Based on ten months of ethnographic fieldwork in marginal, low-income, Belenino river communities located in Iquitos, a fluvial city in the Amazon basin. By using ethnographic methods and semi-structured interviews, this article traces how risk is associated with life in Belenino communities and how the identity of Beleninos and the river at the heart of a resettlement project are politically constructed rather than empirically constructed. In this case study of resettlement, understandings of risk and development by Belenino river communities and the government both conflicted and overlapped, I identified three elements that help to shape the concept of risk in both groups that highlight the disjunctive meanings provided by culture and demonstrate the complexity of the analysis of both populations. Finally, by putting the state’s weak presence after a developmental project failure under ethnographic approximation, the article reveals an imbalance in validity and power in terms of the perspectives of the river and Belen.

The authors argue that despite significant numbers of foreign workers present in the Russian labor market Russia remains unattractive for highly skilled foreign workers. The economic crisis the country has faced since 2014 has resulted in a further outflow of foreign nationals from OECD countries. So Russia has to look for employees among newcomers from the former Soviet states, the majority of whom come from Central Asia. Russian politics with regard to immigration is characterized by the collision between “geopolitical” and domestic policy rationales. On one hand, seeking to maximize its influence in the post-Soviet space Russia provides preferential conditions of employment for citizens of partner countries in the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union. On the other hand, the Kremlin is afraid to liberalize its approach to immigration and the integration of immigrants through fear of losing popularity among the electorate. The second substantial feature of Russian immigration politics is an extreme level of securitization of migration issues. The government considers these issues primarily through a policing lens. One cannot claim that the Russian state does not take any steps to liberalize “migratory regulation”; however, the effect of these measures is being vastly reduced by new restrictions. In addition, liberally designed laws do not bring the expected results due to the corrupt practices that pervade the whole of migration regulation.