The Russian government criticized the draft law on restricting the registration of foreigners

The Russian government has criticized the initiative of State Duma deputies aimed at combating so-called "rubber apartments" and the mass registration of migrants in small residential premises. The bill proposed a restriction of no more than one person per six square meters of living space. However, the Cabinet of Ministers found that the document did not outline mechanisms for enforcing this norm and did not take into account the rights and interests of neighbors.

The authors of the bill suggested establishing a minimum housing size requirement for migrant registration. This would mean, for example, that in an apartment with a total area of 33 square meters and a living room of 20 square meters, no more than three people could be registered. The amendments stipulated that registration would only be possible if the rights of neighbors and the rules for maintaining common property in an apartment building were observed.

According to the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, as of September 2024, there were 6.2 million foreign citizens in Russia, with the number of illegal migrants estimated at 630,000. The bill’s authors noted that property owners often abuse their rights by signing fictitious rental agreements and registering dozens of people in apartments without their actual residence.

Despite the initiative's intent to curb such schemes, the Russian government deemed it underdeveloped. Its review stated that it was unclear how property owners should verify the legality of migrants' presence in Russia, and there was no procedure for refusing registration in cases where the established limit was exceeded. Additionally, the Ministry of Internal Affairs was strongly opposed to the proposed amendments.

Experts in migration policy note that the issue of "rubber apartments" is largely linked to corruption in the foreign citizen registration system. Some believe the situation could be improved if employers were responsible for registering their employees, as was the case before 2012. Others emphasize the need for a broader reform of the migration registration system.