Talk:Non-citizens (Latvia)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Latvian nationality law[edit]

The article should be a part of Latvian nationality law. Matthew_hk tc 11:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It's not "pure law", but a group of people with a special social status, subject of political tension. If you wish to write Latvian nationality law, this article could be main article for one of sections in "L. n. l." Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A greatly belated response, but absolutely correct. "Non-citizen" is a new status under international law: on the one side you have contentions that these people might as well be stateless, on the other side you have contentions that there isn't a lot of practical difference between non-citizens and citizens. With regard to job restrictions, for example, a non-citizen not speaking Latvian is not going to seek a government job anyway--that they cannot hold specific positions in government is a red herring.
   The main issue is the right to vote. And there, unfortunately, I have to agree that competency in Latvian is essential, otherwise you're nothing but a block voter who will wind up slavishly following what Russophone activists tell you to do because that's the only truth you know. Personally, I see a class of the most prominent of those activists as no different than a class of civil rights activists in the U.S.: those who maintain their position of power by making themselves the center of controversy while reinforcing to their constituency how downtrodden and beset they are. And how only thanks to the constituency's unflagging support of said activist will said activist rescue their constituency from the abyss. It's not as much advocating for rights, it's maintaining personal power by institutionalizing polarization and perpetuating the perception of powerlessness on the part of a constituency.
   Obviously I got up on the cynical side of the bed this morning. PetersV       TALK 16:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major Copy Edit[edit]

The intro was far too large, talking more about statelessness than about non-citizens. Summarized, moved below, and copy-edited through down to the renamed "Politics of citizenship" section, which I haven't touched yet. Enough for one night. The main point was to separate out the equating of non-citizens with the stateless versus international law which I think is now done appropriately, that is, legally, non-citizenship: is unique, had not existed until created in Estonia and Latvia, and is not the same as stateless.
   I see a number of places where refs are needed or perhaps existing one moved around, that will likely come last. I'm calling it a "copy edit" instead of rewrite as I'm mostly rearranging and improving wording, including going back to existing citations to insure proper representation. PetersV       TALK 05:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On whether "non-citizen = stateless" one set of descriptions (equated to) is by non-legal people, the other set ("not stateless", quote unquote), is by legal experts. That takes precedent if talking about international law. That reference, by the way, is the only one mentioning law. All the other equatings do not, so they do not apply to international law. It's not my personal interpretation of NPOV--hope this helps! PetersV       TALK 15:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A human rights NGO Amnesty International, Doudou Diene (Special Rapporteur of Human Rights Council), and CoE Commissioner for Human Rights who find statelessness in non-citizenship of Latvia are legal experts in the field of human rights, exactly like Constitutional Court of Latvia and "EU Network...". To call them "non-legal people" is at least strange. So I've removed the claim that EU Network is right (without claiming that AI, CoE Commissioner and Diene are right).Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who says, to use the Latvian, that "nepilsoni = bezvalstnieki" is making a political (at worst) or policy (at best), not legal, statement. That's simply the way it is, as legal experts have specifically stated that nepilsons is a unique status herefore unknown in international law. So you can't say CoE et al are passing comment or judgement on whether "nepilsoni" are "stateless". The best you can say is that the comparison has been made. The very fact that nepilsoni travel visa free in the EU is proof that the two are not legally equivalent. Please don't indicate Amnesty International declarations et al. are authoritative with regard to the legal status of nepilsoni are concerned. That's doing a disservice to the topic. PetersV       TALK 20:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who says, to use the Latvian, that "nepilsoni = bezvalstnieki" is making a political (at worst) or policy (at best), not legal, statement This can be your POV. However, Wikipedia cannot write that those who disagree with Vecrumba are therefore not making legal statements. legal experts have specifically stated - human rights are part of law. Are the Commissioner for Human Rights of Council of Europe and Special Rapporteur of UN Human Rights Council (jurist) not legal experts, if you don't consider the most prominent human rights NGOs like AI (its former leader Hammarberg became the Commissioner for Human Rights of Council of Europe) legal experts? Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Besides, I'm forced to say that "EU network..." speaks, if the quotation is correct (unlike views about non-citizens being stateless, it's not provided with a link), of non-citizens under the 1995 Law on Status of citizens of the former USSR who are not citizens of Latvia or any other country are neither citizens, nor foreigners, nor stateless persons Is it appropriate to cite them as evidence for (deserving mentioning) POV that non-citizens aren't stateless "as regards international law "? The fact that they aren't under Latvian law is not disputed.Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did bit of editing mainly to remove the "EU Network..." verbiage out of the quote as that was now in the narrative. "Stated" I think is a better verb than "described" as they specifically talk about international law (whereas the other statements are all comparisons). I do have a reference somewhere that Latvia does consider themselves completely in compliance with the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, but that's for a second pass after finishing up the first copy edit. PetersV       TALK 16:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3PO A third opinion was requested regarding this issue. Could each of you please briefly state what changes (or lack of changes) you are proposing in the article, as well as the references or WP policies which support your position? NJGW (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To rewrite the phrase With regard to international law, non-citizens are not considered stateless in "Status" section in order not to present this POV as fact (a lot of sources considering the opposite are already quoted in the same section above). Policy: WP:NPOV.Quoting section 1.1.: policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth" Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused[edit]

This article cites sources that claim that this status is unique, but that seems incorrect. It sounds very much like these people are Latvian nationals (people subject to the laws of the state) but not Latvian citizens (people permitted to vote or otherwise be involved in civic affairs) -- a status that exists elsewhere now (e.g., American Samoa) and which, until the last century or so, was the single most common situation throughout all of human history (e.g., a status including nearly all women, children, peasants, serfs, and slaves).

Are these non-citizens also non-nationals? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any reliable sources exploring this question. It is to note, that in the continental Europe the division between citizens and nationals is untypical.Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no such split. Under the European tradition used by Latvia, 'nationality' is not a separate concept -- it's synonymous to 'citizenship'. Thus, non-citizens of Latvia are also non-nationals, although that word is not much used.
However, keep in mind that in some contexts, 'nationality' may be used in the sense of 'ethnicity'. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 09:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not obligatory, in German, there are different terms - Staatsangehoerigkeit and Staatsbuergerschaft. Specific question if non-citizens of Latvia are stateless or not (this would mean - second-class nationals), could be resolved by International Court of Justice, but currently no member state of 1961 or 1954 conventions of statelessness has raised this issue before the court.Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od) What WhatamIdoing is describing discrimination against people who are citizens but who because of race, color, creed, residence, etc. are discriminated against with regards to rights available to other citizens. Nepilsoņi are citizens of a defunct country who did not take citizenship of the (single) successor sovereign entity (Russia) but because of their prior permanent residence have been granted certain rights which are the same as those of citizens--particularly, they got to claim property "legally" obtained during Soviet occupation stolen by the USSR from its rightful owners, who, after independence, received compensation from the state instead of getting their property restored.
   Latvia, considering itself (and considered by virtually all) as a sovereign entity continuous with the one declared independent in 1918, restored its constitution, including its provisions regarding citizenship. It's a sovereign country, it's within its rights to do that.
   The nepilsons status, while attacked as Russophobic discrimination by some, affords most of the rights granted to citizens, the primary right not granted being the right to vote. As I said, however, this is not discrimination against any citizen.
   IMHO, Russia's rules for citizenship are far more restrictive, with far more horror stories, than Latvia's. "Do as I say, not as I do." PetersV       TALK 20:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There is nothing "common" throughout history that once a rightful power is restored, the citizen-immigrants (including now "retired" military who had nothing to return to in Russia) of the prior invading power get to claim their house and vegetable garden after the invading power shot its owners and gave it to said immigrants to live in. PetersV       TALK 20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. WhatamIdoing speaks of non-citizens being nationals, not citizens, as you put it. 2. You hesitate about existence of discrimination? Well, only 11 days ago ECtHR has found forbidden discrimination in the Latvian pensions law concerning non-citizens in case Andrejeva v. Latvia (55707/00), with 16 votes against 1 (that of judge from Latvia).
There are no bezpilsoņi in Latvia, there are nepilsoņi and bezvalstnieki. Maybe you will reconsider your bold statements knowing this.
The list of tens of citizens' rights, which the non-citizens lack, is available - look in the "External links" of the article.
I regret your avoiding the topic by speaking about rules for citizenship in Russia and claiming that goods conficsated by Soviets were given to immigrants (and not a word about locals); besides, much more being given either to state (neiher locals nor immigrants got the dwellings in nationalized housing as property - both got only tenancy) or to collective farms (and the locals were in the overwhelming majority in the rural area).Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for needing more coffee, "bez-" to "ne-" fixed.
   You list a case which has been found to be discriminatory. The case cited was one where someone was paid out of an office in another SSR. However, you fail to cite the positive, which is, that anyone who was employed for all the Soviet era in Latvia and is a nepilsons does does receive a pension. This is the issue with using court cases, it's WP:OR unless it appears in a scholarly source because then we, the editors, are making conclusions. (The case also cites a pertinent government objection which for procedural reasons was not considered, for example.) Your implication is there is wide-spread and frequent discimination ("only 11 days ago") whereas the rule of law states you worked in Latvia, you are entitled to your pension.
   I was talking about nepilsoņi being able to claim their house and vegetable garden, one would expect citizens to be able to claim the same, there no (need for innuendo) about motives, "just like anyone else" seemed superfluous to add, but perhaps not in retrospect. For your example of nationalized housing and collective farms no difference between nepilsoņi and citizens. (That said, I do know cases where properties which had been made in to collective farms could be reclaimed by the original owner, at least where there was a 1:1 relationship, but of the topic.)
   Citizens who could not reclaim their property because a Soviet era immigrant claimed it didn't have recourse for claiming "discrimination" since nepilsoņi and citizens had the same rights with regard to claiming such property. That's neither here nor there, just another case where citizen and nepilsoņi who were citizens of the SSR were given equal rights, in this instance, superseding rights of original ownership.
   Which external link were you referring to with regard to the 10 differences in rights items? Thanks. PetersV       TALK 02:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
anyone who was employed for all the Soviet era in Latvia and is a nepilsons does does receive a pension - it's normal that if a person had worked in Latvia, he or she receives pension - so there's no sense to write that non-citizens have pensions, too, it isn't specific for them (in the same way one could write that most non-citizens have two eyes). The specific feature of non-citizens is that they don't receive pensions for the time considered as work outside Latvia, if not allowed by specific international treaties (like with Ukraine). And the consequences shown by Andrejeva case are that many non-citizens receive smaller pensions than a citizen with the same work experience would.
External links in the article listing tens of differences between rights of citizens and non-citizens: Differences between rights of Latvian citizens and non-citizens Latvian Human Rights Committee, 2006 andCitizens of a Non-Existent State Latvian Human Rights Committee, 2008 (a more updated list - in the end of the book)Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PetersV, the examples you give don't seem to have anything to do with citizenship. I'm sure it's very complex when you start arguing in court, but a simple definition runs like this: A citizen is a person that is allowed to participate in the political life of a country. In a democracy or republic, then, if these people cannot vote and cannot hold elected office, then they simply are not citizens -- even if they owned every square inch of property inside the country's borders and the entire contents of the government treasury were sent to them each year. Money is basically irrelevant to citizenship.
However, if these people are otherwise subject to the laws of the country (moreso than any mere visitor is), then they might be nationals. If they are Latvian nationals, then they are not technically stateless (just like the Latvian government asserts). Are there no sources that discuss this issue? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Russia[edit]

I think the members of the project should decide what articles are of interest to them (note the wikiprojects template header: This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:). Besides, anyone can easily see the connection of this article's topic to the WP Russia. Alæxis¿question? 12:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone interested can participate in the article. The domestic policy of a foreign state, whether it is in the Baltics or in Brighton Beach, New York, is not part of Wikiproject Russia. Wikipedia is not a forum for advocating for what official Russia considers its sphere of interest. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject banner is not an indication of government of Russia interest, but WikiProject Russia editor interest. If members decide (as Greyhood has) that it is within scope, you may not force them to remove it. The citizenship issue of ethnic Russians in Latvia has many transnational aspects, some of which are of interest to Russia, so I think the banner is sensible. Shrigley (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic, the foreign policy of Russia and Putin's biography in particular, given his recent statements, should be part of the Baltic Wikiprojects. I supposed I'll have to go start tagging those as articles as ones of interest to the projects considering the historical lies appearing of late in Russian media (e.g., RT's piece on the resurgence of and glorification of Nazism in Latvia). VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're stretching the analogy a little bit too far. RT is an international news service; there is no special focus on the Baltics. On the other hand, this article largely concerns ethnic Russians. If there is a strong, genuine, and defensible interest from the Baltic wikiprojects on certain Russian-related subjects that heavily involve Baltic people, then I don't see the problem in theory. We deal with this sort of thing on a case-by-case basis. Shrigley (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Non-citizens (Latvia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Non-citizens_(Latvia)&oldid=1209404283"