From: thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi
Subject: Re: Answers and questions about ESTONIA ( wARussian Speakers in Estonia
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:30:51 GMT

In article <Sorokin.49.726256433@ps1.iaee.tuwien.ac.at>, Sorokin@ps1.iaee.tuwien.ac.at (Sorokin Zhenya) writes:
> In article <1993Jan5.160412.1@cc.helsinki.fi> thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
>>>>In article <Sorokin.43.726080290@ps1.iaee.tuwien.ac.at>, Sorokin@ps1.iaee.
>>>>tuwien.ac.at (Sorokin Zhenya) writes:
> 
>>
>>Still I do not get the point? What would be a difference between universal
>>and non-universal naturalization law?
>>
>>Usually, naturalization laws concern everyone wanting to be naturalized and
>>hence they are universal in some sense of the term.
>>
> 
> Being an Estonian (any baltic) legislator, I would propose the following:
> 1. A special law on restoring of previous citizenship (comes together with 
> restauration of previous republic). 
> 2. A special law on naturalization of current population, to whom 1. does 
> not apply.
> 3. A universal law on naturalization of newcomers (be it me tomorrow or 
> Nigerian in year 2093).
> 
> As far as I understand, 1. and 3. exist. 
> If there is a political good will, then you'll find 1001 reasons to 
> introduce 2. being different (more generous) from 3. 


The Estonian republic has the legislation that concerns all the three cases.
The non-citizens that have been residents of Estonia are the population
that could be naturalized MOST EASILY and in this respect their status
is different of a Nigerian (or any other, say Finnish) newcomer.



> If there is no such will, then you'll find 1001 general arguments to back 
> the position that current population must be treated in terms of 3., too.


At least, there is such a will in some oppositional parties in Estonia.
But what does the right wing goverment do in this issue? It has spoken
about amendments to citizenship legislation. Still, there have been
so far no legislative actions supporting these political statements!

 
> The political results are subject to discussing and guessing.
> However, if 2. is absent (or equal to 3.) then the small people will have to 
> pay for everything: for revolution, for deportation, for colonization, etc. 
> And I always try to imagine myself on somebody's place. 


I appreciate that attitude - which corresponds to the social philosophy
of Rawls.


> When I imagine myself on Tanel's place (plain Estonian), then I understand 
> his feelings very good. That's why I didn't answer his posting: I agree 
> with practically everything he said, but *only* if I consider myself an 
> Estonian (i.e. citizen). 
> When however, I imagine myself being an estonian-born 28-year-old man with 
> family, living in a small flat somewhere in local russian-speaking 
> community (and hence knowing just 10 words in Eesti (?))


Correct. The cultural will to try to use some terms of languages of
the discussion partner is always appreciated. At least by lilliput
nations like the Baltic Finns!


>, then I can hardly 
> share the same feelings. Am I to blame for something? Why am I treated worse 
> than the same guy, named Aarno? My father, who came here "as colonist" is 
> already retreated and living on my expense. 


I agree that the word "colonist" should not be used, at least not about
the bulk of non-citizens. However, there are some personality types that
came to Estonia only to rule it. They have partly departed already.



> My flat was build here by his 
> hands. What do I owe to this Aarno? What connection does Russia have to me?
> This is my homeland and motherland according to *any* human and God's law. 



Exactly people thinking that way should be granted the Estonian citizenship
as easily as possible. I suppose that here I and president Lennart Meri
agree in this respect. And, I dare to guess: so does Tanel Tammet?



>>My opinion has been and still is: the people born in Estonia should
>>receive the citizenship without language requirement.
>>
>>Just an application and citizen's oath. It should be as easy as a
>>civil marriage. But not simpler than that.
>>
> 
> Seems like we had the same position all the time. Poor UseNet and her 
> sponsors :-)


Are we actually reaching a mutual understanding? Perhaps discussion is worth 
of time spent on it, after all. Welcome to support the Estonian centrist
opposition ;-)

Usenet is inexpensive. It's the bullets and bombs that are expensive.
And human lives are irreplaceable.


Even flaming each other in usenet is healthier than physical
aggression.

thinks
Tapani Hietaniemi, Universitas Helsingiensis
                   urbs fennorum