Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet,soc.culture.soviet
Subject: *MIGRANTS* (was Re: CSCE minority commissioner on LATVIA)
From: Boris A. Veytsman <BAV2@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 09:24:37 EST
Organization: Penn State University

My discussion with Tapani became a long one. However, judging by
some postings in these newsgroups I think it is not yet a time to drop
it or switch to E-mail between Pennsylvania & Finland.

The problem is, who has right  to be a citizen of new independent
state? I have little sympathy to the post-Communist Ukrainian Parliament,
by their citizenship laws are human and moral: any resident of Ukraine
at present has a right to become a citizen - no questions asked, they'll
automatically endorse your passport (they take fee to endorse INTERNATIONAL
passport  however - Soviet bureucracy is ingenious).

What is Tapani's opinion?

In article <1993Jan28.075858.28766@klaava.Helsinki.FI>,
thietani@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tapani Hietaniemi) says:
>
>This is surely the root of my argument. Soviet Russia destroyed
>the freedom and sovereignity of a republic. The republic had
>to be re-established to rectify the previous injustice.
>

[deleted]

>But I am not denying anything, I am observing the situation in Estonia.
>
>And they HAVE NOT DENIED THE RUSSIAN-SPEAKING POPULATION ANY
>CITIZENSHIP.
>
>Some Russian speakers are citizens (minority) and some are not
>considered to be citizens (majority). The majority CAN apply
>for citizenship if it wishes. Still, I am convinced that a great part of
>the majority will apply for Russian citizenship. But they must decide first.
>

There are two ideas in these lines:

1) there was injustice done, and it is neccessary to rectify it;
2) Russian-speaking migrants can apply for Baltic citizenship.

First, you are right. There was injustice done to Baltics  - as well
as to Ukraine, Russia, Armenia - all xUSSR. But why should *migrants*
expiate it? What is THEIR guilt? Will you blame people born at Baltic in
Russian families in alleged sins of their fathers? If yes, you are
not nationalist, but nazist. _I_ may take moral responsibility
for my father's deeds, but it is not for anybody else but me to decide.

And what is the guilt of those poor people who migrated to Baltics
during Soviet times? Their only crime is trespassing non-existant
de facto border. And recall,   almost any crime has a grace term.
If I rob  somebody and they'll find me 40 years after that, they
will not prosecute me. There is a very limited list of crimes without
such term - murder is not in this list in many civlized countries.
But there is no grace term for *migrants*; they share this fate with
Nazi criminals. What a serious crime is to trespass Estonian border indeed!

Ok. A Beaumarchais hero - a judge - once declared some marriage
null and void, and children born in this marriage were declared
non-existant. Usually this episode causes laughter of spectators.
Estonian Soviet Socialist Republis, maybe null and void de jure,
existed de facto. And one cannot discard moral and legal obligations
caused by this existance, as well as one cannot discard
children born in null and void marriage.

Therefore "migrants" have all rights to citizenship. The Estonian
SSR had had obligations toward them, and Estonian Republic must
fulfill them. Once Lenin's  Govt refused to pay Tsar's debts;
do you wish to repeat this practice?

And as to your second argument. Yes, "migrants" have right to apply
for citizenship. May I tell an old Soviet joke about rights and
possibilities? A man comes to a lawer and asks him: "Have I right ..."
-"You have" - "But you didn't listen! Can I ..." - "You cannot"
I have enough experience with Soviet and xSoviet authorities to be
able to say that your argument is childish and naive for anybody
knowing Soviet practice and customs.

>
>The Estonian constitution protects effectively the fundamental
>rights of non-citizens. It has been fabricated especially to
>exceptional situation Estonia is facing.
>

Some new facts about this protection you can find in some
recent posting in this newsgroup.

I wrote:
>
B> And last point. Dear Tapani, can you explain me, why 7% Swedes
B> in Finland have right to have their language accepted as the
B> state one, and much greater percentage of Russians in Baltic
B> (you can tell exact figures) have not such right?
>
>

Tapani answered:

>That's up to Baltic citizens to decide. If you have followed this
                     ^^^^^^^^
>newsgroup, you might have noticed that I am advocating the
                                        ^
>bilingualism both in Finland and Estonia.
>
>

Dear Tapani, I have no doubt that you pesonally are an educated and
civilized person. But I have serious doubts as to Baltic
citizens. And the point is that "migrants" are now deprived
the right to share this decision. My opinion is that they AUTOMATICALLY
have this right - see my example about Portugal.

>
>And it should be kept in mind, that it's the Estonians that
>have received the right to be served in their language in
>railway stations, when visiting doctor or the police station
>during the last years. Before 1989, one was forced to use almost
>exclusively Russian in these everyday situations.
>

Do you wish to retaliate?

My personal opinion is that nationalism practicised now in Baltics,
Ukraine, etc. is our old friend totalitarism, but with new hide.
But this article is too lengthy already. I'll return
to this later - if nobody will mind.

Good luck

-Boris