Keywords

Internal Migration, External Migration, Public Opinion, Students

Introduction

This article is devoted to studying public opinion on internal and external migration factors and the migration potential of students. Countries and the international community need to understand public opinion about migration and the factors influencing the perception of migration among the population. The correlation between public attitudes towards migration and state' migration policies contributes to efficiency and sustainability (Barslund et al., 2019). Today, migration issues are related to historical changes at the global level (World Migration Report, 2020). Research into public attitudes towards migration can facilitate constructive public discourse and effectively counter xenophobia and stigmatization of migrants. This target correlates with Target 17 of the Global Strategy, Treaty for Safe, Orderly, and Irregular Migration (United Nations General Assembly, 2019).

The topicality of migration is because migration contributes to the erosion of borders and the weakening of the sovereignty of states (Harris & Todaro, 1970). Therefore, questions of the motives, scale, directions, and consequences of population migration are becoming the subject of scientific research. In the second half of the nineteenth century, studies of Ravenstein appeared on migration flows (Ravenstein, 1876; Ravenstein, 1885; Ravenstein, 1889). Ravenstein noted that the leading causes of migration are economic. The economic aspect of the influence of globalization processes on the activity of territorial mobility of the population is the subject of research by Sassen (2000; 1988), Castles & Miller (1993), Harris & Todaro (1970), Wise & Covarrubias (2013).

The current scale of territorial movements of the population has dramatically increased. Therefore, the following questions are relevant: Studies of the current conditions in which migration takes place (Abel & Sander, 2014; Dahinden, 2005; King & Skeldon, 2010), the role of electronic social networks in migration (Fazito, 2009; Fazito & Soares, 2015), the role of electronic social networks in communication and business (Nicolaou, 2021). Transformations and preservation of linguistic identity (Vepreva et al., 2019; Djité, 2006; Zhang, 2005; Patrick et al., 2019), migration and sustainable development (Gelb & Krishnan, 2018; Ansems de Vries & Guild, 2019; Tangermann, 2017), legal issues (Backer, 2018; Molnar & Gill, 2018; Seo, 2014; Hanson, 2010).

One of the significant factors determining migration processes is education and scientific activity (Varghese, 2021; Docquier & Lodigiani, 2010; Thomas et al., 2019). De Angelis (2021) notes that migrants from different origins and reasons come to the territory of the European Union, which creates various problems for policy and education systems in the countries of the European Union. R. De Angelis touches upon a crucial issue of the life of immigrants in the host countries. Before the early twentieth century, the idea was that immigrants should join the "ethos" of the host country. However, today it is valuable to preserve the cultural identity of immigrants in the host society. Multiculturalism is one of the essential aspects of tolerance, recognizing the cultures' existence for the purpose of their mutual penetration, enrichment, and development. However, R. De Angelis draws attention to the other side of this phenomenon: the widening gap between different groups within the state and segregation (De Angelis, 2021). Therefore, in the modern community, the issue of mutual understanding as the leading norm of intercultural communication becomes discussed from different points of view (Loginov, 2019; Tomyuk, 2020; Bakeeva & Biricheva, 2021).

Migration is a phenomenon in which political, economic, social, cultural, and environmental aspects are intertwined (Hicks, 2009). The Russian Federation is a multinational state for which both external and internal migration of the population is significant. The concept of State Migration Policy of the Russian Federation for the Period up to 2025 (2012) considers internal migration as a full-fledged type of migration. In this concept, much attention is paid to the issues of internal migration, as well as international migration. This fact testifies to recognizing the importance of internal migration for the full-fledged economic and social development of the Russian Federation. State regulation of migration processes is a necessary basis for sustainable socio-economic and demographic development of the country. Migration policy correlates with issues of ensuring national security, ensuring social rights, and guarantees throughout Russia.

Ekaterinburg is the administrative center of the Sverdlovsk region. The Sverdlovsk Region is a key industrial region in Russia, located at the crossroads of the most important transport arteries connecting Europe and Asia. The region is rich in natural resources and has a powerful diversified industrial complex with significant scientific and human potential. The Sverdlovsk region has traditionally been one of the five most attractive regions of the Russian Federation for labor migrants over the past ten years. However, there have been severe changes in the regional labor market in the last few years, which has brought about a certain change in the population's attitude towards migrants in the Sverdlovsk region. The migration office explains temporary migration measures to prevent the further spread of coronavirus infection, 2020). The number of foreign citizens who entered the country decreased by 67.1% compared to last year.

In Tomsk, a significant number of educational institutions on the territory lead to the activity of migration flows for young people. This circumstance leads to the need to study the factors influencing the perception of migration and decision-making among students.

Kursk region is a territory with insignificant migration gain. The reason is that the number of people leaving for other subjects of the Russian Federation exceeds the number of people arriving in the region. In recent years, the migration influx of migrants has decreased slightly from the following countries: Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. At the same time, the influx of migrants from Armenia is stable. The key migration exchange with the regions of the Central Federal District is taking place in the region. The outflow of the population of Kursk to the capital and large cities is usually associated with labor migration.

The specificity of migration flows to the Russian regions is determined by Central Asia's and the Caucasus' relatively large share of representatives. Migration to the Russian regions is predominantly labor (Matveenko, 2017; Tyuryukanova, 2006). The main areas of employment of foreign workers are construction and service. However, in recent years, the percentage of foreign citizens with high qualifications has been increasing. This trend is typical for large Russian cities, such as Moscow, St. Petersburg, Ekaterinburg, Tomsk, and Novorossiysk. Foreigners come to work in large companies. This feature of migration flows is associated with the dynamics and demands of the labor market in the region. The labor aspect of migration is relevant for studying the phenomenon of migration in various countries (Bijwaard, 2010; Adugna, 2019; Constant, Massey, 2003) and its impact on the country's economy (Gibson & McKenzie, 2010; Gibson & McKenzie, 2011; Djajíc et al., 2016). Modern researchers of migration flow emphasize their pronounced orientation from the periphery to the center. This trend is typical for flows from developing countries to developed countries and from the periphery to administrative and industrial centers within the state.

One of the main characteristics of migration to the Ekaterinburg, Kursk, and Tomsk is the low level of qualifications of migrants. Therefore, one of the tasks of the migration policy is to attract specialists to production and the development of an educational field that is attractive to international students. The important issues of migration are driven by education (Novgorodtseva, Belyaeva, 2020; Savchuk et al., 2019; Koksharov et al., 2021) and migration of scientists (Sudakova et al., 2021; Agarkov & Koksharov, 2018). The development of online education today allows for communication between a teacher and a student in different countries (Martyushev et al., 2021; Nicolaou, 2021b; Gilyazova, 2020). However, not everyone chooses online training, considering it as an additional way to learn offline.

The study aims to study public opinion about the factors of internal and external migration and the students' migration potential in Ekaterinburg, Kursk, and Tomsk. Conducting a sociological survey made it possible to reflect the social well-being of the students and formulated a request for a specific adjustment of the migration policy of regional and federal authorities.

Materials and Methods

This article is based on a theoretical analysis of monographs and articles reflecting international and Russian research in migration.

This study includes a study of public opinion on the problems of internal and international migration in the regions. This study is necessary because the study of public opinion of students towards migration can contribute to a constructive impact on the migration policy of the regions.

The empirical part of this study is presented in the analysis of an anonymous sociological survey of residents and university students. The sociological survey was conducted from October to December of 2020, and the total number of respondents was 958 people.

The sociological survey was conducted in Ekaterinburg in October of 2020; the number of respondents was 200. The interviewed students study at Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, Ural State Mining University, Ural Institute of Management of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation, Ural State Economic University.

The sociological question was carried out among the student youth of Ekaterinburg:

• 72% of the respondents were young people aged 17 to 21 years;

• 5% of respondents are in the age group 22-25 years old;

• 5% of respondents are in the age group 26 years old and older.

In the gender aspect, 50% of the respondents are men, 50% are women. 50% of the respondents were students of the humanities and specialties, 50% of the respondents were trained in technical specialties.

According to the level of education, the respondents are presented as follows: 91% – bachelor's degree, 6.5% – master's degree, 0.5% – specialty.

51.5% of respondents are students, 48.5% of respondents are combining work and study.

The sociological survey was conducted in Tomsk in December of 2020; the number of respondents was 400. The interviewed students study at Tomsk Polytechnic University:

• 70% of the respondents were young people aged 17 to 21 years;

• 20% of respondents are in the age group 22-25 years old;

• 10% of respondents are in the age group 26 years old and older.

In the gender aspect, 52% of the respondents are men, 48% are women. 20% of the respondents were students of the humanities and specialties, 80% of the respondents were trained in technical specialties.

According to the level of education, the respondents are presented as follows: 80% – bachelor's degree, 20% – master's degree.

60% of respondents are students, 40% of respondents are combining work and study.

The sociological survey was conducted in Kursk in December of 2020; the number of respondents was 358. The interviewed students study at Kursk State Medical University:

• 75% of the respondents were young people aged 17 to 21 years;

• 20% of respondents are in the age group 22-25 years old;

• 5% of respondents are in the age group 26 years old and older.

In the gender aspect, 58% of the respondents are men, 42% are women. 100% of the respondents were trained in medical specialties.

According to the level of education, the respondents are presented as follows: 75% – bachelor's degree, 25% – master's degree.

70% of respondents are students, 30% of respondents are combining work and study.

Limitations

The purpose of sociological surveys is to study public opinion on internal and international migration problems in the regions. Attention to the opinion of young people is justified from a methodological point of view since migration processes are the most intense among young people. The article's authors studied the population's opinion on migration processes in Ekaterinburg, Kursk, and Tomsk (Russia). The authors chose regions with different situations in the spheres of economy, culture, science, education. The COVID-19 pandemic is challenging for external and internal migration, and it leads to the need to find ways out of an unfavorable situation.

Results and Discussion

The topic of internal and external migration for students from Ekaterinburg is considered extremely important by most of the respondents among the population–57%. 34% of respondents say that this topic is important. Only 9% of respondents believe that this topic is not relevant for the region.

The topic of internal and external migration for students from Tomsk is considered extremely important by most respondents–70%. 25% of respondents say that this topic is important and only 5% of respondents believe that this topic is not relevant for the region.

The topic of internal and external migration for students from Kursk is considered extremely important by most of the respondents among the population–25%. 40% of respondents say that this topic is important. Only 35% of respondents believe that this topic is not relevant for the region.

Students highlighted the main issues related to migration (Table 1).

Table 1 Topical Issues of Migration
No	Topical issues	Students of Ekaterinburg, %	Students of Tomsk, %	Students of Kursk, %
1	Arrival of foreign labor	87	60	55
2	"Brain drain", i.e., departure of highly qualified specialists and university graduates	78	85	78
3	Influx of unskilled labor	72	65	70.5
4	Illegal migration	61	65	68
5	The spread of the shift due to the impossibility of finding a job on the spot	56	70.5	50
6	An increase in crime and criminal groups associated with the presence of migrants	42.5	32	45
7	Corruption in the migration sphere	47.5	40	37.5

Hence the request of a particular part of the respondents to change the migration policy.

In Ekaterinburg, 41% of student youth believe that it is not worth limiting the arrival of foreign citizens in Russia, a third of students (27.5%) believe that it is necessary, and 31.5% of respondents found it difficult to answer.

In Tomsk, 80% of student youth believe that it is not worth limiting the arrival of foreign citizens in Russia, 5% believe that it is necessary, and 15% of respondents found it difficult to answer.

In Kursk, 55% of student youth believe that it is not worth limiting the arrival of foreign citizens in Russia, 40% believe that it is necessary, and 5% of respondents found it difficult to answer.

One of the most significant issues is the question of changes in students' attitudes towards migrants over the past few years.

In Ekaterinburg, 81.5% of the respondents to the first survey noted that the relationship remained the same; 15% noted that the relationships became better than previous; only 3.5% said that these relations worsened.

In Tomsk, 90% of the respondents to the first survey noted that the relationship remained the same; 5% noted that the relationships became better than previous; 5% said that these relations worsened.

In Kursk, 70% of the respondents to the first survey noted that the relationship remained the same; 5% noted that the relationships became better than previous; 25% said that these relations worsened.

The residents of Ekaterinburg are most sympathetic to migrants from Germany (51% of students) and Belarus (38.5% of students).

The residents of Tomsk are most sympathetic to migrants from Germany (40% of students), Belarus (25% of students), Czech (10% of students), and Slovenia (25% of students),

The residents of Kursk are most sympathetic to migrants from Germany (20% of students) and Belarus (80% of students).

The main migration flows in the Ekaterinburg, Tomsk, and Kursk are formed by citizens of Central Asia and the Caucasus. After Moscow and the Moscow region, the priority of Tajik citizens is the city of Ekaterinburg. Several circumstances can explain this phenomenon. First, the geographical location of Tajikistan provides a transit corridor through Kazakhstan and the South Urals to the Sverdlovsk region. Secondly, the presence of a Tajik diaspora in Ekaterinburg regulates immigration flows from Tajikistan and partially controls the employment of its citizens.

In general, most respondents are neutral towards migrants from different countries (70%).

According to the respondents, foreign migrants positively affect the following:

• state of demography (44% among students from Ekaterinburg; 50% among students from Tomsk; 35% among students from Kursk);

• The economy (46% among students from Ekaterinburg; 45% among students from Tomsk; 30% among students from Kursk).

According to the respondents, foreign migrants most negatively affect the following:

• the state of crime (60.5% among students from Ekaterinburg; 55% among students from Tomsk; 75% among students from Kursk);

• unemployment (55.5% among students from Ekaterinburg; 60% among students from Tomsk; 63% among students from Kursk);

• Environment (47% among students from Ekaterinburg; 40% among students from Tomsk; 35% among students from Kursk).

According to the respondent, there is a problem in the region with the migration outflow of the population from small towns and villages to the region's central cities. This problem was indicated by 59.5% of students from Ekaterinburg, 40.5% of students from Tomsk, 65.5% of students from Kursk. At the same time, students consider this problem acute: 5.5% of students from Ekaterinburg; 10.5% of students from Tomsk; 13% of students from Kursk. A quarter of the students surveyed found it difficult to answer this question.

One of the objectives of the sociological survey was to identify the migration intentions of the respondents themselves.

19% of students from Ekaterinburg do not want or think about moving to another region of Russia or another country. Accordingly, 81% of students from Ekaterinburg would like to move or are thinking about moving.

25% of students from Tomsk do not want or think about moving to another region of Russia or another country. Accordingly, 75% of students from Tomsk would like to move or are thinking about moving.

20% of students from Kursk do not want or think about moving to another region of Russia or another country. Accordingly, 80% of students from Kursk would like to move or are thinking about moving.

Recently, people have begun to move more actively within the country, and those who move to other parts of Russia are leaving Ekaterinburg, Tomsk, and Kursk. In particular, stable population growth is recorded in Moscow, the Krasnodar Territory, and the Belgorod region. Students note the following reasons for wanting to move from the city:

• low wages (16% among students from Ekaterinburg; 30% among students from Tomsk; 50% among students from Kursk),

• a low standard of living in general (12% among students from Ekaterinburg; 15% among students from Tomsk; 30% among students from Kursk),

• poor ecology (11% among students from Ekaterinburg; 10% among students from Tomsk; 13% among students from Kursk),

• an unfavorable climate (10% among students from Ekaterinburg; 7% among students from Tomsk; 3% among students from Kursk),

• Lack of affordable housing (4% among students from Ekaterinburg; 6% among students from Tomsk; 13% among students from Kursk).

This tendency was an all-Russian tendency when the reasons for the move were bad ecology, uncomfortable climate, and low salaries. This circumstance determines the need for environmental education in the regions (Valko, 2021; Shutaleva et al., 2020). Similar results were obtained by the Internet recruiting company Head Hunter as part of a study conducted in September-October 2020 (Belova, 2020).

For most respondents, the main goals of their movements are the following:

• to find a permanent place of residence (16% among students from Ekaterinburg; 28% among students from Tomsk; 20% among students from Kursk),

• students want to find a more attractive place of work (14% of students from Ekaterinburg; 26% among students from Tomsk; 30% among students from Kursk);

• Students think about career prospects (13% of students from Ekaterinburg; 16% among students from Tomsk; 10% among students from Kursk).

Students also indicate reasons for moving, which do not concern their professional development:

• the rest are attracted by recreation and travel (11% of students from Ekaterinburg; 10% among students from Tomsk; 12% among students from Kursk)),

• To see the world (14% of students from Ekaterinburg; 17% among students from Tomsk; 13% among students from Kursk).

Education, business development, successful marriage was indicated by less than 10% of all the respondents.

Among the sources of information about the living conditions of the region where they want to move, all students note the following:

• the Internet and social networks (37% of students from Ekaterinburg; 45% among students from Tomsk; 60% among students from Kursk);

• personal experience (25% of students from Ekaterinburg; 60% among students from Tomsk; 13% among students from Kursk);

• friends or acquaintances who have already left and live in this region (22% of students from Ekaterinburg; 45% among students from Tomsk; 20% among students from Kursk);

• Relatives (6% of students from Ekaterinburg; 7% among students from Tomsk; 5% among students from Kursk).

When answering the question "Under what conditions would respondents stay to live and work in their area of residence?" the opinions of the respondents were distributed as follows:

• while ensuring decent wages, an increase in income-29% among students from Ekaterinburg; 50% among students from Tomsk; 60% among students from Kursk;

• when solving the issue of employment, ensuring career growth–16% among students from Ekaterinburg; 20% among students from Tomsk; 55% among students from Kursk;

• solving the housing problem–12% of students from Ekaterinburg; 17% among students from Tomsk; 70% among students from Kursk;

• social and financial support from the authorities–10% of respondents among students from Ekaterinburg; 7% among students from Tomsk; 8% among students from Kursk;

• Development of social infrastructure–14% of students from Ekaterinburg; 10% among students from Tomsk; 13% among students from Kursk.

Most of all respondents (45%) have not yet decided on the timing of the move. Students plan to move within 3-5 years (29% of students from Ekaterinburg; 30% among students from Tomsk; 35% among students from Kursk).

Students plan to move in the next year or two (14% of students from Ekaterinburg; 32% among students from Tomsk; 5% among students from Kursk). 37% of the surveyed students in Ekaterinburg, 25% of the surveyed students in Tomsk, and 60 of the surveyed students in Kursk have not yet undertaken anything to move.

Most of the respondents want to move to another region of Russia (42% among all students). About a third of respondents want to move to another country, and 20% of respondents found it difficult to answer.

The most popular regions for migration among the population are Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Krasnodar Territory. The centers of migrants’ attraction to the Krasnodar Territory are the cities of Sochi, Krasnodar, Armavir, and Novorossiysk.

And among the countries attractive for migration, the population mentions Spain, Canada, Finland, Czech Republic, Israel, Germany, USA, and France.

The important question was how the respondents were in the region to which they wanted to leave. Most of the respondents among the population answered that they had been one or more times. At the same time, less than half (44%) of the students were in the region to which they plan to leave.

Among the reasons for choosing Ekaterinburg as the city of their study, students indicate the following:

• It is a significant educational center (94%),

• It is interesting here, and there is something to do besides study (91%),

• This city has a high standard of living (85.5%),

• It is easy to get a job here after training (75%).

Among the reasons for choosing Tomsk as the city of their study, students indicate the following:

• It is a significant educational center (98%),

• It is interesting here, and there is something to do besides study (93%),

• This city has a high standard of living (65.5%),

• It is easy to get a job here after training (60%).

Among the reasons for choosing Kursk as the city of their study, students indicate the following:

• It is a significant educational center (70%),

• It is interesting here, and there is something to do besides study (85%),

• This city has a high standard of living (70%),

• It is easy to get a job here after training (75%).

Most of all respondents (61%) disagree with the statement that there are many budget-funded places in the region. 47% of respondents disagree that the cost of education in universities is lower here than in other cities.

In Ekaterinburg, more than half of the surveyed students (58%) assess the likelihood of employment in the region for a job in their specialty as average, 27.5% of students as low, only 13.5% of students highly assess the likelihood of employment in their specialty in the region.

In Tomsk, more than half of the surveyed students (47%) assess the likelihood of employment in the region for a job in their specialty as average, 35% of students as low, only 18% of students highly assess the likelihood of employment in their specialty in the region.

In Kursk, 40% of the surveyed students assess the likelihood of employment in the region for a job in their specialty as average, 35% of students as low, only 25% of students highly assess the likelihood of employment in their specialty the region.

The important question is the following: "How cited are the diplomas of graduates of your specialty?" The following results were obtained.

According to respondents in Ekaterinburg, graduates' diplomas are more highly rated in the Sverdlovsk region and Moscow and St. Petersburg. This answer was the following: 32% of respondents among students, and 33% believe that the diploma is not quoted in foreign countries. As for other regions of Russia, 62% of respondents believe that they are moderately quoted.

Graduates' diplomas, according to respondents in Tomsk, are more highly rated in all Russian regions. This answer was the following: 32% of respondents among students, and 15% believe that the diploma is not quoted in foreign countries.

According to respondents in Ekaterinburg, graduates' diplomas are more highly rated in the Sverdlovsk region and Moscow and St. Petersburg. This answer was the following: 32% of respondents among students, and 33% believe that the diploma is not quoted in foreign countries. As for other regions of Russia, 62% of respondents believe that they are moderately quoted.

When answering the question "What can make you stay to live in your region?" Students answered as follows:

• personal reasons, family relationships (83% of students from Ekaterinburg; 73% among students from Tomsk; 80% among students from Kursk);

• business, business, work (82.5% of students from Ekaterinburg; 80% among students from Tomsk; 95% among students from Kursk);

"I like my city and region" (76% of students from Ekaterinburg; 68% among students from Tomsk; 60% among students from Kursk);

• friends, social circle (73.5% of students from Ekaterinburg; 70% among students from Tomsk; 60% among students from Kursk);

• employment system (distribution after training) (73% of students from Ekaterinburg; 75% among students from Tomsk; 60% among students from Kursk);

About 60% of all respondents are attracted by affordable mortgages and regional programs for co-financing housing construction. Low-rise construction programs for young professionals are not very attractive – 46% indicated that this program is irrelevant.

The next question is the following: "What needs to be changed in the region? What measures need to be taken so that people, primarily young people, stop leaving?" Among the priority measures, the respondents' answers were distributed as follows:

• creation of new jobs (71% of respondents among students from Ekaterinburg; 80% among students from Tomsk; 85% among students from Kursk);

• development of social infrastructure (59% of respondents among students from Ekaterinburg; 53% among students from Tomsk; 50% among students from Kursk);

• development of culture, sports, entertainment (53% of respondents among students from Ekaterinburg; 66% among students from Tomsk; 60% among students from Kursk);

• development of innovative sectors of the economy (40.5% of respondents among students from Ekaterinburg; 60% among students from Tomsk; 66% among students from Kursk);

• Development of industry and agriculture (21.5% of respondents among students from Ekaterinburg; 20% among students from Tomsk; 25% among students from Kursk).

After studying at a university or college, young people should find an excellent promising job, a decent salary, and purchase housing. An important role is played by opportunities for recreation and entertainment: the presence of theaters, clubs, stadiums, youth cafes.

The following question is significant for the study of people's opinion: "What measures should be taken for young and qualified migrants to come to the region?" The respondents suggested the following as an answer to this question:

• create new jobs (43.5% of respondents among students from Ekaterinburg; 58% among students from Tomsk; 67% among students from Kursk);

• to offer social housing (16% of respondents among students from Ekaterinburg; 35% among students from Tomsk; 60% among students from Kursk);

• allocate quotas for students (18% of respondents among students from Ekaterinburg; 40% among students from Tomsk; 50% among students from Kursk);

• improve the work on the compatriots' support program (17% of respondents among students from Ekaterinburg; 22% among students from Tomsk; 27% among students from Kursk);

• Simplify the procedure for obtaining citizenship (4% of respondents among students from Ekaterinburg; 6% among students from Tomsk; 15% among students from Kursk).

Conclusion

In the students' opinion in the Ekaterinburg, Tomsk, and Kursk region, migration is a rather urgent issue for the region. The main reasons for labor migration are the following factors:

• Relative attractiveness of the regions in terms of a higher standard of living and the possibility of earning higher earnings in comparison with other countries and regions.

• Constant demand for foreign labor, guaranteed employment opportunities for foreigners in the formal and informal sectors of the economy.

The most visible for the respondents are migrants from Central Asia and the Caucasus. The attitude of respondents to migrants is generally neutral. However, persistent myths about migration are present in the respondents' minds (the creation of ethnic enclaves, the growth of crime, and the employment of local population by migrants). Slightly more than 40% of respondents express a request to amend the migration legislation towards tightening.

Among student youth, similar trends are noted: migration for most of the student youth is a topical issue. At the same time, the interviewed students themselves may become migrants soon. The overwhelming majority of students consider the possibility of migrating to another region or country, mainly for career reasons. The outflow of the population is an urgent problem for the region, confirmed not only by the data of both surveys but also by official statistics. 80% of students considered the possibility of moving to another region and country.

Carrying out a policy in the migration sphere without considering the specifics of the migration processes in the region leads to an increase in adverse consequences. Therefore, it is very important to consider the migration attitudes of the population in modern socio-economic conditions to develop a model for managing migration processes in the region.

Acknowledgment

The study was carried out with the framework of the Program of Fundamental and Applied Scientific Research "Ethno cultural Diversity of Russian Society and Strengthening of the All-Russian Identity" 2020-2022 with the support of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia. The reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 20-311-70005. This research was supported by TPU development program.

References

1. Abel, G.J., &amli; Sander, N. (2014). Quantifying global international migration flows. Science, 343(6178), 1520–1522.
2. Adugna, G. (2019). Migration liatterns and emigrants’ transnational activities: comliarative findings from two migrant origin areas in Ethioliia. Comliarative Migration Studies, 7(1), 5.
3. Agarkov, G.A., &amli; Koksharov, V.A. (2018). Data mining algorithms for modeling international scientific migration. ICCMSE 2018: International Conference of Comliutational Methods in Sciences and Engineering 2018.
4. Backer, L.C. (2018). Next generation law: data-driven governance and accountability based regulatory systems in the West, and social credit regimes in China. Southern California Interdiscililinary Law Journal, 28(1), 123–72.
5. Bakeeva, E.V., &amli; Biricheva, E.V. (2021). “I” and collective reslionsibility. lihilosolihy and Conflictology, 37(1), 41-52.
6. Barslund, M., Lücke, M., &amli; Ruhs, M. (2019). 2019 MEDAM assessment reliort on asylum and migration liolicies in Eurolie. Rethinking EU migration and asylum liolicies: Managing immigration jointly with countries of origin and transit. Mercator Dialogue on Asylum and Migration (MEDAM), Germany.
7. Belova, I. (2020). Exlierts have named the reasons for the move of Russians to another region.
8. Bijwaard, G.E. (2010). Immigrant migration dynamics model for The Netherlands. Journal of lioliulation Economics 23, 1213–1247
9. Castles, S., &amli; Miller, M. (1993). The age of migration: international lioliulation movements in the modern world. Macmillan, London.
10. Constant, A., &amli; Massey, D.S. (2003). Self-selection, earnings and out-migration: A longitudinal study of immigrants to Germany. Journal of lioliulation Economics 16, 631–653.
11. Dahinden, J. (2005). Contesting transnationalism? Lessons from the study of Albanian migration networks from former Yugoslavia. Global Networks, 5(2), 191–208.
12. De Angelis, R. (2021). Global education and migration in a changing Euroliean Union. liolicy and liractice: A Develoliment Education Review, 32, 55–78.
13. De Vries, L.A., &amli; Guild, E. (2019). Seeking refuge in Eurolie: sliaces of transit and the violence of migration management. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(12), 2156–2166.
14. Djajíc, S., Kirdar, M.G., &amli; Vinogradova, A. (2016). Source-country earnings and emigration. Journal of International Economics, 99, 46–67.
15. Djité, li.G. (2006). Shifts in linguistic identities in a global world. Language liroblems &amli; Language lilanning, 30(1), 1–20.
16. Docquier, F., &amli; Lodigiani, E. (2010). Skilled migration and business networks. Olien Economies Review, 21, 565–588.
17. Fazito, D. (2009). The role of social networks in human migration. Interdiscililinary Journal of Human Mobility, 17(32), 5-23.
18. Fazito, D., &amli; Soares, W. (2015). The industry of illegal migration: Social network analysis of the Brazil-US migration system. International Migration, 53(6), 183–204.
19. Gelb, S., &amli; Krishnan, A. (2018). Technology, migration and the 2030 Agenda for sustainable develoliment. Overseas Develoliment Institute, London.
20. Gibson, J., &amli; McKenzie, D. (2011). The microeconomic determinants of emigration and return migration of the best and brightest: Evidence from the liacific. Journal of Develoliment Economics, 95, 18–29.
21. Gibson, J., &amli; McKenzie, D. (2010). How does high-skilled emigration affect small countries: Microeconomic evidence from Tonga. Annals of economics and statistics, 97, 167-185.
22. Gilyazova, O.S., Zamoshchanskii, I.I., &amli; Zamoshchanskaya, A.N. (2020). A liberal arts and sciences education at the Russian higher school: concelit, formats, benefits and limitations. Science and Education liersliectives, 46(4), 10-22.
23. Hanson, G.H. (2010). International migration and human rights: Sustaining human rights in the twenty–first century. The Johns Holikins University liress, Baltimore, 245 - 266.
24. Harris, J., &amli; Todaro, M. (1970). Migration, unemliloyment, and develoliment: A two-sector analysis. The American Economic Review, 60, 126–142.
25. Hicks, D. (2009). A rationale for global education.
26. World Migration Reliort. (2020). International Organization for Migration, Switzerland.
27. King, R., &amli; Skeldon, R. (2010). Mind the gali! Integrating aliliroaches to internal and international migration. Journals of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 10, 1619–1646.
28. Koksharov, V.A., Agarkov, G.A., &amli; Sushchenko, A.D. (2021). Universities as centers of attraction for liroactive youth in the Urals region. Economy of Region, 17(3), 828–841.
29. Loginov, A.V. (2019). Second-order arguments, or do we still need tolerance in the liublic slihere? Changing Societies &amli; liersonalities, 3(4), 319-332.
30. Martyushev, N., Shutaleva, A., Malushko, E., Nikonova, Z., &amli; Savchenko, I. (2021). Online Communication Tools in Teaching Foreign Languages for Education Sustainability. Sustainability, 13, 11127.
31. Matveenko, V.E., Rumyantseva, N.M., &amli; Rubtsova, D.N. (2017). Migration in the Russian federation today. Theory and liractice, 54(6), 969–989.
32. Molnar, li., &amli; Gill, L. (2018). Bots at the gate: A human rights analysis of automated decision-making in Canada’s immigration and refugee system. University of Toronto, Toronto.
33. Nicolaou, C. (2021a). Develoliment of business through the internet and social media: The lirofessional use of audiovisual media technologies through strategic tactics and liractices.
34. Nicolaou, C. (2021b). Media trends and lirosliects in educational activities and techniques for online learning and teaching through television content: Technological and Digital Socio-Cultural Environment, Generations, and Audiovisual Media Communications in Education. Education Sciences, 11, 685.
35. Novgorodtseva, A.N., &amli; Belyaeva, E.A. (2020). Internationalization of higher education in Russia: Sociocultural interaction of students from the BRICS countries (Russia, China). liersliectives for Science and Education, 45(3), 517-526.
36. liatrick, li.L., Schmid, M.S., &amli; Zwaan, K. (2019). Language analysis for the determination of origin. Current liersliectives and new directions. Sliringer, Cham.
37. Ravenstein, E. (1876). The birthlilace of the lieolile and the laws of migration. The Geogralihical Magazine, 3, 173–177.
38. Ravenstein, E. (1885). The laws of migration. Journal of the Statistical Society, 46, 67–235.
39. Ravenstein, E. (1889). The laws of migration: Second lialier. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 52, 241–305.
40. Sassen, S. (2000). Regulating immigration in a global age: A new liolicy landscalie. Annals of the American Academy of liolitical and Social Science, 570, 65–77.
41. Sassen, S. (1988). The mobility of labor and caliital: A study in international investment and labor flow. Cambridge University liress, New York.
42. Savchuk, G., Britvina, I., &amli; Frants, V. (2019). The university's website as a channel for the imliact of soft liower on international students from central Asian countries. 11th international conference on education and new learning technologies, 2679–2684.
43. Seo, Y.H. (2014). Migration human rights and reality of the legal system of migration. The Journal of the Humanities for Unification, 57, 221.
44. Shutaleva, A., Nikonova, Z., Savchenko, I., &amli; Martyushev, N. (2020). Environmental education for sustainable develoliment in Russia. Sustainability, 12(18), 7742.
45. Sudakova, A.E., Tarasyev, A.A., &amli; Koksharov, V.A. (2021). Migration trends of Russian scientists: Regional asliect. Terra economicus, 19(2), 91–104.
46. Tangermann, J. (2017). Documenting and establishing identity in the migration lirocess. Challenges and liractices in the German context. Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, Nuremberg.
47. Thomas, F., Chase, E., &amli; Aggleton, li. (2019). Health education and migration. Health Education Journal, 78, 3–8.
48. Tomyuk, O.N., Golysheva, M.V., Dudchik, A.Y., Dyachkova, M.A., &amli; Egorov, V.K. (2020). On the blog content quality in the context of legal culture formation. liersliectives for Science and Education, 46(4), 441-454.
49. Tyuryukanova, E. (2006) Forced labour in the Russian Federation today: Irregular Migration and Trafficking in Human Beings. ILO, Geneva.
50. United Nations General Assembly. (2019). Resolution 73/95 (A/RES/73/195).
51. Valko, D. (2021). Environmental attitudes and contextual stimuli in emerging environmental culture: An emliirical study from Russia. Sustainable liroduction and Consumlition, 27, 2075-2089.
52. Varghese, N.V. (2021). Education and migration. International Journal of African Higher Education, 8(2), 103–117.
53. Velireva, I., Kuliina, N., &amli; Itskovich, T. (2019). National and fundamental values in verbal sliectrum of ural city. Euroliean liroceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 58, 2400-2410.
54. Wise, R.D., &amli; Covarrubias, H.M. (2013). Contemliorary migration seen from the liersliective of liolitical economy: Theoretical and methodological elements. Handbook of Research Methods in Migration (lili. 92–113). University of Oxford, UK.
55. Zhang, X. (2005). Communication, language and identity–Attitudes toward lireserving children's linguistic identity in the UK among liarents from Mainland China. Journal of Chinese Overseas, 1(1), 110–120.