Russia’s recent launch of the “Share Value Visa” program immediately drew my attention. Officially introduced as a new immigration initiative, this visa targets individuals around the world who share Russia’s “core civilizational values.” According to Russian sources, over 700 applicants have signed up so far, and the government has promoted the program with promotional videos and testimonial interviews aimed at constructing a coherent cultural narrative.
Unlike conventional immigration policies based on labor needs or technical qualifications, this visa is framed as a civilizational alliance. From an economic perspective, I find this development both fascinating and concerning. Prioritizing “value alignment” over productive capacity or labor market integration introduces a symbolic logic into immigration governance, which may ultimately weaken long term economic outcomes if not tied to concrete developmental objectives.
Interestingly, the European Union has also adopted similar language around “shared values” in its integration policies. Since the early 2000s, countries like Germany, France, and the Netherlands have implemented civic integration tests, value education programs, and public knowledge exams to underscore principles such as gender equality, rule of law, and democracy. However, in practice, these often take the form of ritualistic administrative procedures. They are bureaucratically structured but lack meaningful mechanisms to ensure genuine social integration. In my view, these programs serve more to demonstrate political correctness than to foster substantive cohesion.
Upon deeper reflection, I realized that both Russia and the EU share a striking narrative architecture in their immigration strategies. Despite their apparent geopolitical divergence, both are deeply invested in projecting national identity as a narrative subject. Immigration, in this framework, is not merely about labor allocation or demographic balance. it becomes a stage for affirming and reproducing the ideological core of the state. But this approach runs the risk of becoming performative if not grounded in economic or social realities.
Data from Eurostat indicates that in 2023, over 42% of new arrivals to the EU originated from Syria, Afghanistan, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Most entered through humanitarian channels or family reunification, without undergoing any value-based assessments. Conversely, Russia’s new visa has attracted applicants from Western countries conservative Christians from the US, libertarians from Canada, and European dissidents, who openly reject liberal multiculturalism. While the demographic profiles differ, I argue that the logic is structurally similar: both systems are using migration policy to reaffirm a state-centered ideological narrative.
But this leads to a broader structural concern. When the dominant framework of immigration policy is built on cultural imagination rather than labor or industrial needs, the result is often misallocated resources and policy inefficiency. I worry that such symbolic uses of migration obscure the fact that neither Europe nor Russia has developed a coherent, long-term labor and talent strategy.
In contrast, several Asian countries offer more grounded and pragmatic approaches. Japan has relied on the Technical Intern Training Program and “Specified Skilled Worker” visas to meet labor demands in construction, caregiving, and agriculture. Taiwan’s Gold Card program targets high-skilled professionals in semiconductors, AI, and biotech, combining residence rights with tax and employment incentives. These policies not only align with domestic industrial needs they are also strategically designed for long-term sustainability. I believe they are structured, forward-looking systems that offer both local residents and foreign professionals a sense of predictability and institutional security.
The United States, meanwhile, positions itself clearly in the global talent race. Through visa categories such as H-1B, O-1, and EB, the US. draws tens of thousands of skilled workers each year to fuel its leadership in AI, biotech, and renewable energy. According to MIT and the National Science Foundation, over 40% of AI company founders in the U.S. in 2023 were foreign-born, with Indian, Chinese, and Israeli nationals contributing significantly. Rather than preserving a cultural or ideological status quo, the American system is designed to remain adaptive and competitive by sustaining high levels of global talent inflow.
In conclusion, I believe that immigration policy must be grounded in material realities labor demand, knowledge economies, and demographic planning not in idealized narratives of identity or values. While Russia and the EU engage in symbolic assertion through migration discourse, they risk losing sight of practical national development objectives. By contrast, the US, Japan, and Taiwan demonstrate more actionable, resilient strategies that tie immigration to long-term industrial competitiveness and institutional stability.
In the coming decade, immigration success will not be measured by which country speaks the most inspiring language, but by who best connects people to systems that actually function.
