Non-citizen status doesn't indicate that one isn't considered a person -- non-citizens are permanent residents and enjoy most of the rights citizens enjoy, these rights guaranteed by law. There are indeed numerous distinctions between citizens' and non-citizens' rights -- the civil service is only open to citizens, for example -- the most significant distinction being that non-citizens lack voting rights.

Citizenship entails not only rights but also responsibilities, and few countries grant it to everyone automatically (there are jus solis and jus sanguinis, and mixtures of the two approaches -- children born to non-citizens after Latvia regained its independence do not need to naturalize to obtain citizenship). The UK now has a language requirement for naturalization, too -- so does Russia, in fact. Latvia is committed to human rights and abides by the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.

As Edward Lucas responded to the 2006 Amnesty International report on Estonia in The Economist:

"Estonia, like Latvia next door, decided to give these uninvited guests a free choice. They could go back to Russia. They could stay but adopt Russian citizenship. They could take local citizenship (assuming they were prepared to learn the language). Or they could stay on as non-citizens, able to work but not to vote.

"Put like that, it may sound fair. But initially it prompted howls of protest against 'discrimination', not only from Russia but from Western human-rights bodies. The Estonians didn’t flinch. A 'zero option'—giving citizenship to all comers—would be a disaster, they argued, ending any chance of restoring the Estonian language in public life, and of recreating a strong, confident national identity.

"They were right."

http://tinyurl.com/ddklsj

Non-citizens were *never* citizens of the Republic of Latvia -- they were citizens of the USSR, now defunct. Those who complain that they should hold citizenship because they were "born in Latvia" 1940-1991 either neglect or deny the fact that Latvia was occupied; they were born in occupied territory (and Latvia was occupied in June 1940, not September 1939, by the way).

Vegetables can't be naturalized, Maria -- naturalization requires some personal effort in every country. Compare, for instance, Switzerland's stringent requirements to Latvia's -- but note that the Swiss Confederation wasn't under foreign, totalitarian rule when the applicants got there. Bear in mind that a substantial minority of the population here opposed the very existence of the Republic of Latvia. Some were citizens, like Tatyana Zhdanok -- taking advantage of the democracy she tried to nip in the bud, she became the only ethnic Russian in the European Parliament.

I can sympathize with some of those who were relegated to non-citizen status; I think those who took a risk and registered with the Citizens' Congress should have been granted citizenship because of their clear commitment to independence, for example. I also think that the "windows" for naturalization should have been abolished earlier. I'm quite familiar with the reasons for resentment, some valid, that many Russophones profess. If those resentments are so overwhelming that you consider making any commitment to Latvia a waste, however, I don't think you deserve citizenship through naturalization, which is essentially a form of adoption. A person asking for citizenship should show a degree of integration -- some knowledge of the national language, and some familiarity with the nation's history. To my mind, a familiarity with our history would give you some understanding of why we have the language and citizenship policies we do, even if you don't agree with them, which is your right -- but I see no such understanding in what you write.