From: thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re: Enigmatic double citizenship in ESTONIA
Date: 1 Oct 92 10:06:26 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <9209302353.AA19563@feds66.Prime.COM>, dleschin@FEDS66.PRIME.COM 
("", Dmitri Leschiner) writes:
>> Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 09:55:00 GMT
>> From: thietaniemi@CC.HELSINKI.FI
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> STILL, UPDATING THE DATA ON ESTONIAN
>> DOUBLE CITIZENSHIP
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> >>- However, the refugee government of Rei (in Stockholm) that considered
>> >>itself to have the mandate of the Estonian presidency, declared during the
>> >>second world war, that the Estonian (citizen) refugees in exile can
>> >>maintain the other citizenship they have got without losing the
>> >>Estonian citizenship.

>> >>- At the same time, it was declared that even the descendants of the
>> >>refugees do have the citizenship (not just the right to it, as I
>> >>mistakenly wrote before).

>> When Stalin occupied Estonia, some Estonians MIGHT have escaped to Moscow
>> or Magadan in Siberia. If they appear in Estonian courts and
>> insist to maintain the Soviet citizenship they got, they should win their
>> case easily. :)  Citizenship of Russia (1991-) is of course, another matter.
>> The point of emergence was, that there will be no new double citizenships
>> any more.

> Well, newly acquired Russian citizenships are probably another matter
> (definitely will be, when Riigikogu will change the legislation) - but as
> to Russian (1991-) citizenship which is the reestablishment of Soviet one -
> there must be more caution adopted. The point which is valid here is double
> in nature:
> 
> 1. According to the Soviet laws, all Soviet citizens were holders of at least
>    double, and in some cases triple (or more) citizenships. (In fact, pertinent
>    legislation was not worked out carefully enough, and also there were minor
>    differences in laws of different republics, but the general scheme is like
>    following.) That is, Soviet citizenship, and citizenship of (at least one)
>    republic in which they lived or (and) were born. [Of course, all subsequent
>    considerations make sense only if we consider Soviet laws having legal value
>    at all. My personal opinion is rather that they do not have it per se, but
>    if they are confirmed (recognised, used and, accordingly, endorsed and
>    therefore legalised) by subsequent legal entity (which current Russian
>    Federation probably is - at least it is recognised by Estonia as such),
>    they will acqure legal power even retroactively, for cases which are in
>    current jurisdiction of confirming entity (e.g., Russian Federation).]
> 
>    All persons had automatically acquired citizenship of republic where their
>    family had permanent legal residence at the moment of their birth. In
>    some cases, citizenship of place of actual birth (if differ from mentioned
>    before) may also be granted (that is, if actual temporary residence will
>    subsequently transform to legal permanent one). Also, one may have right
>    to citizenship of republic which their parent(s) were citizens at the moment
>    of his birth. All these birthright citizenships were lifetime ones (not all
>    x-Soviet republics recognize exactly these rules now, but for Russia it is
>    probably the case. I've posted few more on the subject in response of Jarmo
>    Ryyti's inquiry few days ago.)
> 
> 2. Also, all Soviet citizens were automatically considered citizens of republic
>    where they had legal permanent residence at the time. That citizenship was
>    not permanent by nature, since it was considered rejected by person as soon
>    as (s)he changed place of legal permanent residence. But, now these citizen-
>    ships became permanent ones as well, particularly in Russia, after dissolu-
>    tion of Soviet Union. In Russia, all former-Soviet citizens are still getting
>    Russian citizenship automatically upon obtaining legal permanent residence
>    in Russia.
> 
> The point which I was trying to make is that while Estonian legislators (or
> whomever) may argue that contemporary Russian citizenship is different from
> the Soviet one (which is indeed the case), in fact the _Russian_ citizenship
> of Soviet times is recognized by modern Russia as _legally the same_ as current
> one, and moreover, old Soviet citizenship may serve as sufficient condition
> for acquiring the Russian one in some cases, so act of such acquiring should
> not probably be considered as getting of new citizenship, but rather as of
> mantaining the rights which were provided by old (Soviet) one. That is an
> interpretation of Russian laws, I'm not saying it is binding for Estonian
> legislation, but for practical matters it seems reasonable to hold to Russian
> legislation in matters concerning Russian citizenship, even if any other legal
> system is involved in the same case.
 
I see your point, it looks convincing to me. But has it any other implications 
that these (possibly non-existent) Estonian citizens that became refugees in 
Russia after the Stalin occupation could win their case when they wanted to 
maintain even their Russian citizenship? Is this only an "academic" question?

>> --  It is absurd that some John Johnson in Phoenix, Arizona,
>> who has the citizenship of Estonia,but does neither know a word of Estonian 
>> or Russian, nor is aware where Estonia is, can cast his ballot and decide 
>> whether Estonia should declare war against Finland or anything!

>> I'll bet 100 Estonian crowns that the Estonians will not allow John Johnson
>> vote in the next elections!
 
> Well, but it probably does not mean that John Johnson would be deprived of his
> citizenship _which he already_ has? (And, without any specific actions from
> his side??) It does not seem a legally valid approach, I'd guess. I'd rather
> think that all who have the right to vote _now_, would hold it forever (and
> also those who would have it now if they were aged enough), unless they will
> explicitly give it up, but new acquisitions of 'John Johnson' citizens will
> be stopped.
 
> But, in fact, they might deprive him of right to vote, without stripping him
> of citizenship (say, introduce residence requirements). That would be another
> case than that which I discussed - but still in scope of 100 crowns bet!

Exactly. I suppose that only those citizens that are permanent residents
in Estonia will have the right to vote in the next elections. John Johnson
will never be deprived of his citizenship. And, according to the new
constitution, he will always have the right to move in Estonia (and cast his
vote).
 
> Any way, your 100 crowns (~ $10, is it?) are alredy on stake. Would you like
> to clarify your claim to make the win more likely? I hope 100 crowns would
> worth more than $10 by next elections!

My claim was stated above.
8 Estonian crowns equal 1 Deutschmark (these currency values are bound
together). 
With hundred crowns, one can buy three pints of the best Danish beer in 
a Tallin pub (Tallin = Taani linn = Denmark's city).

cheers!
Tapani Hietaniemi, University of Helsinki

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, The Finnish state president Koivisto is visiting the sunny Uzbekistan
today. Yesterday the Uzbeks treated him with kumys, which must have
caused him a unique case of hangover.