One of the groups mentioned in the article were the stateless. I was unsure what that meant, specifically, so a quick search brought me to this article from Politico which describes them as being...
One of the groups mentioned in the article were the stateless. I was unsure what that meant, specifically, so a quick search brought me to this article from Politico which describes them as being former citizens of the USSR who had settled in Latvia and Estonia. When the declared independence they were not granted automatic citizenship in either country. However, Russia would grant citizenship to any former Soviet if requested.
I find it interesting that they chose not to do so. Per the article, it appears that those same people voted for independence from Russia with the fall of the Soviet Union, but then made them sort-of-non-citizens. The argument being that they would have voted for a re-approximation with Russia. A strange argument to make…
Interestingly, Lithuania, the other Baltic state, extended citizenship to all and has no stateless people.
Speaking as an immigrant myself, integration is in fact difficult, but not impossible. So there’s likely something inherent to the situation in the Baltics that causes this phenomenon. Anyone have any insight?
Are the Russian speakers essentially USSR-era colonialists? I find it interesting that they have their own kind of nimbyism where they want the Russian speakers to integrate, but not in their...
Are the Russian speakers essentially USSR-era colonialists?
I find it interesting that they have their own kind of nimbyism where they want the Russian speakers to integrate, but not in their schools. I wonder how common that kind of sentiment was in the American South after Brown v. Board.
Essentially, yes. I found an article describing them as former citizens of the USSR who were living there when they declared independence. They were not granted automatic citizenship and have not...
Essentially, yes. I found an article describing them as former citizens of the USSR who were living there when they declared independence. They were not granted automatic citizenship and have not requested Russian or any other citizenship.
One of the groups mentioned in the article were the stateless. I was unsure what that meant, specifically, so a quick search brought me to this article from Politico which describes them as being former citizens of the USSR who had settled in Latvia and Estonia. When the declared independence they were not granted automatic citizenship in either country. However, Russia would grant citizenship to any former Soviet if requested.
I find it interesting that they chose not to do so. Per the article, it appears that those same people voted for independence from Russia with the fall of the Soviet Union, but then made them sort-of-non-citizens. The argument being that they would have voted for a re-approximation with Russia. A strange argument to make…
Interestingly, Lithuania, the other Baltic state, extended citizenship to all and has no stateless people.
Speaking as an immigrant myself, integration is in fact difficult, but not impossible. So there’s likely something inherent to the situation in the Baltics that causes this phenomenon. Anyone have any insight?
Are the Russian speakers essentially USSR-era colonialists?
I find it interesting that they have their own kind of nimbyism where they want the Russian speakers to integrate, but not in their schools. I wonder how common that kind of sentiment was in the American South after Brown v. Board.
Essentially, yes. I found an article describing them as former citizens of the USSR who were living there when they declared independence. They were not granted automatic citizenship and have not requested Russian or any other citizenship.
Mirror, for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.is/gRby6