Land Rush of visas
-Let anyone from anywhere apply for one of these visas, including current illegal aliens
-To those who win visas/green cards, Congrats!
-To any illegal aliens who do not stack up, you have 2 years as a guest worker before you must leave. This will give you time to make preparations, save money, and decide what to do with your family
-Going ahead, tighten visa restrictions on our southern neighbors as we do with any other country today, enforce the border more strongly, and do not give citizenship to children born to illegal aliens

This way, illegal aliens get a CHANCE but not a guarantee to legalize their status. If they can't compete, they have 2 years to make preparations and earn money before going home. It's humane and realistic and more of an amnesty than I'd get if I tried to live and work in Mexico illegally.

A reform like this, I think, would successfully address all the problems described above. And hopefully by the time Alexey finally decide to try his fate by applying to work or study visa in the US, it will be a fair and enjoyable competition among the best and not a gambling akin Russian roulette.

Spreading democracy abroad: A duty, not a whim

The question whether or not the new American administration should continue former President Bush's plan of promoting democracy around the world has been up in the air for years and seems now to be getting its answer. As I mentioned in my previous post, there has been no reaction from the Obama administration to the new charges being brought against jailed Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky once the country's richest person and owner of the most transparent company in Russia. 

I was looking for any proof that this silence was just an accident and instead found an article that suggested the opposite. As reported in an article entitled "Quiter approach to spreading democracy abroad" from the New York Times:

Four years after President George W. Bush declared it the mission of America to spread democracy with the goal of “ending tyranny in our world,” his successor’s team has not picked up the mantle. Since taking office, neither Mr. Obama nor his advisers have made much mention of democracy-building as a goal. While not directly repudiating Mr. Bush’s grand, even grandiose vision, Mr. Obama appears poised to return to a more traditional American policy of dealing with the world as it is rather than as it might be.

The logic of the new administration is understandable. The fight against totalitarian regimes in the world unfortunately seems to have would up bringing more tangible costs than benefits at this point. But nevertheless I think that not trying to promote democracy in other countries is the same as not trying to help a person who is about to commit suicide. It may look to him for the moment that you aren't acting in his interests, but in the end he will be thankful if you save his life.

Don't press the black button

A month ago Joe Biden announced that the new US administration wants to "press the reset button" in its dealings with Moscow. I was reflecting on that and couldn't really understand what that could mean. I never saw any real problem with America's relations with Russia. Russia's relations with the whole world seemed crazy to me.

I'm looking forward to see how the renewed relations with Russia will work, but there is one thing that I already don't like.

In a recent article in the New York Times about the new trial of imprisoned Russian tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovky there is no mentioning of any US reactionto the new charges being brought by the Russian government.

When the presidential election campaign in the US had just started, I remember feeling great sympathy toward John McCain because of his position toward Russia. That is a man, I thought, who really understands what's going on in that country, who wouldn't play its nasty games. I ended up preferring with Obama of course, but continue to respect McCain just for his position on Russia.

As US electoral sympathies of Russians on the whole, there were no real preferences to be seen either toward Obama or McCain. It looked like people didn't like either. I remember listening to Radio Freedom in Moscow (one of the two independent radio stations in Russia. It is financed by US State Department) when a listener called to express his views about the American presidential campaign and said: "I think America is in a real crisis if they can't find any white guy to be president..." Although Russia didn't like McCain for his harsh critiques of Moscow, it wasn't able to consider a black person as an option.

Although McCain seemed more explicit in his positions toward Russia, it was difficult to say who, McCain or Obama would be a better option for those in Russia who look for American support in Russia's road to democracy... It was, however, clear that Obama doesn't bother too much about other countries - he was much more concerned about his own, and that couldn't provide Russian democrats with much hope.

I remember Hillary Clinton not being able to pronounce President Dmitry Medvedev's name.

Now she will be able to personally find out that not only his name is inarticulate.

I'm not sure that "resetting" relations is a good thing to start with. It looks like many people in the US have a really distorted picture of what's going on in Russia. In a recent article about Obama's secret letter to Medvedev, Slate magazine gave Obama extra 25 points for that on its "The-Change-o-Meter" and wrote:

Obama's proposition is a significant shift from previous attitudes about Russia, and murmurs in Moscow suggest Obama's extended palm is a welcome change from Bush's clenched fist. The 'Meter slides up 25 points for burying old assumptions and engaging with a nation whose power and prominence is steadily growing.

Are you guys reading any news from Russia? It seems like you will soon be sending secret letters down a black hole!

Don't make a deal with the devil

Several days ago The New York Times wrote about a "private letter" that Obama sent to his Russian counterpart Dmitriy Medvedev where he allegedly offered the Russian president a deal: Russia stops helping Iran in its nuclear program and the US in exchange stop its plans to build a high tech radar facility in Eastern Europe.
The news sounded strange to me from the very beginning. It looked like a joke: a secret letter, an attempt to make an agreement with a country that has never proven to respect its promises  (not in the least because the country itself never knows what it will look like even in a few years)... But The New York Times sounded pretty optimistic:

Mr. Bush never accepted a Moscow proposal to install part of the missile defense system on its territory and jointly operate it so it could not be used against Russia.Now the

Obama administration appears to be reconsidering that idea, although it is not clear if it would want to put part of the system on Russian soil where it could be flipped on or off by Russians. 

Mr. Obama has been lukewarm on missile defense, saying he supports it only if it can be proved technically effective and affordable.Mr. Bush never accepted a Moscow proposal to install part of the missile defense system on its territory and jointly operate it so it could not be used against Russia.

Now the Obama administration appears to be reconsidering that idea, although it is not clear if it would want to put part of the system on Russian soil where it could be flipped on or off by Russians. Mr. Obama has been lukewarm on missile defense, saying he supports it only if it can be proved technically effective and affordable.

The New York Times' coverage of Russia always looked to me a bit strange, if not stupid. It wrote about the growing wealth of Russia while I, as an alumna of the best university of Russia able to speak two foreign languages fluently, tried to get a job at a foreign company for a salary of 1000 dollars a month in Moscow - the most expensive city in the world. When I came to the US people kept wondering what I was telling them about the way Russian people really live. They thought the streets were paved with gold while most of the regions of the country don't even have any roads...

Anyway, even knowing how strange New York Times' picture of my country could be, I was surprised by their optimistic tone this time. And here is what I have to say about all that.

There are two things to think about when you talk about any serious international agreement with Russia:

1. Russian international politics is just a continuation, an appendix of an internal politics that usually is used by Russian officials as a means to spread political PR inside the country. 

The story with the missile defence that the US was trying to build in 

Poland and Check Republic was a real gift from God for Russian officials. They loved it more than you can imagine and exploited this topic every now and then to show the Russian people who the real enemy is. Russian officials are the last people to be interested in ending the tension with US about that issue.

2. Russia's international weapon trade (including trade with Iran) brings the best opportunity for corruption. 

Imagine that you are a manager of a company with a lot of 

money in a country where there is no law, no person to control your actions. Imagine that you as a manager want to sell something very expensive to another company in another country with a similar manager and similar rules. If you have a particularly fantastic imagination, you already see yourself as one of the richest people in the world. Now try to imagine how you would view somebody who sends you a letter asking you to abandon all that in exchange of something that you don't really want... That's the way Russian officials see Obama now.

As a continuation The New York Times published yesterday another article where Dmitry Medvedev made an obscure comment about the letter:

“If we talk about some bargain or exchange, I can say that the issues were not raised in this way, because it’s counterproductive,” Mr. Medvedev said at a news conference in Madrid, where he was meeting with the Spanish prime minister.

“What we are getting from our U.S. partners shows at least one thing, that our U.S. partners are ready to discuss the issue,” he said. “That’s good, because only a few months ago we were getting different signals — that the decision has been made, there is nothing to talk about, that we will do everything as it has been decided.”

Obama and his Russia advisers should understand as soon as possible that they speak a language that is not understood in Russia and that they deal with a different political system and different mentality. They should know they won't gain by trying to deal with a criminal band by the same means one would deal with a choir of boys in a local church. 

Studying Communication Studies

A couple of weeks ago I was in a company of my friend's acquaintances when they were having a nice intelligent conversation about journalism. By some chance somebody switched TV to the FOXnews channel and the conversation among those highly liberal people became not only much bitter than it was before but also quite emberrassing for me.

"I'm wondering what did they study?" my friend asked pointing to the talking head on the screen  with disgust. "They must have got a degree in something but they don't quite understand anything!"

"I bet they have a degree in Communication," answered somebody.

"No doubt, indeed," everybody else agreed.

Luckily for me, my friend didn't revealed my embarrasment by telling everybody that they had just qualified me to apply for job at FOX.

Unfortunately for me and for everybody else who studies Communication, this opinion is rather a rule than an exception. 

If you search Google for Communication Degree the most popular results you would get would pose or answer the question "What can I do with a degree in Communication?" 

And as I understand it, this question is just another way to express uncertainty about what actually the field is.

Last week the Communication degree was relatively oftern mentioned in the news. A student of communication appeared on Obama's Forth Myers Town Hall Meeting to ask a question. Here is a video you might find amusing:

"I want to be a broadcaster or a disc jokey," he says honestly. And here it is, public understanding and attitude to what communication is and is meant to be.

Although this video makes me laugh every time I watch it, I find it less then funny to feel embarrassed every time I introduce myself as a graduate student in Communication.

According to Wikipedia, Communication Studies is

academic field that deals with processes of communication, commonly defined as the sharing of symbols over distances in space and time. Hence, communication studies encompasses a wide range of topics; for instance, the transmission of messages from one point to another through some medium of dissemination--such as face-to-face or conversation, television broadcasting, or the reading of records--but also with how institutions like libraries maintain information over time, how audiences interpret information, and the political, cultural, economic, and social dimensions of related topics.

I think the main difficulty for people to understand what the field actually is, lies in the concept that was of such a big concern for one of the discipline's pillar - Marshal McLuhan. He expressed that concept in the widely known phrase "Media is the message". The essens of this concept is mentioned in the Wikipedia article by the word "processes".

Communication studies processes of human communication but not its products or objects. It studies how different types and technologies of communication change with time and influence our culture.

I remember one of my professors at Fordham University Lance Strate said that communication studies the medium of human life, its culture similar to how biologists study medium and culture of life of microorganisms. This metaphor could give you a good illustration of how the field if actually important. Unless you think that studying bacterial life is more important than studying the life of humans.

The liberal bias of new media isn't working on the Russian soil (with the Russian soul)?

Every time I think about the opportunities new media such as blogs and social networks open for political participation of citizens, for the development of democracy, and how big the role was that they played during the last presidential elections in the United States, I ask myself: 

What is the present and future of this media in Russia? 

Are they able to play any significant role in the change of power there? 

Are they playing any important role in the democratization of the country right now?

The answer is much less then clear. 

Despite all the stories about Russian officals trying to control the Internet, we should confirm

 that Internet in Russia is still pretty free. First of all because Russian authorities and special services don't have any software to control information flow online. And second, because most of the people whose voices contemporary Russian establishment is concerned about during the election periods, don't use Internet or don't trust (by the force of Soviet habit) any information that comes from an "unauthorized" source.

However, most of those who use Internet in Russia don't hesitate to register their own blogs and 

profiles on social networks. According to the 2007 report by Russian web

 search server Yandex, there are 3,1 million of blogs in Russian Internet segment. That means that there is one blog for every 10 Russian speaking users (there are 30 million Internet users in Russia according to the information on the CIA web page). Not bad, taking into account that the same statistics for the whole world is approximately one blog for every 60 people.

Despite this optimistic view, there is no strong aspiration of users in Russia to use their freedom of speech online to solve their political problems. If you try to find a discussion about current political events on Russian Internet, I wouldn't recommend you to go to any popular Russian social networks (Odnoklassniki, VKontakte, or MoyKrug). Non of them has any application that would allow you to easily post a link from an article or express your support of a politician. Non of them has a substential group created by users for political discussion. 

But I wouldn't recommend you to look for any political discussion in Russian blogs either. Especially if you believe in a liberal bias of the new media as much as I still do. I wouldn't recommend you to look there not because there is nothing discussed about politics, but because what is discussed is usually even more regressive in the sense of democratic and liberal discourse than what you can see on Russian television controlled by the state.

I'm wondering if that means that the new media by themselves can't give a big hope for Russian modest democratic movement? Is the question again lying not in what are the media that are used, but who is using the media?

(Images used: 1. Official logo of Livejournal; 2. Picture from a protest action in Moscow against the censure in mass media on January 31, 2009 - by Denis Bochkarev)

Russian Internet in 2008

Russian Internet media "Zagolovki.ru" ("Headlines") - a web source that daily gathers and thematically sorts articles from various Russian newspapers and magazines emphasizing those with especially smart and funny headings, have summarized what the year 2008 meant for Russian Internet. Here is, according to them, a list of remarkable events that happened:

1. The parliament, the Internal Affairs Ministry, and the Public Chamber (an institution that was created by Putin that represents "cultural elite" of Russia - the members are directly and indirectly assigned by Putin but have no real power) announced their plans of legal regulations

 for the Internet. They plan to regulate the Internet through the mass-media law. According to it all media that have more than one thousand consumers should be officially

 registered. The officials say not only news web sites should get registered but also blogs, online diaries, forums, chats, and dating sites.

2. The new Russian president Dmitry Medvedev addressed in one of his speeches the problem of Russian segment of the Internet. He said that it should be cultivated. In the same speech Medvedev noted that government should not interfere in what was going on the Internet unless it violated Russian laws...

3. During a parliamentary discussion on rising crimes against immigrants in Russia, an Internal Affairs Ministry official emphasized that the best way to prevent the crimes was to intensify governmental control over the Internet. During the very session a legislation was presented that would allow closing web sites that would be accused in publishing "extremist content".

4. In a short time after that a web site www.ingushetia.ru that informed about news from a rebellion region of Russia Ingushetia in a way that opposed Ingushetia's official information, was closed. The method of IP-address filtering was used. In three months the owner of the web site Magomed Evloev was "accidentally" shot to death in a police car in which he was put by police officers without any clear reason. 

5. One blogger was determined guilty for criticising militia in his blog comment. Another blogger - a member of an opposition movement - is still on trial.

6.  The Minister of Internal Affairs came out with a legislative initiative to qualify Internet as a mass media.

7. Criminal case was open against Internet users who on the pages of their blogs falsely informed that the president of Tatarstan (region of Russia) died.

8. The registration on the most popular Russian social network odnoklassniki.ru (classmates) became paid.