From: bil@burka..aix.kingston.ibm.com (Igor Belchinskiy)
Subject: Re: "democratic" Estonia
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 15:24:56 GMT
Organization: Be. I am.

In article <1992Aug27.195038.6568@linus.mitre.org> ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei) writes:
>     Trying hard to ignore the flames...
>
>     While I refer throughout to Estonia, the following also applies
>to the other Baltic States, and to other former colonies.
>
>     Lets take this by stages.
>
>     1. I think we all agree that a nation has a right to control who
>can immigrate to it's territory, and exclude foreigners for whatever
>reason it sees fit. All nations worth living in do this - the only
>ones which don't are nations to which no one in their right mind would
>immigrate.
Not all agree. What do you mean when you say "nation has the right"?
Nation should have this right?
Or there is some kind of absolute law of nations rights?
Or that if nation can it forms country and government and postulate
it's laws it usually tries to defend itself in this laws?
And I wouldn't ask how can you say if "nation worth living"?
BTW, do you know that there were nations without territory or
nations that share territory - what about their right to control?
As in Estonia case - status quo is sharing.
Oh, yes, and how would you define who is foreigner? Is a foreigner
somebody who was born and lived 50 years in the country?

>     2. The Soviet occupation of the Baltic states was an illegal act,
>set up by the Molotov/Ribbentrop (aka Hitler/Stalin) pact. This is a
>matter of historical record, and was admitted by the Soviet government
>before it fell. 

Yes - though there are some nuances (like why it was legal act
in SU for half a century).

>     3.The puppet occupation governments set up by the Soviets were
>therefore also illegal.

We can say this - or we can look at Panama or Granada.

>     4. Many Soviet citizens emigrated to Estonia during the period
>of occupation. This was in violation of Estonian law, but Estonian law
>was ignored by the illegal occupation government.
Violation of Estonian law of old Estonia. But let's remember that laws 
aren't from God. Like American constitution was violation of British
colony law.

>     5. The Soviet (evil :-) empire has now fallen, so the legitimate
>Estonian Government (and Estonian law) have now returned to the
>country.

No. It's new country, new people, new government. And, btw, they 
set new laws - they don't use the same laws as in pre-1939 Estonia.

>     6. Violations of Estonian law (such as illegal immigration)
>committed under the protection of the illegal occupation government
>remain violations of Estonian law.

Which law? Which Estonia?

>      If you disagree 3 or 6, then you have to accept that other
>actions taken by occupying forces - such as the execution of Soviet
>partisans by the Nazis - were legal. I don't think you do.

Yes, they were - according to their (Nazis) - laws. Laws are just
general (de-) pre-scriptions of norms and directions of development
and wishes of given society, which person wishfully accept or not. 
According to some laws Russia should now restore monarchy
(bolshevics and October were illegal, weren't they?), and according 
to that laws Estonia and Chuhon' (Finland) should now be provinces
of restored empire.

Let's repeat again: laws correspond to time and situation, not otherwise.

There is a difference between laws and moral (though moral isn't
absolute also). And of course you always should consider angle of vision.

>     7. Therefore, the Estonian Government has a perfect right to
>expel foreigners who illegally entered Estonia during the Soviet
>occupation. Please remember that non-citizens do not have equal rights
>with citizens - they can't vote, and have no automatic right of
>residency.  In an act of generosity, a process has been put into place
>to permit those who assimilate to earn citizenship.
>
>     Anyone have any problems with the logic above?

Yes, at least you :-) - and a lot (hope it's not flame). See above.

>     The following is much more arguable...
>
>     The fate of children of these illegal immigrants born on Estonian
>soil is a separate and more difficult matter, and one for which I do
>not have a good solution.
Time and patience - and your voice for their rights and rights of their
parents to live where they lived their lives (hope it's not pathetic).

>     Many countries (but by no means all) consider anyone born on
>their soil automatically citizens.
>
>     In the case of Estonia, there was never any intention on the part
>of the parents that they or their children should become "Estonians".
>Rather they were "Soviets" or members of their parents' nationality.
>
>     These facts, that the parents were in the country illegally, and
>without any intention of assimilation on their part or that of their
>children, seems to place these people in a different position than
>that intended by the "citizenship by location of birth" idea.

How many first generation immigrants to US had intention of assimilation?

> Their
>situation is more like that of the Taipans of China, the Italians of
>Libya, the French of Algeria, and the Moors of Spain. All of these, as
>their supporting empires fell, were expelled as non-citizens from the
>place they had been born, despite having lived there for generations
>(and in the case of the Moors, centuries).

Probably that would happen eventually - but the problem is that
right now this people don't have place where to go (remember 
Russia hardships) and also that these people worked and payed taxes
and built factories, etc in Estonia.

>     From this I would argue that the process of decolonization
>frequently includes the ability (if desired) of the newly freed nation
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's the keyword - Ability, not wishful thinking. Current estonian
gov thinks it has this ability (power to implement expellation by
indirect means).

>to expel people who arrived under the flag of the occupying power,
>along with their direct descendants. This is simply restitution of the
>situation prior to the invasion.

No - you can't go to the same river twice.

>     As far as I am aware (I may need correction on this), Estonia is
>NOT proposing to expel anyone - only to deny naturalization to those
>who refuse to assimilate.

If I'm wrong please correct me - I always thought that Nazi Germany
never expelled Jews - they just make impossible for them to live there.
I don't want to make any parallels (and I don't have current firsthand
experience of life in Estonia - I was there last time year and half ago) -
just to remember that usually there are curvy roads leading to the same goal.

>[      Does anyone have good figures for the number of Soviets who	]
>[ emigrated to Estonia during the occupation, and the number of their	]
>[ descendants born on Estonian soil? 					]

>     I'll be interested in seeing people's comments on this.
>
>							Peter Trei
>
>PS: Try watching "The Battle of Algiers". - a great film, regardless
>of what you think of the sides involved.

Now let's see how all that would be misinterpreted :-)

Igor Belchinskiy
vendiib%kgnaix11@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet