Latvians Online interviewed Jūlija Gifford, a Canadian-Latvian twenty-something who moved to Latvia from Ontario a few years ago.

We wanted to learn how she found the move and how she’s doing now. Her answers were honest and at the same time quite inspirational.

How and when did you decide to move to Latvia? Was it easy to reach this decision? How did your family and friends take the news?

I decided I’d study in Latvia around the same time when all of my friends were choosing their universities, in Grade 12. After having done a lot of research about Ontario universities, different programs, going to all of the university fairs, I came to the realization that I didn’t feel passionate about any of the opportunities that my classmates were looking at. I wasn’t the kind of person who knew that they would only be a doctor, lawyer, etc, and I had too many different interests to be able to focus on one. So I decided to look outside Canada’s borders, where the real education would come in the form of life experience.

It was a difficult decision to reach. There was minimal information available for international students, and there was a lot of uncertainty involved. While applications for universities in Canada happen in the winter, applications in Latvia only happen in the summer. So by graduation all of my friends had already been accepted and knew where they would be going in the fall, while I was left, crossing my fingers, hoping everything would be OK.

I’ve always been quite independent – so my family and friends’ opinions never really factored into my decision-making. But for the most part everyone was very supportive.

What was it like – enrolling to study at a university in Latvia? Was it a simple or complicated process? What would be your tips for others interested in studying in Latvia with no experience with Latvian bureaucracy?

The process of applying isn’t complicated in itself – what caused the most headaches was everything leading up to the application deadline. The first challenge was that I had decided on a program at Rīgas Stradiņa Universitāte (International Relations – European Studies) – a program that’s entirely in Latvian. Therefore, they didn’t foresee a possibility that they’d have to deal with international students’ applications. They had listed all sorts of requirements for applying, like centralized-state graduation exams, and an entrance exam for which they offered preparation courses the entire previous semester (which I obviously couldn’t attend, being in Canada and all..).  After many long-distance phone calls, I was finally given the program director’s cell phone number. He was very kind and good-hearted, and was absolutely sure that I should come to Riga “Brauc tik šurp, gan jau viss būs kārtībā!”.(Come on over, everything will be fine) OK, not exactly the hard evidence that I was looking for to calm my nerves. But he told me I wouldn’t have to write the state exam, and that was a relief. It was just the entrance exam that I would have to deal with. I would, however, have the disadvantage of not being able to attend the exam preparation courses.

When I arrived in Riga, and went to go hand in my application (this all happens manually – I physically had to go there to apply), I came across the next challenge. You needed a personas kods(personal ID code for citizens. Ed.) to apply. I, armed with Canadian citizenship, wasn’t in possession of such a code. When I dug around to find out how I could get myself such a code, then I came across the Citizens Migration Affairs Deparment, who told me I’d be given a code once I apply for a residence permit. Ok, so how do I get a residence permit? I had to come with a signed contract with the university, that I’ve been accepted. And so this cycle was unbreakable, because I couldn’t get that contract without a code. Quite silly.

I only found out years later that you can get a temporary code from VID (Valsts Ieņēmumu Dienests– the State Revenue Service). Mūžu dzīvo, mūžu mācies!(Live and learn)

What would I suggest to students? If possible, to take advantage of the dual citizenship law – that will make life much easier for you. Also, constantly asking everyone any possible information. Just because something isn’t written on their website, doesn’t mean that you can’t apply. If I’ve learned anything in my time with the university, you can negotiate anything, if you have the guts to try.

How did you find a place to live, and how to arrange payments for utility bills? Was it easy to get through the bureaucratic red tape?

For the first semester of my studies I stayed with relatives. That gave me time to get over the culture shock, make some friends, and find my place in society. Soon enough I was looking for an apartment with a friend from school, who obviously knew the system much better than I did. It was great, because I got a crash course in where to look for apartments (try ss.lv for starters), how to haggle with owners, and how the utility payments work. She took care of the paperwork, as well. When she left for an exchange semester, I was well prepared to take on the challenge by myself.

How did you cope language-wise – did you feel you Latvian was strong enough to be able to settle in quickly? How did you get by with limited Russian?

When I had first decided to study in Latvia, part of my reasoning was “I already speak the language”. Only when I began to spend time with people my age did I understand how little I knew. Not only words, but expressions, and common rusicisms (da vai, točna, karoče, etc.). I was a while before I was able to confidently banter with other friends, and even longer still until my friends stopped interrupting me to mimic my accent.

I had little contact with Russian at all for the first year. My time was spent in very Latvian spaces. My relatives and then roommate only spoke Latvia, my studies only happened in Latvian, my classmates for the most part were Latvian, and my evening activity – Latvian folk dancing – was also obviously very Latvian. If I was approached on the street in Russian then I would calmly explain that I don’t understand, and then person would either switch to Latvian or move on to someone else. I never felt left out or at a disadvantage that I didn’t speak the language. It wasn’t until I joined the international youth organization called AIESEC that I became friends with ethnic Russians, but I’m thankful I did, because it challenged a lot of stereotypes that I had grown up with.

Tell me a bit about your first year in Latvia. How did you feel in the first year, then a year later? What did you learn most during that first year – about studying and daily life in Latvia?

The first year was certainly the most difficult year, as I assume it must be for anyone living abroad. I had the advantage of living with relatives, who showed me the ropes. But it also came with minuses – when living with relatives, you can’t exactly play host to all of your new friends very often without disrupting the pre-existing family dynamic. Creating a social circle I found to be the most important factor to feeling good in the city. As soon as I had my own apartment, my own kitchen in which to demonstrate my awesome lasagna-making skills, it was much easier to break down the barriers of the introverted and guarded Latvians. There’s something about cooking for others that forges trust and a strong bond.

Having scheduled social interactions also helped, like going to school and folk dancing rehearsals. I can’t imagine how lonely and depressing my first year (and winter!) would’ve been without this default set of friends.

My overall impression of the first year was that this is a place that does things differently than what we’re used to. This brings about a lot of introspection. On one side, I’m coming from a successful, prosperous country. Surely, that means that my way of doing things is better. On the other side, constantly reminding Latvians of “how we do things in Canada” is not the way to make friends. It also completely ignores local customs, culture, everything that comes with living abroad (be it good, or bad). The longer I’ve been here the more I’ve begun to question what’s “right” (hint: the answer is that not everything’s black and white). And then there are other things that obviously have to change (like the notion of civil responsibility, human right concerns, etc.). You end up treading a fine line between “when in Rome” and wanting to share your experience. I’ve found that the best option is to observe, accept, be tolerant, and quietly lead by example.

How long have you been living in Latvia, and what are you up to now?

This is my 7th year in Latvia. Right now I’m working for one of the biggest tech companies – the Draugiem Group. That’s the home to the Latvian social network Draugiem.lv, and also houses 16 other companies. I work with the companies that are geared towards a North American audience, helping out with text, emails, marketing campaigns, social media accounts, I write blogs, and generally just help them get attention internationally. The projects I work with are diverse. We have printing projects like Startup Vitamins, Behappy and Printful. We have a smart-home system called Istabai, and cool office tech tools like Welco, 1Work and Booktime.  Otherwise I also dance, both Latvian folk dancing and ballet, and I help out with the youth organization AIESEC whenever I can. Generally, I love taking advantage of the culture in the city.

In recent years the dominant discourse about the critical demographics in Latvia has been shrilly pessimistic. We’re told that the population has dropped in twenty years to two million. Emigration has reached catastrophic levels: the young seek their fortune elsewhere, never to return.

The UN and other organizations predict that in 20-30 years Latvia’s population will be 1.8 million, emptying Latvia and limiting its economic development. Employers are already complaining about labor shortages. This will mean the end of the Latvian state and Latvian extinction as a people. What solution is offered for this demographic and economic disaster? Since Western workers will not come, “empty” Latvia ought to be filled with migrant workers from the East.

This is the geographic view of Latvia’s demographic state. It looks at the territory of Latvia and its structures as tools for moneyed interests. The geographic vision does not disclose how labor migration will be achieved. However, this vision is not the only way to interpret demographic data and future predictions.

Historically, the population of Latvia has depended on its rulers, increasing under the Czarist and Soviet empires while decreasing under independence. In 1897 the population was 1.9 (million), in 1913- 2.5MM, 1920-1.5 MM, 1940-2 MM, 1990-2.7MM and in 2013 again 2 million. The twentieth century has been unkind to Latvians. They suffered three major losses: during the First World War – the Tsar’s edict evacuated Kurzeme and Zemgale with only about half returning to Latvia; the Second World War – flight to exile in the West; and Stalin’s deportations, from which few returned. The overall loss is over half a million. Including the unborn, Latvia’s loss is enormous. All losses can be attributed to the policies of the two empires.
In today’s globalized world, migration is fluid. Latvians, like others, emigrate, return, and re-emigrate. To assert that no one will return is absurd. In the five year period (2007 – 2012), 175 800 emigrated from Latvia, but 43 500 immigrated, almost exclusively returnees. The question is not whether emigrants will return, but rather how to improve conditions to lessen emigration.

There are two other demographic visions besides the geographical. The State vision, which evaluates demography from the perspective of the state and its citizens’ interests, and the folk or ethnic vision, which assesses demography based on ethnic interests.

In order of importance, the primary functions of the State are to protect national sovereignty, defend citizens’ interests and welfare. A state grants citizenship to foreign nationals if they legally reside there, are willing to defend the state, uphold its laws, and participate in or integrate into the host society. For security, the State is interested in minimizing hostile or harmful people in its environment. From a State’s perspective, population decline may not be an ‘emptying’, but rather normalization. If in 1996 72 % of the population were citizens and 27% non-citizens (nepilsoņi), in 2013 corresponding figures are 84 % and 13%. As the percentage of citizens significantly increases and the largest element of instability in the country, non-citizens, decreases by half, the State is more secure and less divided. Of the children born in 2000, 81% were citizens, 17% non-citizens, and 2% foreign nationals. In 2013, 93% of newborns are citizens, 5% non-citizens, and 2% foreign nationals, a sign State interests are changing for a better future.

The State is also interested in inclusion of its citizens living abroad. The recently revised Latvian citizenship law permits dual citizenship with friendly countries without loss of Latvian citizenship.

Normalization means that State structures, economics, and foreign policy are consistent with its size, national interests and geopolitical environment. To safeguard its sovereignty, Latvia joined the EU, NATO, and the Eurozone in 2014, and orientates towards the West, actions consistent with geopolitical realities and the long-term interests of its citizens. The economy is still limping, but since the recession a new crop of technologically advanced service and manufacturing companies have sprung up. These will form the base for future increases in population and well-being. The recent writing and addition of the preamble to the Constitution is part of Latvia’s normalization process.

The ethnic vision evaluates the survival skills and values of the nation: language, culture, and history. In tandem with the State vision, this vision is moving in a positive direction. The percentage of Latvians rose from 52% in 1990 to 62% in 2013. If in 1990 56.5% of births were ethnic Latvians and 43.5% others, in 2012 the proportions are 68% and 32%. Latvia’s birthrate therefore reflects the ethnic vision. In 2012 less than one percent of Latvians emigrated, while two and a half times more minorities emigrated. There have been three minority emigration peaks since 1990. The first in the mid-nineties with the evacuation of the Soviet Army, the second after Latvia joined the EU and the third after the 2008 economic crisis. Emigration has declined in the past three years.

Contrary to the geographical demographic interpretation, time is on the side of the state and ethnic interpretations. The ‘geographists’ know this, and have developed a scenario guaranteeing their interpretation’s success. This vision converges with Russia’s foreign policy and local moneyed interests. Although detaching Latvia from western institutions would be difficult, it could serve as Russia’s foreign policy ears and mouthpiece within the EU, NATO, the Eurozone and elsewhere. Local money sees a decreasing population and the Western direction of the country as impediments to their wealth acquisition. Moneyed Latvia consists of well-known Latvian oligarchs and the much richer and more influential Russian interests who understand and find the Eastern business environment more attractive than a Western one based on law and competition.

The geographic view scenario encourages emigration by introducing de facto bilingualism, citing economic reasons and needs of consumers, ignoring the Constitution and the results of the 2012 language referendum. It is almost impossible to find a job in Riga unless one also speaks Russian, and without it one must seek work abroad. The alarm raised about Latvia ‘emptying’ accustoms society to the thought that immigration from the east is necessary and inevitable.

The residence permit program (RP) was initiated by Ainārs Šlesers in 2010. Nearly all permits requested, however, are from CIS (Russian organised “Commonwealth of Independent States”) citizens, 80 to 90 % from Russia. For a small fee, Latvia offers the benefit of an RP enabling the right to visa-free entry into the EU. Other countries offer similar permits, but for a higher price and on more favorable terms to the issuing country. It’s claimed that between six to eight thousand such permits have been issued on 500Ls million investments. The number of RPs is secondary to the size of the investment. Inevitably the money will turn into political power. Latvia will lose control of the country’s political agenda, then over internal and external affairs, and eventually perhaps sovereignty.

To ensure Russian long-term geopolitical interests in Latvia and concurrently correct an “historical error”, the composition of the population can be changed by immigration. This will accelerate Latvian emigration and democratically transform Latvia forever. Latvia is highly dependent on Russian energy, and together with strong and organized foreign capital, resistance to Russian interests in Latvia would be academic.

Latvia must understand the gravity of the situation. It cannot fool itself that the “new money” will put Latvia on easy street. Allowing the geographists “emptying” scenario to unfold would be a crime against the Latvian state and nation. The other two visions retain future control of the Latvian state in its citizens’ hands. Latvians must think long and hard how to reverse the emigration of its citizens, promote their fertility, help the disaffected find happiness elsewhere in the world and act accordingly.