Who Justifies Deportations?

Before the Saeima elections at the end of September, amendments to the immigration law were urgently adopted in Latvia. “How many people exactly will be forced to leave Latvia, we will see in the coming months,” said then a member of the board of the National Alliance Janis Dombrava, adding that it could be many thousands.

The reason for the expulsion was the sudden suspicion of the Financial Investigation Service. It needed to check whether the funds with which citizens of Russia and Belarus had purchased large-scale real estate in exchange for long-term residence permits had been obtained by criminal means. Considering the foreign policy situation, let’s leave aside the discriminatory wording of the lawmakers, and the fact that the residence permit has so far been sold for money, and that suits everybody. The important thing is to understand something else. The forthcoming expulsion of thousands of people from the country is the first step toward mass deportations, of which the leaders of the National Alliance have long been openly dreaming.

It would seem that deportations are a painful page of Latvian history, which, along with the occupation, is the cornerstone of the statehood of modern democratic Latvia. Anyone who tries to give arguments that “part of society was completely unintegrated” and represented “a serious risk to state security” or that people were deported according to law, in compliance with “clear procedure”, falls under Article 741 of Criminal Code: “justification of genocide, crime against humanity, crime against peace and war crime”. Any, but not a deputy of the Seimas of several convocations and a member of one of the largest political parties, J. Dombrava. He can even be condescendingly praised by the Soviets sometimes. Thus, in his Twitter, the deputy notes: “The USSR acted criminally, but logically.”

One by one, the gentlemen continue to drop their democratic masks and spout the idea that deportations are not unconditionally a bad thing. If someone says that the workers’ state was protecting itself from a serious risk to its security, that is, it was protecting the power of workers and peasants, he should be prosecuted. If, however, the bourgeois state wishes to carry out mass deportations, then, according to nationalists, this can and even should be done, and the state is allowed to call for it.

“There is a part of society that does not lend itself to integration,” says Dombrava, and the only way is to expel these people, to deport them from Latvia. It really is a very serious security risk for our state, and we need to put an end to it urgently. And all these persons who, for example, allow themselves to lay down… ” (here, probably, it means flowers) “different ways to glorify and justify genocide and so forth – well, there is a clear procedure. If they are citizens of Russian Federation, then get out from Latvia at once. If they are not citizens of the Russian Federation, we will soon introduce separate norms. Well, then there will be an opportunity for at least some of them to leave Latvia.

Such statements by prominent local politicians and high-ranking government officials are often perceived as Russophobic, but please note that this is not about Russians. We are talking about those for whom May 9 is Victory Day, about those who respect and remember the victors over fascism, and they are not only Russians.

Why is the multinationality of the opponents of fascism carefully glossed over? Why is no mention made of the Latvians, who, then, according to the logic of the nationalists, should also be deported? What society they did not fit into? What society the people of Latvia don’t fit in, or more precisely, that part of the worker who doesn’t give in to the misanthropic propaganda? It is obvious that this law is aimed at solving not a national but a class question.

The point is that deputy Dombrava feels class hatred for the multinational Soviet people who dared to fight back against fascism. Repulsion is not just the occupiers, but an open terrorist form of bourgeois dictatorship, which the deputy obviously defends. And he does not care that this nation included Latvians, Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusians, Estonians, Armenians, and many others.

The struggle against fascism is not a struggle of one nation against another. The boundary between “us and them” runs along a very different line here, that of “workers and exploiters,” for fascism is the most reactionary form of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not just a mass atrocity and a manifestation of the wildest chauvinism. Installed and supported by big financial capital, fascism always begins with a ferocious attack on the working class, destroying its political independence, any possibility of fighting for its interests in trade unions, etc.

As we can see, the bourgeoisie is willing to legitimize any action, even one that it itself declares a crime, just to remove obstacles to further fooling and robbing the masses. Indeed, what is the problem of passing the necessary law when power is concentrated in your hands? What will be legalized next? Genocide?