Cyprus-Forum.com

[boomerang]

And then you have zan critising others for doing an honest days work and then he is quite happy to take a bribe via selling his ass...go figure...

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=15473

[CopperLine]

1. There is a procedure in most countries whereby immigrants may become residents if they fulfil various criteria. TRNC/'TRNC' is no different.
2. In most countries there is also a procedure whereby residents become citizens if they fulfil various criteria. TRNC/'TRNC' is no different.
3. Given the above why shouldn't so-called 'settlers' become citizens ?

It seems to me that there are basically three answers to this question. First, there are those who say that since TRNC is not a recognised state it cannot give citizenship to any one, settlers included. This is a well-worn but trivial argument because if TRNC citizenship is as fictitious and meaningless as those critics insist then, frankly, there is nothing to worry about granting such empty citizenship.
Second, there are those who say that it is because these 'settlers' are illegally taking/occupying GC properties. This seems to be a more forceful objection but somewhat uneven because the opposition to settlers becoming citizens of TRNC seems to be levelled irrespective of whether such and such a settler is in fact occupying GC claimed property. Would citizenship be OK for those who demonstrably had not occupied GC property ?
This leads to a third objection, which again seems to me to be serious but uneven and inconsistently applied, namely that it is not long-term immigrants in general against whom the objections are levelled, but against Turkish immigrants in particular. So the alleged mass giveaway of citizenship is directed at Turkish settlers thereby allegedly dramatically shifting the demographic 'balance of power' away from TCs. Curiously those objectors have little to say about the tens of thousands of British and Germans in particular.

For my part I'm not bothered where people came from so long as the politics are based in the democratic equality of all persons, citizens or non-citizens. I would want anyone and everyone to be included in a democratic polity and the fact that X is a 'settler', or Y is an immigrant or Z a seasonalor contract worker should not be grounds for their exclusion from decisions about their lives. For there by the grace of god go any of us.

I for one won't be taking lessons on the merits of granting citizenship from fascists and racists.

[zan]

Soon the TC's will lose their majority in the "TRNC Government".

Soon we will be saying, welcome to "little Turkey".

I just wanted to expand on my on post here.

I had this conversation with VP not too long ago about Turkey demanding "TRNC" to give 50,000 Settlers a "TRNC Citizenship's" or else Turkey was not going to pay the 13th salaries of the "Government" workers. Well, it seems like, for a lousy few hundred dollars into the pockets of the bureaucrats was all it took to give Turkey what she wanted.

Can someone please remind me again as to who is running the show in the "TRNC".??

Here is part of that conversation

Lets see if the "TRNC" is willing to sell "citizenship's" for money, and not for a lot of money at that, I may add. A 13th salary cannot be worth more than few hundred dollars on average. If they "prostitute" themselves on this one, then it wont be long before they will be blackmailed on the 12th salary, then the 11th, then the 10th and so on. Before too long, the TC's will be blackmailed in everything that can be taken away from them. How long before the TC's will be telling the newly arriving Turks in the "TRNC"...."welcome to your country".!!!

Look at the facts, has the 13th Salary been paid..Yes, has 50.000 people been made citizens of the TRNC ...No...

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/cyprus15003-10.html

Can anyone tell me what was the average payment in Dollars, that was paid by Turkey to all the civil servants who accepted to sell further 50,000 "TRNC citizenship's" to the settlers, so that the settlers will eventually out vote the TC's in the "government", who would of course, will be voting what ever is in the best interest of Turkey.

I just want to know, if the payment was comparable with any of the Whorehouses in the "TRNC".!!

Talk about "TRNC" selling the rope to Turkey that will end up "hanging" themselves, the TC's.!!

Where the hell is VP when you need him to tell us that NO such thing will ever happen, just because the "TRNC" has once again "prostituted" themselves. I need assurances and guarantees, so that our community is not absorbed by the majority. We want to have a say so in our future VP. We do not trust any majority to look after our best interest VP. Please tell us no such thing will happen VP, so that I can sleep at ease during the night.!!

He can't possibly be getting worried by any chance by all these events taking place, or is he.?? I mean, Turkey couldn't possibly be using the "new votes" in the "TRNC" to make it easier to cut a deal with the UN, EU and the RoC to help herself to enter the EU down the road at the expense of the TC's best interest..

Perhaps I'm just being "BIASED".................... again.!!!

How about you tell us how many of the million "RoC' citisens are real GCs before using such emotive language.. We have a republic in which we can do what we like just like the "RoC". We need bums on seats so we can prosper.....The siege you have put us under will not work Kikapu so give it up....We tried for alternatives and you stopped us every time...NOw you want a say in what we decide... How would this decision be made in your well thought out democratic federal system then Kiks.......Gcs can accept who they likeb ut TCs go with a begging bowl...Is that it????The whole world is screaming out for imigrants to come and join them and you find us wanting Turks to live with Turks a problem........

[Kikapu]

1. There is a procedure in most countries whereby immigrants may become residents if they fulfil various criteria. TRNC/'TRNC' is no different.
2. In most countries there is also a procedure whereby residents become citizens if they fulfil various criteria. TRNC/'TRNC' is no different.
3. Given the above why shouldn't so-called 'settlers' become citizens ?

It seems to me that there are basically three answers to this question. First, there are those who say that since TRNC is not a recognised state it cannot give citizenship to any one, settlers included. This is a well-worn but trivial argument because if TRNC citizenship is as fictitious and meaningless as those critics insist then, frankly, there is nothing to worry about granting such empty citizenship.
Second, there are those who say that it is because these 'settlers' are illegally taking/occupying GC properties. This seems to be a more forceful objection but somewhat uneven because the opposition to settlers becoming citizens of TRNC seems to be levelled irrespective of whether such and such a settler is in fact occupying GC claimed property. Would citizenship be OK for those who demonstrably had not occupied GC property ?
This leads to a third objection, which again seems to me to be serious but uneven and inconsistently applied, namely that it is not long-term immigrants in general against whom the objections are levelled, but against Turkish immigrants in particular. So the alleged mass giveaway of citizenship is directed at Turkish settlers thereby allegedly dramatically shifting the demographic 'balance of power' away from TCs. Curiously those objectors have little to say about the tens of thousands of British and Germans in particular.

For my part I'm not bothered where people came from so long as the politics are based in the democratic equality of all persons, citizens or non-citizens. I would want anyone and everyone to be included in a democratic polity and the fact that X is a 'settler', or Y is an immigrant or Z a seasonalor contract worker should not be grounds for their exclusion from decisions about their lives. For there by the grace of god go any of us.

I for one won't be taking lessons on the merits of granting citizenship from fascists and racists.

CopperLine,

I'm no international lawyer as you appear to be, but let me give you my take on all this, if you don't mind.

It seems to me that there are basically three answers to this question. First, there are those who say that since TRNC is not a recognised state it cannot give citizenship to any one, settlers included. This is a well-worn but trivial argument because if TRNC citizenship is as fictitious and meaningless as those critics insist then, frankly, there is nothing to worry about granting such empty citizenship.

At the end of the day CopperLine, it is fictitious as far as the RoC is concerned, I'm sure. For a "country" who cannot hold a International friendly Football match against the blessing of the RoC, how can they issue "TRNC citizenship's" and not be considered fictitious. You are right, when the time comes to a settlement, those citizenship's issued to the settlers will not be recognized. They will all be considered as "immigrant" if they are allowed to stay, and then they can be issued Cypriot Citizenship to those who qualifies.

Second, there are those who say that it is because these 'settlers' are illegally taking/occupying GC properties. This seems to be a more forceful objection but somewhat uneven because the opposition to settlers becoming citizens of TRNC seems to be levelled irrespective of whether such and such a settler is in fact occupying GC claimed property. Would citizenship be OK for those who demonstrably had not occupied GC property ?

I don't think settlers occupying or not occupying GC property is any criteria as to determine whether they qualify to be "TRNC citizens" or not. The whole procedure becomes invalid because illegal state within a State issuing illegal citizenship's to illegal immigrants who has not gone through the procedures by the recognised government in Cyprus, since the "TRNC" will want all these settlers who has become "citizens" to be counted as Turkish Cypriots when the time comes for negotiations.

This leads to a third objection, which again seems to me to be serious but uneven and inconsistently applied, namely that it is not long-term immigrants in general against whom the objections are levelled, but against Turkish immigrants in particular. So the alleged mass giveaway of citizenship is directed at Turkish settlers thereby allegedly dramatically shifting the demographic 'balance of power' away from TCs. Curiously those objectors have little to say about the tens of thousands of British and Germans in particular.

This citizenship has no bearing on anyone else, other than the TC's themselves who are going to be out voted by the settlers in any decision making in the "TRNC" if ever a True Partition were to happen, so that's where the my concerns are. In the overall spectrum of peace in Cyprus, these illegal citizenship's will be non-and -void. All of the remaining settlers who are not sent back to Turkey and remain on the island will need to go through a proper citizenship procedures to become EU citizens. If you think that will not be the case, then what is to stop Turkey telling the "TRNC" to make every Turkish citizen in Turkey a dual citizen with the "TRNC", so that upon any kind of peace agreement in Cyprus between the TC's and the GC's, all of Turkey's 70+ million will become EU Citizens, without Turkey ever needing to qualify in becoming a EU member.

The British and the Germans in the "TRNC" are minorities and will not have any say so in running the "TRNC" if full Partition were to occur. The same will be the case with the True TC's as more settlers are allowed "citizenship's". Like I said, the TC's are selling the rope to the settlers that will end up "hanging" them in any and all future political decision makings. Welcome to "little Turkey" in another words, that the last 34 years would have been all in vain as far as the TC's are concerned. Once again they will find themselves at the mercy of the Majority. As the saying goes,
"be careful what you ask for, because you might just end up getting it".

[Viewpoint]

Gc's 0 - Little Turkey 10

[Kikapu]

Gc's 0 - Little Turkey 10

Are you talking about number of Human Rights Violations or what.??

[Kikapu]

[Viewpoint]

Gc's 0 - Little Turkey 10

Are you talking about number of Human Rights Violations or what.??

No the difference in relations, cooperation and the winner between the 2, its no match Gcs = 1960 to 1974 or Little Turkey = 1974 to 2008.

[CopperLine]

Kikapu,
I agree with you that there is a danger that TCs may be handing out rope which they may eventually hang from. It is a danger; how big a danger is a matter of debate. Also, it's been said before rightly, that Turkey of course applies pressure on TCs or the TRNC to give out more rope. So I'm not naive about the TC/TRNC-Turkey relationship. I agree with your cautions.

Having said that its is not self-evident that Turkish immigrants to the north necessarily act as one bloc and back the same party/parties. Just like migrant Cypriots around the world, there are political differences and differences between 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation migrants. Equally there are differences regarding the Cyprus problem between non-Cypriots living in Cyprus.

Just take one example : a second generation Turkish immigrant, born in Cyprus - let's say who is 18 or 20 years old today - has as great an interest and motivation for an incorporation of north Cyprus into the EU as does a Nth generation native born Turkish Cypriot. This person could well find Turkey's politics - in relation to EU, to Cyprus to other matters - against her/his better interests. For this person doesn't it make sense to support some proposal which will hasten extension of the acquis to the north and/or to campaign against Turkish nationalism ?

On the law question, the problem is that international law does not and cannot determine who and how a person is given citizenship. In other words whatever the criteria for citizenship are in the UK it is nobody else's business to alter. So I might think that citizenship of Bermuda, Belize or Panama is a pretty dodgy and easy business and I might think it a 'paper fiction', but that doesn't affect at all the way Bermuda, Belize and Panama treats its own citizens.

You wrote that

'when the time comes to a settlement, those citizenship's issued to the settlers will not be recognized.'

Maybe. Maybe not. I'd expect the question of who counts as a citizen to be part of the negotiations of any final settlement.

You also ask

then what is to stop Turkey telling the "TRNC" to make every Turkish citizen in Turkey a dual citizen with the "TRNC"

First, the easy second bit - that someone holds dual citizenship is not unusual in today's world and it rarely gives added protection to that person. But in any case dual citizenship DOES NOT give more power to one state into the affairs of the other state. Thus that you can hold dual Irish-US citizenship doesn't give either Ireland or the US some special powers into the affairs of the other. I think this is a red herring. But the first part is more important, and again I think there is a straightforward answer : If Turkey made TRNC issue 'dual citizenship' to all Turkish citizens then that is tantamount to formal incorporation within Turkey. There would be absolutely no doubt that north Cyprus was in fact an integral part of the Turkish republic. Sure, there are some people who'd like to see that but they have never held the upper hand either in Turkey nor in Cyprus. And there are compelling reasons why such a move would not happen in the foreseeable future : 1 It would destroy any Cyprus solution of ANY kind. 2. It would destroy any hope of EU membership for Turkey 3. Turks don't want it. 4. Turkish Cypriots don't want it.

I've said this on a number of other threads, but I'll say it again here : any discussion for any settlement or resolution which is based on community or minority rights (and their formal inclusion in a new constitutional settlement) is doomed to disaster and a repetition of the traumas of the last fifty years.
In contrast a settlement based upon democratic equality of all persons, whether citizen or non-citizen, at least offers some prospect of success.

[zan]

1. There is a procedure in most countries whereby immigrants may become residents if they fulfil various criteria. TRNC/'TRNC' is no different.
2. In most countries there is also a procedure whereby residents become citizens if they fulfil various criteria. TRNC/'TRNC' is no different.
3. Given the above why shouldn't so-called 'settlers' become citizens ?

It seems to me that there are basically three answers to this question. First, there are those who say that since TRNC is not a recognised state it cannot give citizenship to any one, settlers included. This is a well-worn but trivial argument because if TRNC citizenship is as fictitious and meaningless as those critics insist then, frankly, there is nothing to worry about granting such empty citizenship.
Second, there are those who say that it is because these 'settlers' are illegally taking/occupying GC properties. This seems to be a more forceful objection but somewhat uneven because the opposition to settlers becoming citizens of TRNC seems to be levelled irrespective of whether such and such a settler is in fact occupying GC claimed property. Would citizenship be OK for those who demonstrably had not occupied GC property ?
This leads to a third objection, which again seems to me to be serious but uneven and inconsistently applied, namely that it is not long-term immigrants in general against whom the objections are levelled, but against Turkish immigrants in particular. So the alleged mass giveaway of citizenship is directed at Turkish settlers thereby allegedly dramatically shifting the demographic 'balance of power' away from TCs. Curiously those objectors have little to say about the tens of thousands of British and Germans in particular.

For my part I'm not bothered where people came from so long as the politics are based in the democratic equality of all persons, citizens or non-citizens. I would want anyone and everyone to be included in a democratic polity and the fact that X is a 'settler', or Y is an immigrant or Z a seasonalor contract worker should not be grounds for their exclusion from decisions about their lives. For there by the grace of god go any of us.

I for one won't be taking lessons on the merits of granting citizenship from fascists and racists.

CopperLine,

I'm no international lawyer as you appear to be, but let me give you my take on all this, if you don't mind.

It seems to me that there are basically three answers to this question. First, there are those who say that since TRNC is not a recognised state it cannot give citizenship to any one, settlers included. This is a well-worn but trivial argument because if TRNC citizenship is as fictitious and meaningless as those critics insist then, frankly, there is nothing to worry about granting such empty citizenship.

At the end of the day CopperLine, it is fictitious as far as the RoC is concerned, I'm sure. For a "country" who cannot hold a International friendly Football match against the blessing of the RoC, how can they issue "TRNC citizenship's" and not be considered fictitious. You are right, when the time comes to a settlement, those citizenship's issued to the settlers will not be recognized. They will all be considered as "immigrant" if they are allowed to stay, and then they can be issued Cypriot Citizenship to those who qualifies.

Second, there are those who say that it is because these 'settlers' are illegally taking/occupying GC properties. This seems to be a more forceful objection but somewhat uneven because the opposition to settlers becoming citizens of TRNC seems to be levelled irrespective of whether such and such a settler is in fact occupying GC claimed property. Would citizenship be OK for those who demonstrably had not occupied GC property ?

I don't think settlers occupying or not occupying GC property is any criteria as to determine whether they qualify to be "TRNC citizens" or not. The whole procedure becomes invalid because illegal state within a State issuing illegal citizenship's to illegal immigrants who has not gone through the procedures by the recognised government in Cyprus, since the "TRNC" will want all these settlers who has become "citizens" to be counted as Turkish Cypriots when the time comes for negotiations.

This leads to a third objection, which again seems to me to be serious but uneven and inconsistently applied, namely that it is not long-term immigrants in general against whom the objections are levelled, but against Turkish immigrants in particular. So the alleged mass giveaway of citizenship is directed at Turkish settlers thereby allegedly dramatically shifting the demographic 'balance of power' away from TCs. Curiously those objectors have little to say about the tens of thousands of British and Germans in particular.

This citizenship has no bearing on anyone else, other than the TC's themselves who are going to be out voted by the settlers in any decision making in the "TRNC" if ever a True Partition were to happen, so that's where the my concerns are. In the overall spectrum of peace in Cyprus, these illegal citizenship's will be non-and -void. All of the remaining settlers who are not sent back to Turkey and remain on the island will need to go through a proper citizenship procedures to become EU citizens. If you think that will not be the case, then what is to stop Turkey telling the "TRNC" to make every Turkish citizen in Turkey a dual citizen with the "TRNC", so that upon any kind of peace agreement in Cyprus between the TC's and the GC's, all of Turkey's 70+ million will become EU Citizens, without Turkey ever needing to qualify in becoming a EU member.

The British and the Germans in the "TRNC" are minorities and will not have any say so in running the "TRNC" if full Partition were to occur. The same will be the case with the True TC's as more settlers are allowed "citizenship's". Like I said, the TC's are selling the rope to the settlers that will end up "hanging" them in any and all future political decision makings. Welcome to "little Turkey" in another words, that the last 34 years would have been all in vain as far as the TC's are concerned. Once again they will find themselves at the mercy of the Majority. As the saying goes,
"be careful what you ask for, because you might just end up getting it".

I think you will have to explain in simpler terms Copperline....He doesn't seem to have grasped what you are saying