Let Us Not Leave Our Homeland: Anti-Emigration Activities of Juozas Tumas-Vaižgantas

Mass emigration of Lithuanians at the end of the nineteenth century and at the beginning of the twentieth century became not only a considerable loss to Lithuania but also a serious concern for the leaders of the national rebirth movement (e.g., Jonas Šliūpas, Vincas Kudirka, Jonas Basanavičius, Antanas Smetona, and others), who frequently expressed their negative attitude towards emigration. An active anti-emigration campaign took place in Lithuania, and the press urged Lithuanians to stay in their homeland and not to go to the USA, while those who had already emigrated were implored to return to Lithuania. One of the most significant representatives of the anti-emigration policy was Juozas Tumas-Vaižgantas, a writer and one of the founders of the Lithuanian Christian-Democratic Union. In 1911, he and priest Konstantinas Olšauskas visited the USA where they collected donations for the construction of the “Saulė” Catholic gymnasium in Kaunas. After visiting most of the Lithuanian colonies, Juozas Tumas-Vaižgantas was well acquainted with the difficult situation of the immigrants and urged them not to forget Lithuania and return home. Upon return to Lithuania, he gave approximately thirty anti-emigration speeches in various cities and towns, in which he spoke about the difficult life of the immigrants and urged people not to leave for America. In 1912, he published the book Ten gera kur mūsų nėra arba neapleiskime Lietuvos (The Grass Is Greener on the Other Side or Let Us Not Leave Our Homeland) in which he attempted to prove that immigrants did not become spiritually richer in exile, while emigration impoverished Lithuania.

Jackson–Vanik Amendment and Development of Soviet-American Relations in 1972-1975

The article is devoted to one of the key subjects of the detente period – the history of development and adoption of Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Trade Act of 1974. The significance of the human rights problem in the USSR, in particular – the right to emigrate, for the development of American-Soviet relations at the peak of detente is shown. Special attention was paid to trilateral negotiations between the Soviet leadership, Nixon and Ford administrations and the legislators headed by Senator Henry Jackson. The Amendment, adopted in December 1974, created serious obstacles for the development of trade and economic relations between the superpowers, and it had a number of negative political consequences also. The Amendment constituted the issue of human rights in the USSR as one of the important components of the U.S. foreign policy, created a negative background for the American-Soviet dialogue, which significantly complicated the outlined convergence of superpowers and contributed to the curtailment of detente.The political struggle around the Jackson-Vanik Amendment became the quintessence of detente. Each of the parties involved regarded the Amendment differently: Soviet leaders saw it as a rude interference in the internal affairs of the USSR; Kissinger saw it as an untimely and too radical in form and methods attempt to transform the Soviet system; Jackson saw it as a good way to increase his popularity by exploiting a popular in the post-Vietnam era theme that was naturally consistent with American national values and traditions. Both the Kremlin and Jackson had a fairly clear set of concessions that they could make. However, in the context of the systemic crisis of power caused by Watergate, the US administration did not have enough resources to bring them to a common denominator. The Soviet leadership soon also faced new economic and political challenges, and the problem of restoring trade relations with the United States ceased to be a priority.The Jackson-Vanik Amendment of 1974 became the watershed separating the “high détente” from its downward phase. Its real significance far exceeded its immediate meaning embedded in the arguments of its creators. It was not an accident that the Amendment was not canceled in 1987 after the USSR liberated its emigration policy. After the collapse of the USSR American leadership used it as a political leverage against Russian Federation. Boris Yeltsin appealed to Bill Clinton multiple times in 1993-1994 requesting removal of discrimination measures in trade and economic relations inherited from the soviet times. The Amendment was not cancelled it was only temporarily suspended. It was officially canceled only in 2012, but only in order to give way to a law that allows the United States, at its discre tion, to impose sanctions on individuals allegedly responsible for human rights violations in Russia (the so-called Magnitsky Act) and remains an obstacle to the development of equal Russian-American economic ties.

The Long Arm of the Arab State

Under what conditions do authoritarian states exercise control over populations abroad? The securitisation of cross-border mobility has been a common theme in examining immigration policies in the Global North. The securitisation of emigration and diasporas in non-democratic contexts remains neglected; this is particularly true with regard to Arab states’ extraterritorial authoritarian practices. This article argues that authoritarian states develop a range of migration policies that are driven by the contradictory pressures of economic and political imperatives or, put differently, an "illiberal paradox": if a state does not expect economic gains from cross-border mobility, it is more likely to securitise its emigration policy; otherwise, it is more likely to securitise its diaspora policy. The article illustrates this trade-off via a most-similar comparison of Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, and Morocco. Drawing on Arabic and non-Arabic primary and secondary sources, it sketches a novel area of research on migration and security.

The Ballygiblins

Drawing on interpretations and reactions to the violence of the 1824 Ballygiblin riot in the Bathurst District of Upper Canada, this article examines the local reception of assisted Irish Catholic immigrants to the region. In their reaction to the new arrivals, Bathurst District residents demonstrated the extent to which local priorities for settlement were at odds with that of British emigration policy. The reception of the Irish was conditioned by the legacy of the so-called “old world” in real and expected patterns of violence; by a local culture that prized loyalty, Protestantism, and pioneer manhood; and by the immediate context of British emigration policy and the process by which that policy was applied, interpreted, and experienced.