From: Sorokin@ps1.iaee.tuwien.ac.at (Sorokin Zhenya)
Subject: Re: Answers and questions about ESTONIA ( wARussian Speakers in Estonia
Organization: Technical University of Vienna
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:53:53 GMT

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. 
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.

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. 
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 (?)), 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. 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. 
If Zimbabwe is ready to give me citizenship, does it matter?

>>>This is disinformation: there is no boycott: every one can voluntarily
>>>apply for Estonian citizenship. Still, I think that the majority of
>>>non-citizens will be waiting until February to see whether the tables
>>>will be turned...
>>>
>> 
>> 5% IS BOYCOTT, whether it is explicitly organized, or not. I remember this 
>> figure from one of Tanel's angry postings here. 
>
>
>If only 5% of Estonian residents buy Coke and not Pepsi, it's no
>boycott but a free decision.
>

???

>
>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 :-)

Yours,
Xref: sparky soc.culture.soviet:11996 soc.culture.europe:11128 talk.politics.soviet:10357