Bulgaria - The social impact of seasonal migration

56
hurt by racist remarks of doctors and nurses, especially those of the refugees who
speak Bulgarian. An expert from the Acceptance and Integration Department of the
State Agency for Refugees complained about difficulties in finding personal doctors
(GPs) for the asylum seekers, because of widespread stereotypes. Even though
enrolling refugees in their practices would bring them financial benefits, the GPs refuse
to treat refugees, thinking they are noisy, dirty, do not speak Bulgarian, do not like to
wait patiently in line, will alienate their Bulgarian patients, etc. (interview No. 9).
"I thought Bulgarians are a tolerant people, but this is absolutely wrong", says an Iraqi
woman who had settled in Bulgaria since 1994 (interview No. 37).
4.2.3. Public opinion and perception of migrants and migration
Two separate sociological surveys on the public perception of immigrants have been
conducted in the first half of 2003. The first, done by the Bulgarian Red Cross (BRC),
explored attitudes to refugees in Bulgaria and the willingness to donate in support of
refugees in the country (Bulgarski Cherven Krust 2003). The second, done by Manfred
Wörner Foundation (MWF), had to establish the degree of integration and human rights
violation of immigrants in Bulgaria (Nedelnik 2003).
The BRC survey was based on 30 in-depth interviews with representatives of Bulgarian
businesses, foreigners living in Bulgaria, and Bulgarians having lived abroad for at least
5 years, who were thought to be more sensitive to the fate of refugees in the country.
Done between December 2002 and April 2003, it revealed huge information gaps on
refugees that existed in the public space. Not being able to discern any difference
between economic and political factors behind asylum seekers' decision to migrate, the
interviewed perceived of them as a threat to the economic stability in the country. They
disclosed perceptions of refugees which were entirely negative, being characterised
with fear about personal space and interests, physical and social rejection of refugees,
association of refugees with criminal behaviour, prejudices towards them ("they are
dirty and lazy"), xenophobia and racism. It was of no surprise that in these
circumstances the survey registered low levels of willingness to help refugees through
donations, and especially through money. Having found out that the respondents
looked more favourably on refugees whom they knew personally, the survey
recommended the design of a media campaign based on personal stories of refugees, in
the form of a documentary.
The second study was a representative sociological poll, done in February-March 2003,
on the base of representative samples of Bulgarians and immigrants of different status.
As a whole, it concluded that Bulgarians did not perceive of immigrants as a threat. Only
13% of the Bulgarians were inclined to think of foreigners as a threat while the rest were
firmly against such propositions. 21% of the respondents said foreigners in Bulgaria
were too many but only 7-8% of them had a negative attitude to them. The strongest
negative attitudes were expressed by Bulgarians who intended to emigrate. On their
part, 1/3 of immigrants conceived of Bulgaria as an appropriate country for residence,
yet another 1/3 did not feel comfortably there. Those dissatisfied came primarily from
developing countries and 1/3 of them would leave Bulgaria the fastest they could. The
survey also defined the profile of the average immigrant in Bulgaria: s/he was younger
than the average Bulgarian (55% of immigrants being below the age of 35), and might
even have higher education than the average Bulgarian above 18 years of age (21% of
the immigrants). 12% of immigrants were unemployed, while 33% were experts in