A decision by the government of Prime Minister Rosen Zhelyazkov of GERB to provide state-owned properties in Svilengrad and Sredets for the needs of Bulgaria’s State Agency for Refugees has triggered renewed tensions among residents in the regions. The plans envisage the creation of closed-type reception centres. This time, however, the discontent is also fuelled by what residents describe as the local authorities’ contradictory approach to the issue, as became clear during the latest meeting of the municipal council.
According to comments made by mayor Milena Rangelova during the session, the local community does not want a new camp and will strongly oppose the idea. But the position sounded more like a reaction under public pressure than a consistent policy. Rangelova argued that any new camp could create a risk of social tensions and further protests and would bring no benefit to the municipality.
Fictitious registrations
Growing opposition in Svilengrad, however, appears difficult to reconcile with what has recently become a matter of public record: a “local business” involving mass fictitious address registrations of foreigners, while the local administration remained unaware of the practice for years.
Official documents indicate that at least 250 people were deregistered after inspections found that they did not actually live at the addresses where they had been registered. More troublingly, information about these registrations had regularly been sent by the State Agency for Refugees, yet the local administration’s response was either extremely slow or non-existent.
This was not simply an administrative oversight, but a systemic problem, according to residents who attended the municipal council meeting. For years, there have been reports in the region that address registration was being used as a service in exchange for payment. Although no specific representatives of the authorities have been officially found responsible, the lack of oversight raises questions about tacit acceptance of the practice – or at least institutional negligence.
A double standard
On the one hand, the local authorities are firmly declaring that they do not want to accept refugees. On the other, the same administration allowed hundreds of foreigners to be registered “on paper” in the municipality.
This contradictory approach is difficult to explain simply as an administrative weakness. Instead, it suggests a selective sensitivity: the issue becomes politically important when it is visible, but is ignored when it remains hidden behind documents and procedures.
The situation is further complicated by the decision of Rosen Zhelyazkov’s government to provide state-owned properties in Svilengrad and Sredets for the needs of the State Agency for Refugees. The plans envisage closed-type centres.
The decision highlights another problem – the lack of coordination between central and local authorities, as well as the absence of a consistent policy on migration.
