Riska cena 2007.01.04 @ 00:00

Vēlreiz par tiem, kas laba amata dēļ atsakās no ASV pilsonības.

pilsonības

Pašlaik Latvijas dubultpilsoņi no rietumvalstu pilsonības atsakās tikai pēc tam, kad tiem tiek garantēts ietekmīgs amata (Neatkarīgā, 7.12.). Savukārt Latvijas institūta direktors Ojārs Kalniņš no ASV pilsonības atteicās jau 1991. gadā. Uz Neatkarīgās lasītāju jautājumiem atbild Ojārs Kalniņš.

– Kāda ir jūsu attieksme diskusijā par jautājumu, kad latvieši, kuri ir rietumvalstu dubultpilsoņi, atsakās no savas ASV vai citas rietumvalsts pases, tiklīdz tiek izteikts piedāvājums ieņemt ietekmīgu amatu?

– Ja mēs runājam par cilvēku, kurš kandidē uz tādu amatu, ir jāskatās uz viņa kvalifikācijām – kāda ir viņa izglītība, zināšanas, pieredze un raksturs. Tas, kur viņš ir dzimis vai dzīvojis, nevar būt noteicošais faktors. Daudziem tas vēl liekas svarīgi, bet jautājums ir – cik ilgi mēs varēsim uz to atsaukties? Vai tam vēl ir nozīme? Es piekrītu, ja cilvēks te nemaz nav dzīvojis un pēc atbraukšanas īsā laikā pretendē uz kaut kādu amatu, tad ir jāšaubās par viņa kvalifikācijām. Viņam vienkārši nav pieredzes. Man nepatīk divi vārdi, kas, manuprāt, ir vecmodīgi. Viens ir runāt par trimdas latviešiem, jo tās trimdas vairs nav. Otrais ir runāt par mūsējiem. Vai tie ir tie, kas dzimuši ārzemēs, vai tie, kas ir aizbraukuši un tagad atgriezušies? Piemēram, vai Sandra Kalniete skaitās ārzemju latviete tāpēc, ka ir dzimusi Krievijā? No otras puses, ja cilvēks, kurš ir dzimis ASV, šurp atbrauca pirms 15 gadiem un ir 15 gadu godīgi dzīvojis un strādājis Latvijā, vai viņš vēl skaitās ārzemnieks? Es neredzu, kāpēc tas, ka viņš ir dzimis kaut kur citur un savu sākuma dzīvi dzīvojis citā zemē, varētu būt noteicošais faktors, apspriežot viņa vērtību jebkurā darbā vai amatā. Agrāk par mūsējiem tika uzskatīti tie, kas ir dzīvojuši šeit padomju laikā. Es zinu, ka deviņdesmitajos gados daudzi uzskatīja – ja neesi piedzīvojis tās grūtības un problēmas, kas bija padomju laikā, tad tu nevari saprast, kas te notiek šodien. Bet kā būs pēc pieciem gadiem? Tad būs 20 gadu veci latvieši, kas var kandidēt uz darbiem un amatiem, kas arī nav dzīvojuši padomju laikā. Mums tagad sāk veidoties vesela paaudze, kurai nebūs tās padomju laika pieredzes. Kā viņi atšķiras no tiem, kas dzīvojuši ārzemēs? Manuprāt, tā padomju laika pieredze vairs nevar būt svarīgākais faktors, spriežot, vai cilvēks ir spējīgs ieņemt kādu valdības amatu vai vadīt kādu firmu šodienas Latvijā.

Ir jau tagad viena cita problēma. Mēs visi tagad uztraucamies par to, ka mums trūkst darbaspēka. Latvieši brauc prom no Latvijas, un visur trūkst cilvēku, kas strādātu. Un tātad mēs nožēlojam to, ka 100 000 ir aizbraukuši, bet, no otras puses, cik ir atbraukuši uz dzīvi šurp no ārzemēm? Daži tūkstoši? Es nekad neesmu konkrētu skaitli redzējis. Vai mēs pēkšņi tagad pasakām, ka tie, kas šurp atbrauca pirms 15 gadiem, nav tik vērtīgi, jo viņi ir citur dzimuši? It īpaši tie, kas 15 gadu te ir dzīvojuši un strādājuši, un varbūt nav pārdzīvojuši padomju laikus, bet ļoti labi saprot pārmaiņu laiku. Viņi zina, kāda Latvija ir šodien un kā tā attīstās. Šodien mums ir jauna realitāte, un viņiem ir tāda pati Latvijas pieredze kā jebkuram cilvēkam, kurš ir piedzimis 1990. vai 1991. gadā, kas arī te ir dzīvojis tajā laikā. Vienīgā starpība ir, kad nu 40 gadu vecam cilvēkam ir ārzemju izglītība, kaut kāda pieredze citā vidē, kas varētu noderēt. Nav šaubu, ka ir indivīdi, kas šurp ir atbraukuši, gribot izmantot situāciju un kas ir uzskatījuši, ka tikai tāpēc, ka viņiem ir ārzemju izglītība vai kaut kāds bijušais statuss, ar to būtu nopelnījuši kaut kādu amatu šeit. Es tam nepiekrītu. Es domāju, ka tas pats par sevi nav nekāds nopelns, un es arī esmu ļoti kritisks pret tiem, kas ārzemēs dzīvo un tomēr spriež par to, kas ir vai nav pareizi Latvijā. Protams, viņiem ir tiesības paust savu viedokli, bet es šaubos, vai viņi ir kompetenti mums mācīt, kā jādzīvo. Otrais ir arī – ja kāds atbrauc pēkšņi un saka “es tagad visu izmainīšu, jo man ir cita pieredze”. Es šaubos, vai viņiem veiksies. Pilsonība ir cita lieta. Es domāju, ka tur tautai ir jānovērtē, kā viņi uz to skatās. Manuprāt, ja cilvēks grib iet politikā, tad viņam pašam ir jāapsver, vai viņš grib saglabāt dubultpilsonību vai ne, un tur tikai vēlētāji var izvēlēties, vai tas viņiem ir pieņemams.

– Kā jūs pats atteicāties no ASV pilsonības? Tas notika pavisam citos vēsturiskos apstākļos?

– Es savu izvēli izdarīju 1991. gada decembrī, un tas nebija tādēļ, lai iegūtu kaut kādu lielu amatu. Es strādāju vēstniecībā Vašingtonā, un tajā brīdī Ārlietu ministrija man piedāvāja padomnieka amatu, pat ne vēstnieka amatu. Lai kļūtu par diplomātu Amerikā, man nevarēja būt ASV pilsonība. Es jau augustā, kad mēs atguvām neatkarību, pieņēmu būtisku lēmumu. Ja valdība mani aicinās strādāt, es atteikšos no ASV pilsonības. Jā, es biju gatavs riskēt ar visu, jo zināju, ka, atsakoties no ASV pilsonības, man atpakaļceļa vairs nebūs. Es sapratu, ka pēc gada lietas Latvijā varētu mainīties un es varētu zaudēt savu diplomāta darbu. Bet es biju gatavs riskēt.

Tad, kad man bija jāatsakās no ASV pilsonības, es uzzināju, ka, esot ASV teritorijā, tas nav iespējams. To var izdarīt tikai ārzemēs. Ir jāiet uz kādu vēstniecību vai konsulātu un tur jāiesniedz sava pase. Es devos uz Kanādu, lai to izdarītu. Aizlidoju uz Kanādu ar savu veco ASV pasi un jauno Latvijas diplomātisko pasi. Man atņēma ASV pasi un manā Latvijas diplomātiskajā pasē ielika vīzu. Ar to es atgriezos ASV kā Latvijas diplomāts. Un no tā brīža, ja kaut kas būtu mainījies Latvijas politikā, ja es zaudētu savu statusu kā diplomāts, es ASV nevarētu palikt. Nu, varbūt izejot cauri garam procesam, varbūt varētu. Bet tas nav tik viegli, ja esi atteicies no pilsonības, pēc pusgada teikt “es pārdomāju”. Līdz ar to man būtu bijis jābrauc uz Latviju, un es biju gatavs to darīt. Man vienkārši tā sanāca, ka es paliku vēl deviņus gadus, jo strādāju kā diplomāts, vēlāk kā vēstnieks. Pat ja Latvijas likums to neprasīja, es uzskatīju, ka nebūtu pareizi saglabāt dubultpilsonību. Manuprāt, es nevarētu efektīvi pārstāvēt Latviju, ja man ir kādas citas valsts pilsonība. Ja gribētu, lai Amerikas politiķi un diplomāti mani ņem nopietni, man vajadzētu būt tikai Latvijas pilsonībai. Otrais – ja es pārstāvu latviešu tautu kā diplomāts, tad man ir jābūt tādam pašam juridiskajam statusam kā visiem citiem šeit. Tā bija mana personīgā izvēle, un es to nenožēloju. Es domāju, ka jebkuram ārzemju latvietim, kurš iet politikā, ir jāizvēlas, vai ir pareizi saglabāt citas valsts pilsonību. Pat ja juridiski tas ir atļauts, tas galu galā ir politisks jautājums. Vēlētājiem ir jāizvēlas, vai kandidātu dubultpilsonība ir svarīgs faktors vai ne. 

How about them Bears?

pete

I’ll let the Scourge answer with respect to the Bears.  With respect to this story, no comment on the opening sentences??  Somewhat of a bias on the writer’s behalf, I’d say.  I liked Ojars’ comments.

As usual, OJ Collins is covering all angles.
A bad habit from his short diplostint.
There’s no need to ditch US citizenship,
since we do whatever Shrub says.
For someone who lives in Evropeysky
Soyuz it wouldn’t matter anywhoo......

pete

ps. I mentioned the Bears for OJ Collins benefit.
If one lives and works hard in Chicago for 15
years, one should be a bona fide Chicagoan........LOL

I do not see a problem here.  It depends on the job requirements. If the job requres an oath of alegiance to a country in question , then dual citizenship has to be given up, other than that there should not be a problem.

Visu labu,

There was no mention of who this “interviewer” was (or was there?) But it did seem as though his thinking was running along the lines of, “Latvians living abroad, outside of Latvia, only forego their US citizenship when a guaranteed, influential position awaits them.” I thought Ojars rose to the occasion very well.  And I give him much credit for taking that risk, for making what must not have been an easy decision.  Giving up his US citizenship in ‘91’, as he said, when Latvia was still volatile, where the situation could change at any time; he could lose his job with no way back.

I found Ojar’s last comments, especially, commendable.  Giving up his US citizenship even if it were not required; the importance,to him, of having the same judicial status in order to best serve the people and be taken seriously by US politicans and diplomats.  What a different place Latvia would be if there were more of such selfless people, putting the welfare of the country, people above their own personal motives!

Irena

Howabout dem Bears? (We shall see this Sunday. Believe it or not, Danish satelitte TV broadcasts American football live here on the amber-laden shores of the Baltic Sea.)

I actually lived in Chicago for about 33 years, from ‘51 to ‘84, then spent the next 15 hovering around the Beltway. While citizenship may be a political choice, sports loyalties are imprinted on gullible minds at a very early age. Neither the Washington Redskins nor seven years in Riga have diminished my childlike glee and horror in following the haps and mishaps of Da Bears. Each rabid sports fan deserves at least one home team championship in his lifetime. I’ve had Da Bears Superbowl victory in 1985, Da Invincable Bulls of Jordan and Pippen after that, and now the White Sox winning the World Series 2 years ago. From here on in, it’s all icing on the cake.

As for the interview in NRA. It came about because I complained to Juris Paiders about the way he had referred to ‘trimda’ Latvians. If Latvia is looking for Latvians who can do jobs in Latvia, we are not wealthy enough in this human resource to be disqualifying people because of their place of birth. There is a given number of Latvians in the world (less than 1.3 million I imagine) and rumor has it that tens of thousands of them have already picked up and left for Ireland, England and the USA. Latvia faces a serious labor shortage, and many nationalistic Latvians fear the influx of foreign labor to fill the bill. If we are looking for qualified candidates for anything, the address on their birth certificates may be interesting, but is largely irrelevent to the task at hand.

As for citizenship. Continued globalisation may eventually render this form of political identity somewhat obsolete, but maybe not yet in our lifetime. Like any human concept, it has whatever meaning we choose to give it. We each define it differently, governments recognize it differently and legal eagles debate about it endlessly. For me its an expression of affection, loyalty, committment, obligation and priorities. (And probably a lot of other things.) I’m monogamous when it comes to citizenship, but understand the desire for polygamy in others. But when it comes to working for the government of the Republic of Latvia, and representing the State in foreign countries or international activities, I think single citizenship is important. If you represent only yourself you can be loyal to as many countries as you choose. But when you represent a State, then that loyalty should be exclusive. It reduces possible misunderstandings.

Just my opinion, of course. Then again, I’m still a Bear fan. Wonder which Rex Grossman we will see this Sunday. Wonder if Hester will break another big one.

And I also wonder how Andris Biedrins is doing in California. I’m hearing good reports. If anyone has access to any interesting local news stories about Andris’ rising stardom in the NBA, please send them along to me at the LI.

PS Wouldn’t the Bears and Pats be a nice Super Bowl match?

Sveiki!

Ojars wrote: „There is a given number of Latvians in the world (less than 1.3 million I imagine) /…../”

That’s quite close.  According to NPRN’s data (http://www.np.gov.lv/index.php?lv=fakti_lv&saite=iedzivotaji.htm) as of January 1, 2006, there were 1,348,354 ethnic Latvian citizens.  In other words - 74.5% of the Republic of Latvia’s citizens. (Less than 9% gained citizenship through naturalization, a process which by the way includes those ethnic Latvians who lacked citizenship after 1991.)

„As for citizenship. Continued globalisation may eventually render this form of political identity somewhat obsolete, but maybe not yet in our lifetime. Like any human concept, it has whatever meaning we choose to give it. We each define it differently, governments recognize it differently and legal eagles debate about it endlessly. For me its an expression of affection, loyalty, committment, obligation and priorities.”

Though I full well recognize that you’re addressing your own qualifications, I, for one, hope to live long enough to hear a candidate for president of Latvia refer to *all* of Latvia’s citizens, regardless of ethnicity, during a bid for that office.  Only then will I personally think that we’ve rejoined Europe’s tradition of democracy.

Lai veicās! Un Laimīgu Jauno Gadu, Ojar!

Elizabete

My comments were purely philosophical, since I’m not a candidate for anything and already have a job.

While we may have a figure for Latvian citizens, we do not have one for ethnic Latvians on this planet. (My guess is that that too is around 1.3 mil.) Of course, that’s a debatable issue as well, since we first need to agree on criteria for ethnicity. Latvia houses many ethnicities, and Latvian citizens represent a variety as well. When speaking officially, government reps need to talk about ‘the people of Latvia’ regardless of ethnicity. But that doesn’t mean we can’t also talk about Latvians as an ethnic group, however you may choose to define it. We have a language, traditions and other distinguishing factors. Genetically none of our ethnic groups are pure, but politically and psychologically, if you identify yourself as a Latvian, for all intents and purposes, you are. If it walks like a Lett and talks like a Lett, there’s a good chance it is a Lett.

For me, a Lett is someone who feels some affection and loyalty to this country and its language, traditions, customs, history etc. If we are looking for qualified candidates for jobs designed to promote the national interests of this country, we should be flexible in our evaluation process.

None of us gets to choose our place of birth or death, but we can choose where we live in between the cradle and the grave. For me, this choice is an important factor when choosing people to shape the future of this country.

>For me, a Lett is someone who feels some
>affection and loyalty to this country
>and its language, traditions, customs,
>history etc.

Personally, I like this definition a LOT!  I know my daughter would agree.  :D

I think you are right on the mark when you suggest that the globalization process is changing attitudes about “citizenship.” It is already a source of much discussion in the corporate world, creating some issues (thankfully) with economic protectionism...who ARE you protecting anyway these days?

The philosophical issues of single vs. dual (or even triple in the cases of some of my acquaintances) citizenship are truly the biggest problem for those of us who serve the government of our countries.  Otherwise what would we be?  Administrative mercenaries?  Diplomats for hire?  Dual citizenship for most comes from the need to recognize financial/economic ties and responsibilities.  In my humble opinion, arguments about dual citizenship in other contexts merely brings the discussion down to a level of ethnic infighting...not an admirable plane on which to argue.

Susanna
(who feels Latvian “in my heart")

Chalk it up to syncronicity, but lately been thinking about this topic a bit. Toying with the idea of becoming a global telecomuter and repatriating back to the fatherland.
I pretty much agree with Ojars. I too strongly believe in monogamy. I don’t think anyone in a national public office should hold dual citizenship. Even thought it would have been fairly easy for me to get my citizenship during the early days of independence, dual at that (triple technically speaking), I opted not to. I saw too many “trimda” Latvians getting their citizenship and then doing exactly what Ojars wrote about. Issuing checks that their behinds would never have to cash. I just felt strongly that if you are going to make decisions (by voting) on behalf of the Latvian nation you needed to be willing to live with the consequences of those decisions. Not meant as a criticism of those who have Latvian citizenship and still live in the West with no intention of ever repatriating. I know a lot of people who have chosen that path and have done an awful lot of good. Just a choice that I made.
Now that I am thinking about perhaps moving back “home” the citizenship issue looms large. If dual citizenship was still available it be a fairly easy choice to make. Now that it is not an option ... I don’t know.
I could renounce my American citizenship (and Israeli) fairly easily, but what about Social Security, taxes, how will it effect my employment, my 401K. What if later I decided that Chicago is sweet “home” after all. Next month I will have lived here for 30 years. 3/4 of my life.
Not looking for answers or saying it can’t be done, just illustrating the fact that the choice becomes much harder.
I could live in Latvia as an American citizen, but then I have to opt out of being a member of the Latvian body politic. I think a citizen’s primary duty is to vote. I would relinquish that duty. Also, other than whatever I directly spend in Latvia I will not be contributing to Latvia’s tax coffers. Another civic duty. What if I wanted to start a business, purchase property, or marry, or… Again. Complicated.
Not saying that dual citizenship would be simple, but it would be simpler.
I am sure there were valid reasons to change the citizenship policy. Fear of absentee landlords and I am sure that the prospect of a lot of citizens with dual citizenship in our neighbor to the East played a role. On the other hand, consider how many current citizens we might potentialy lose as Latvians continue to move into the global economy?
Let’s look at the other extreme of the dual citizenship spectrum. In 2004 I went back to visit my Dad in Israel. Used my American passport as I always do and got pulled out of line and into the backrooms of Ben Gurion by some irate looking border guards. Seems as if all Israeli citizens now had to enter and leave Israel under an Israeli passport and since at one point in time (between 1972 and 1977) I was an Israeli citizen I forever remain one. Nevermind that I now barely speak Hebrew, live in the United States, do not vote in Israeli elections, and have no intention of moving back. Alright, so it was a pain in the behind to go through all of the red tape to obtain an Israeli passport. But it illustrates a different philosophy and a different approach that I personally feel is far more productive towards building a nation and a national identity. One of my coworkers is currently looking into the birthright program where (free of charge) she gets a trip and a guided tour of Israel. I don’t think Latvia can afford such largesse, but again it illustrates a different approach. One that is more inclusive and in the long run will pay off more dividends.

Andrejs

Don’t worry about your penzij, Andrej.
You can get your loot in Lettland.
I don’t think that anyone needs to
ditch US citizenship, if one wants
to keep it. In the back of the US passport
there is a note about dual citizenship.
Check it out............

you are a citizen of one of the countries listed below, you also may receive your payments as long as you are outside the U.S., unless you are receiving your payments as a dependent or survivor. In that case, there are additional requirements you have to meet.

Albania
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Brazil
Burkina Faso
Colombia
Costa Rica
Côte d’Ivoire
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Gabon
Grenada
Guatemala
Guyana
Hungary
Iceland
Jamaica
Jordan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Macedonia
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mexico
Micronesia, Fed. States of
Monaco
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Peru
Philippines
Poland
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
Samoa (formerly Western Samoa)
San Marino
Serbia and Montenegro
Slovakia
Slovenia
Trinidad-Tobago
Turkey
Uruguay
Venezuela

(This list of countries is subject to change from time to time. For the latest information, please visit http://www.socialsecurity.gov/international/countrylist2.htm or contact your nearest U.S. Social Security office, U.S. Embassy or consulate.)

If you are not a U.S. citizen or a citizen of one of the other countries listed above, your payments will stop after you have been outside the U.S. for six full calendar months unless you meet one of the following exceptions:

You were eligible for monthly Social Security benefits for December 1956; or
You are in the active military or naval service of the U.S.; or
The worker on whose record your benefits are based had railroad work which was treated as covered employment by the Social Security program; or
The worker on whose record your benefits are based died while in the U.S. military service or as a result of a service-connected disability and was not dishonorably discharged; or
You are a resident of a country with which the U.S. has a Social Security agreement. Currently, these countries are:
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea (South)
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom

(This list of countries is subject to change from time to time. For the latest information, please visit http://www.socialsecurity.gov/international/countrylist3.htm or contact your nearest U.S. Social Security office, U.S. Embassy or consulate.)

However, the agreements with Austria, Belgium, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland permit you to receive benefits as a dependent or survivor of a worker while you reside in the foreign country only if the worker is a U.S. citizen or a citizen of your country of residence; or
You are a citizen of one of the countries listed below, and the worker on whose record your benefits are based lived in the U.S. for at least 10 years or earned at least 40 credits under the U.S. Social Security system. If you are receiving benefits as a dependent or survivor, see additional requirements.

Afghanistan
Australia
Bangladesh
Bhutan
Botswana
Burma
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central African Rep.
Chad
China
Congo, Rep. of
Ethiopia
Fiji
Gambia
Ghana
Haiti
Honduras
India
Indonesia
Kenya
Laos
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Mauritania
Mauritius
Morocco
Nepal
Nigeria
Pakistan
St. Vincent & Grenadines
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Swaziland
Taiwan
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Tonga
Tunisia
Uganda
Yemen

(This list of countries is subject to change from time to time. For the latest information, please visit http://www.socialsecurity.gov/international/countrylist4.htm or contact your nearest U.S. Social Security office, U.S. Embassy or consulate.)

If you are not a citizen of one of the countries listed above, you cannot use this exception.

If you are not a U.S. citizen and none of these exceptions applies to you, your payments will stop after you have been outside the U.S. for six full months. Once this happens, your payments cannot be started again until you come back and stay in the U.S. for a whole calendar month. You have to be in the U.S. on the first minute of the first day of a month and stay through the last minute of the last day of that month. In addition, you may be required to prove that you have been lawfully present in the U.S. for the full calendar month. For more information, contact the nearest U.S. Embassy or consulate or Social Security office.

[Back to top]

pete

While there are issues with non-US-citizenship and receiving"payments" from the US government, there are not really any general issues with dual citizenship from the US point of view.  That’s been decided, I believe, by the Supreme Court in recent years.

Not as easy for those who are in the employ of the US government, however.  My husband, although eligible for citizenship in his parents’ homeland, has been enjoined from taking advantage of that by his employer.  And there is quite a complicated process for those in our position when marrying foreign nationals (as many do).

I did have to laugh at your story about visiting Israel and the results of using a US passport.  We are required to hold two passports (a diplomatic and a regular US passport).  Our residence visas for whatever country we are living in are always stamped into our dip passport.  I have had similar experiences, especially recently...since 9/11 and the bombing scares this summer in the UK, with passport
control.  We are supposed to travel out of and into our country of residence with dip passports (because of our residence visas) and then continue travel with our regular passports.  Difficult these days when most western countries at least have such well computerized passport control and are scrutinizing such things so closely.  I spent a good long time in Scotland in September explaining why I had two passports in a back room to a host of concerned passport control people...although it seemed pretty self-evident to me.
However you seemed to imply, Andrejs, that you would not be contributing to Latvia through payment of income taxes if you were a US citizen working in Latvia.  That would entirely depend on who is paying you...not necessarily your personal choice.  As a dependent of a US government employee, I was employed on the economy in Riga, paid (mind you, a pittance) by an NGO registered in Latvia.  I paid my full taxes in Latvia and thus was eligible during that time for full Latvian social benefits.  An American friend in a similar situation to mine, in fact, used maternity benefits while there (maternity benefits in Latvia are pretty great, actually).

Thanks, Pete.

McT,

I hope I do not have to take maternity leave any time soon. :) If everything works according to plan the job would be the same I currently have. So other than filing from overseas was hoping for not too many changes.

And about them Bears. Don’t worry about Grossman, Ojar. Worry about the defense. The biggest problem with the Bears this year is that they’ve been inconsistent. If the defense plays as its capable I am not that worried about any of the damage Grossman can do. And Grossman (essentially a rookie) still has far more upside than any of the QBs we’ve had since McMahon. Yes, its been that long.

Andrejs

>And about them Bears. Don’t worry about
>Grossman, Ojar. Worry about the defense.
>The biggest problem with the Bears this
>year is that they’ve been inconsistent.
>If the defense plays as its capable I am
>not that worried about any of the damage
>Grossman can do. And Grossman
>(essentially a rookie) still has far
>more upside than any of the QBs we’ve
>had since McMahon. Yes, its been that
>long.
>
>Andrejs

You were right Andrejs. Grossman came through and the defense held on. Could have been more convincing, but I’ll take it. Now, if Grossman can do the same against the Saints and the D can stop the Deuce. Will we see a Bear-Pats rematch?

Ojar,

How about de Bears and dem C O L T S????????????

NOW---onto the battle of I-65!!!!!!!!!!!

Janis, not a football fan.