The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Draft Framework Agreement for a Comprehesive Settlement

Propose and discuss specific solutions to aspects of the Cyprus Problem

What would you vote, if a proposal based on the following framework was brought to a referendum?

I am a GC and would vote "Yes"
1
13%
I am a GC and would vote "No"
0
No votes
I am a GC and I am not sure
1
13%
I am a TC and would vote "Yes"
2
25%
I am a TC and would vote "No"
3
38%
I am a TC and I am not sure
1
13%
 
Total votes : 8

Postby turkcyp » Mon Mar 07, 2005 9:56 pm

Dear Alex,

Yes I have voted no, but it was not because the plan was not very promising in general but there were very sticky points for me like existence of military. I personally would vote against any solution that leaves anything other than symbolic numbers of troops on the ground. Even Annan plan was not satisfactory to me in this instance, but you have to suck up sometimes, and in Annan Plan total number of troops on the island in the long run was 1700, (symbolic if you ask me but not necessary at all).

I do not believe Cyprus is under threat to warrant any military. It is simply waste of money, time, and goodwill if you ask me to form a military. As far as I can see the only threat GCs see is Turkey, and if Turkey decides to invade island in the future again, after the solution then puny RoC army will not be able to stop her. The best way to defend GCs is to have a power stronger than Turkey have the protection of Cyprus. And that has to be done only with agreements.

For TCs the biggest threat is Greece backed GCs, which is an internal threat and having a military is actually more detrimental to our security. It is better to have no arms on this island, so that one extreme element can not gat his hands over it in the future for his lunatic aims. If there are no arms to kill each other, then less chance of conflict in the future.

No offense to you, (because I know this is not what your intention is because I learn you in this forum after sometime), but every time a GC talks about having a regular RoC army to defend itself against foreign forces, I fear that his real intention is that he will use the same equipment on me. There is pretty much nothing on the world that will convince me that a chance of “a lunatic nationalist (TC or GC) would not control some portion of that arseanl and equipment and start killing other society or have another coup” is zero. My idea is “No guns, less conflict”

This is a very major issue for me so even if an agreement give the golden keys of Cyprus to TCs, I will not accept it if it involves and regular army in the Cyprus.

Other than this major point,

Cross voting: The only way mixed voting can work in Cyprus is with the use or primaries. For example, from an election district let’s say one TC senaotor will be selected. Then you can have a primary in that district first, and only TCs decide the top two candidate to run for election, then these two candidates can be voted mixed by both TCs and GCs.

“Wise elder Commission”: Quite honestly I do not understand what this wise elders commission is about. I thought you were suggesting this in replacement of foreign judges. So they would be judicial figures not political figures.

What I understood from your second post is that you see this as more of a deadlock breaking mechanism in executive branch. Am I wrong? Please clarify what this is?

If they are judicial branch, why do they have to decide about any policy or executive or legislative decision anyway. There whole job would be to look up the actions of legislative and executive branch and decide if they are constitutional. I guess at this matter I agree with T.Pap. Why is there a duty in the supreme court to decide about policy issues when there is a deadlock. And how is there going to be a deadlock anyway. Something either passes the congress and becomes law or not. There is no issue of deadlock. IF you want to get rid of deadlock you can say I want the special majorities out, then I can understand.

I guess you have to clarify what you mean by this “commission”?

Territorial Adjustment:
a) Partition is not acceptable to GCs.
b) Political equality is a must for TCs
c) There can not be political equality if GCs participate in TC electoral process (at least legally)
d) a, b, and c is satisfied is with my proposal.
e) this does not mean no mixing of population but it means the political rights if GCs will be restricted. In partition there will be no mixing as I see no chance of GCs coming and settling a TRNC variant. So better than partition.
f) After some passage of time let’s say 20 years, this rule can be reevaluated by the consent of both communities. In partition there is no chane of this happeing in the future. So my proposal is like putting things in the deep freezer rather than killing it.


Economic Policy: Every state should be completely independent on managing its own fiscal policy. Federal government should not be involved at all. The only time federal government involvement is necessary is when a state goes bankrupt because of excessive borrowing, which in that case will need a bail-out. To prevent this happening federal government can set limits on state’s borrowing like total amount of debt can not exceed 30% of GDP in that state, or a state can not run a budget deficit more than 5% of its GDP for 3 consecutive years. These or regulations similar to this are acceptable in order to limit the exposure of federal government risk to state’s irresponsible economic policies. These are the kind of mechanisms that are employed in EU or in USA.

But other than this if a state want to set out an income tax of 50% and drive away all the rich people then it should be its prerogative. Again if they want to set a 50% corporate tax rate and kick investment out again it is their won prerogative. “Kendi dusen aglamaz” (Those who trips by themselves should not cry)

Green Card: Will never happen. Because it needs changing immigration system and immigration laws in USA, which is a huge political process and battle. They have been trying to change it recently for Mexicans and did not go anywhere because internally the political stakes are every high. Knowing this any promise any American representative gives on this issue should be laughed at.

Plus this is not an issue at all. Because even TRNC does not see many of the people you call settler as settler. Most of them illegal workers which should be managed with a much better immigration system, and should be only allowed into the island if there is a real need for their occupational skills. I do not think any GC would oppose to a Turkish surgeon or I do not think any TC would oppose to a Pontian professor of physics. Anyway you get my point. ;)
turkcyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:40 am

Postby magikthrill » Mon Mar 07, 2005 10:17 pm

Property Issues Question...

Here are two questions

1) What happens if TC who are occupying GC property cannot pay for the property and also refuse to leave?

2) How many TCs will get the chance to pay up the original property owner and how many GCs will have the right to choose before the illegal inhabitant (TC or settler) will get to pay up?


PS I have yet to vote
magikthrill
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2245
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:09 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Postby Alexandros Lordos » Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:21 am

magikthrill wrote:1) What happens if TC who are occupying GC property cannot pay for the property and also refuse to leave?


I have not thought in detail about this, but you can assume there is going to be an implementation mechanism that will ensure that whoever has to leave leaves. This, however, is a technical matter, that requires expert opinion, so let's just hold the overall principle of effective implementation for now.

magikthrill wrote:2) How many TCs will get the chance to pay up the original property owner and how many GCs will have the right to choose before the illegal inhabitant (TC or settler) will get to pay up?


I assume you are referring to heavily invested properties. I don't think that, comparatively speaking, there are that many properties in the north that are heavily invested, the real bulk of "non-restitution" will come from refugees exchanging their original property for their current dwelling.

Even so, I don't have a precise percent, but it will be high: Many properties will be exchanged. The consolation to these people who will not be entitled to their original home, will be the "right to a new home in the same town or village".
Alexandros Lordos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm

Postby magikthrill » Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:05 am

"consolation"?
hmmm i dont remember that word in the UN Charter but that's fine I guess. As long as this is understood as a major compromise on the part of the GCs to all parties involved.
magikthrill
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2245
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:09 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Postby Alexandros Lordos » Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:39 am

Turkcyp,

turkcyp wrote:I do not believe Cyprus is under threat to warrant any military. It is simply waste of money, time, and goodwill if you ask me to form a military.


Cyprus is one of the "most invaded places" in history. Its location is highly strategic, and in this sense not having a military will be like serving Cyprus up on a golden platter. External guarantees are only effective as deterrants if the attacking country is not already at war with the guarantor, and if the guarantor does indeed intend to do something in defense of the island.

In a regional war, neither of these conditions can be assured. Let us say that someone is at war with Turkey, or someone is at war with the "anglo-americans". If it is the first case, wouldn't they want Cyprus so as to have a staging ground from which to attack Turkey? And if it is the second case, wouldn't they want Cyprus in order to stop the British from using it as a base?

If we are planning a comprehensive settlement now, we should not be misled by the fact that the world on the whole happens to be at peace right this moment. In history, periods of war and periods of peace interchange quite regularly, and our Comprehensive Settlement should be such as to survive both ...

Leave a military vacuum in Cyprus, and I assure you: At the first sight of regional trouble, the vacuum will be filled ...

turkcyp wrote:It is better to have no arms on this island, so that one extreme element can not gat his hands over it in the future for his lunatic aims. If there are no arms to kill each other, then less chance of conflict in the future.

No offense to you, (because I know this is not what your intention is because I learn you in this forum after sometime), but every time a GC talks about having a regular RoC army to defend itself against foreign forces, I fear that his real intention is that he will use the same equipment on me. There is pretty much nothing on the world that will convince me that a chance of “a lunatic nationalist (TC or GC) would not control some portion of that arseanl and equipment and start killing other society or have another coup” is zero. My idea is “No guns, less conflict”

This is a very major issue for me so even if an agreement give the golden keys of Cyprus to TCs, I will not accept it if it involves and regular army in the Cyprus.


Thank you for clarifying your position here. What you are saying is very important, and you have helped me understand one of the key TC concerns. Any solution that involves Greek Cypriots having access to guns is unacceptable to you. I understand that.

My thought is that terrorism in Cyprus is inevitable, because "the fanatics" of both sides will eventually get their hands on weapons, explosives etc. Smuggling weapons into Cyprus won't be all that difficult, I think we can agree on that ...

Since we will have terrorists, we also need an effective way to deal with them. To do this, someone will have to be armed, whether you call that someone a police officer, an army officer or whatever. So again, I think having weapons is inescapable.

Would it perhaps be less intolerable to you if Cypriots, Greeks and Turks were not allowed to be part of this "army"? If for instance, from the Commander down to the last soldier, the army is made up of contingents from EU countries? This way, I think, we will have adequate guarantees that military power will not be misused ...

(By the way, since you are so worried about weapons, what are your thoughts about the police? They will be one major source of weapons, won't they?)

turkcyp wrote:Cross voting: The only way mixed voting can work in Cyprus is with the use or primaries. For example, from an election district let’s say one TC senaotor will be selected. Then you can have a primary in that district first, and only TCs decide the top two candidate to run for election, then these two candidates can be voted mixed by both TCs and GCs.


I think I can accept that if it is important to you. Could you explain in greater detail how it would work?

turkcyp wrote:“Wise elder Commission”: Quite honestly I do not understand what this wise elders commission is about. I thought you were suggesting this in replacement of foreign judges. So they would be judicial figures not political figures.

What I understood from your second post is that you see this as more of a deadlock breaking mechanism in executive branch. Am I wrong? Please clarify what this is?

If they are judicial branch, why do they have to decide about any policy or executive or legislative decision anyway. There whole job would be to look up the actions of legislative and executive branch and decide if they are constitutional. I guess at this matter I agree with T.Pap. Why is there a duty in the supreme court to decide about policy issues when there is a deadlock. And how is there going to be a deadlock anyway. Something either passes the congress and becomes law or not. There is no issue of deadlock. IF you want to get rid of deadlock you can say I want the special majorities out, then I can understand.

I guess you have to clarify what you mean by this “commission”?


OK, I need to clarify here: The "wise elder commission" will NOT be judiciary, they will NOT replace the Supreme Court, but will simply take over the executive and legislative tie-breaking functions that were inappropriately vested on the Supreme Court, in the Annan Plan. The Supreme Court will thus be relieved of excess and inappropriate duties, and will continue to function as per the constitution. The three European judges may still remain, if it is deemed necessary, ot they may go if it is not. That's a different story.

No, the wise elder commission will be strictly POLITICAL, not judiciary, and the people who will be in it will be veteran POLITICIANS, not judges. How exactly they will be chosen I haven't worked it out yet, but perhaps this is one example where cross-voting would be highly appropriate.

As for what constitutes deadlock, well, not being able to agree or approve the Federal Budget is a deadlock. Or, more generally, needing to make an urgent decision about something (taxation, a foreign treaty etc.) and being indecisive about it, is a deadlock, or perhaps more accurately, ineffective management.

How would the "wise elder commission" be invoked? My thought is that, a simple majority of either GC or TC senators should be able to invoke the commission on a legislative issue, while a simple majority of either GC or TC Presidential Council members should be able to invoke the commission on an executive issue. The commission will deliberate and may either decide on a course of action, or they may say that their intervention is unnecessary and that the government branches should sit and sort it out by themselves.

turkcyp wrote:Territorial Adjustment:
a) Partition is not acceptable to GCs.
b) Political equality is a must for TCs
c) There can not be political equality if GCs participate in TC electoral process (at least legally)
d) a, b, and c is satisfied is with my proposal.
e) this does not mean no mixing of population but it means the political rights if GCs will be restricted.


Turkcyp, I must say here that GCs not having political rights in the north sounds wrong to me on many different levels. Haven't TCs suffered enough as disenfranchised citizens, to want to impose the same predicament on GCs?

I am sure this was not your intention here, and that you genuinely believe that it is legally impossible to retain political bizonality if GCs are granted political rights in the north, but I would however question the motives of those who propagated these ideas in the north. Denktash was trying to convince TCs that the Annan Plan was "a disaster", because in the end "bizonality would be dissolved". Of course, his real concern was NOT that a viable bizonal Federation would not be achieved, but rather that a Two State Solution would not be achieved ...

Have you thought that, if it will be difficult to uphold in the Euroean Courts permanent restrictions to residence based on ethnicity, it will be even more difficult, in fact impossible, to uphold a total ban on residence (which is what you are in effect proposing?)

Personally, I really don't believe that a European Court would totally destroy the solution to the Cyprus Problem and plunge the country into chaos, because of a legalistic detail. I don't think this is how European Courts work.

turkcyp wrote:Economic Policy: Every state should be completely independent on managing its own fiscal policy. Federal government should not be involved at all. The only time federal government involvement is necessary is when a state goes bankrupt because of excessive borrowing, which in that case will need a bail-out. To prevent this happening federal government can set limits on state’s borrowing like total amount of debt can not exceed 30% of GDP in that state, or a state can not run a budget deficit more than 5% of its GDP for 3 consecutive years. These or regulations similar to this are acceptable in order to limit the exposure of federal government risk to state’s irresponsible economic policies. These are the kind of mechanisms that are employed in EU or in USA.

But other than this if a state want to set out an income tax of 50% and drive away all the rich people then it should be its prerogative. Again if they want to set a 50% corporate tax rate and kick investment out again it is their won prerogative. “Kendi dusen aglamaz” (Those who trips by themselves should not cry)


I totally agree. Thank you for clarifying the details of it for me.

turkcyp wrote:Green Card: Will never happen. Because it needs changing immigration system and immigration laws in USA, which is a huge political process and battle. They have been trying to change it recently for Mexicans and did not go anywhere because internally the political stakes are every high. Knowing this any promise any American representative gives on this issue should be laughed at.


We are only saying that a quota of the annual Green Card lottery be diverted towards a particular group of people, the settlers in Cyprus. That is all.

I look forward to hear from you ... :)
Alexandros Lordos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm

Postby turkcyp » Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:48 pm

Alexandros Lordos wrote:Cyprus is one of the "most invaded places" in history. Its location is highly strategic, and in this sense not having a military will be like serving Cyprus up on a golden platter. External guarantees are only effective as deterrants if the attacking country is not already at war with the guarantor, and if the guarantor does indeed intend to do something in defense of the island.

In a regional war, neither of these conditions can be assured. Let us say that someone is at war with Turkey, or someone is at war with the "anglo-americans". If it is the first case, wouldn't they want Cyprus so as to have a staging ground from which to attack Turkey? And if it is the second case, wouldn't they want Cyprus in order to stop the British from using it as a base?

If we are planning a comprehensive settlement now, we should not be misled by the fact that the world on the whole happens to be at peace right this moment. In history, periods of war and periods of peace interchange quite regularly, and our Comprehensive Settlement should be such as to survive both ...

Leave a military vacuum in Cyprus, and I assure you: At the first sight of regional trouble, the vacuum will be filled ...

turkcyp wrote:It is better to have ......


Thank you for clarifying your position here. What you are saying is very important, and you have helped me understand one of the key TC concerns. Any solution that involves Greek Cypriots having access to guns is unacceptable to you. I understand that.

My thought is that terrorism in Cyprus is inevitable, because "the fanatics" of both sides will eventually get their hands on weapons, explosives etc. Smuggling weapons into Cyprus won't be all that difficult, I think we can agree on that ...

Since we will have terrorists, we also need an effective way to deal with them. To do this, someone will have to be armed, whether you call that someone a police officer, an army officer or whatever. So again, I think having weapons is inescapable.

Would it perhaps be less intolerable to you if Cypriots, Greeks and Turks were not allowed to be part of this "army"? If for instance, from the Commander down to the last soldier, the army is made up of contingents from EU countries? This way, I think, we will have adequate guarantees that military power will not be misused ...

(By the way, since you are so worried about weapons, what are your thoughts about the police? They will be one major source of weapons, won't they?)


The last proposal of having s foreign army, like EU force, is more undenstable but not helpful for your reasoning. I do not believe any country outside the three original guarantor powers will ever have the will to fight for Cypriots. UK would fight because they want to keep their bases and protect their decent population in Cyprus. (According to estimates there close to 25-30k Brits living in Cyprus.) Turkey and Greece would fight for Cyprus because of their ethnic kins. But other than this three country no other country would fight for Cyprus. If as you said an outside 4th country would attack Cyprus, I actually trust Greece and Turkey and UK to defend Cyprus for the above reasons.

Other than that an army formed by Cypriots will be ineffective anyway. How big an army we can form to protect Cyprus against foreign invasion. Plus if you do not have army you also have moral high ground when a foreign country attacks you.

Relating to terrorism. You can not fight terrorism with regular army. Specially trained police force should be enough for that. We do not need tanks, and armored carriers to defend ourselves against terrorism. We need better intelligence service and better small force special strike forces. And frankly the only terrorism we will have on this island is again most likely going to be an internal terrorism. An extreme nationalist terrorist group from either community can be a danger to peace on the island. For this as I have said we do not need an army we need a specially trained police force.

For regular police, they can only carry normal pistols to deter normal crime, like homicide, theft, etc. etc. For the other kind of crime like organized crime or terrorist activity as I have said there can be formed a small specially trained police force doing the job. Annan Plan was asking creation of Federal Police. A portion of this police force should be trained for these instances. If you ask me a force of 200-300 people would be more than enough for it.

Anyway, let’s leave the military issue aside and concentrate on other things. Because it is one of my red lines. And let’s just hope for your proposal’s sake that not a lot of people is like me.


I think I can accept that if it is important to you. Could you explain in greater detail how it would work?


Cross voting: I am still working on the details right now, by looking at the different electoral processes in different countries. But let me clarify myself, cross voting should only be used in my opinion in executive races. For legislative races, I am not a big fun of cross voting. For legislature raises, I like the system in UK and USA, where the country is divided in small districts, (for example 50 for 50 senators) and every district chooses one senator. But the elected member should get at least %50 of the district voice. This eliminates the need for cross voting and makes politicians reflect true attitudes of their constituents and they became more accountable for their constituents. ( I am not saying that it can not be used technically in legislative races, I am saying it should not be used, not for technicality reasons but for democratic reasons.)

I think this was the biggest weakness of Annan Plan. People were voting for parties not for people and each party were sending some proportion of senators to senate. This systems is being employed by many countries (including TRNC) but I do not like it at all, because I do not even know who represents me in the senate. Nobody is accountable for anything.

But when I come up with more detail I’ll let you know.

OK, I need to clarify here: The "wise elder commission" will NOT be judiciary, they will NOT replace the Supreme Court, but will simply take over the executive and legislative tie-breaking functions that were inappropriately vested on the Supreme Court, in the Annan Plan. The Supreme Court will thus be relieved of excess and inappropriate duties, and will continue to function as per the constitution. The three European judges may still remain, if it is deemed necessary, ot they may go if it is not. That's a different story.

No, the wise elder commission will be strictly POLITICAL, not judiciary, and the people who will be in it will be veteran POLITICIANS, not judges. How exactly they will be chosen I haven't worked it out yet, but perhaps this is one example where cross-voting would be highly appropriate.

As for what constitutes deadlock, well, not being able to agree or approve the Federal Budget is a deadlock. Or, more generally, needing to make an urgent decision about something (taxation, a foreign treaty etc.) and being indecisive about it, is a deadlock, or perhaps more accurately, ineffective management.

How would the "wise elder commission" be invoked? My thought is that, a simple majority of either GC or TC senators should be able to invoke the commission on a legislative issue, while a simple majority of either GC or TC Presidential Council members should be able to invoke the commission on an executive issue. The commission will deliberate and may either decide on a course of action, or they may say that their intervention is unnecessary and that the government branches should sit and sort it out by themselves.


Wise elder commission: Now it makes more sense but is you ask me at the same time it makes it also redundant. Because I do not think there can be any deadlocks in the legislature or executive. A deadlock is by definition means failing to decide on the issue. There can not be a deadlock in legislature because a policy either becomes law or not. If a policy is so against TC interests so that it does not become law, but we have other avenues to make it law, then what is the point of having equality in the first place.

But I have sense that what you do not like is the issue of special majorities. If you are afraid of special majorities then let’s talk about limiting their scope, like constitution changes or decisions that can not be easily reversed like approval of Supreme Court judges, but not to issues like budgets.

One more other way of limiting this is to actually limit the scope of federal government anyway. I mean if federal government only is deciding on issues that affects us TC and GC together the same manner, like monetary policy, (which will be given away anyway to ECB), or customs, etc. etc then why do we need special majorities anyway. Special majorities is there to protect strong abusing weak, if there is no reason to believe that the abuse will happen because there is nothing to abuse then why have them in the first place.

The only time a deadlock can happen is when legislature and judicial decides on something but the executive power vetoes it decides not to obey it. In these instances it is better to take the infinite veto power of executive then forming a “political but not so political” commission.

But as I have said, I am more than willing to discuss with you the issue of special majorities.

Turkcyp, I must say here that GCs not having political rights in the north sounds wrong to me on many different levels. Haven't TCs suffered enough as disenfranchised citizens, to want to impose the same predicament on GCs?

I am sure this was not your intention here, and that you genuinely believe that it is legally impossible to retain political bizonality if GCs are granted political rights in the north, but I would however question the motives of those who propagated these ideas in the north. Denktash was trying to convince TCs that the Annan Plan was "a disaster", because in the end "bizonality would be dissolved". Of course, his real concern was NOT that a viable bizonal Federation would not be achieved, but rather that a Two State Solution would not be achieved ...

Have you thought that, if it will be difficult to uphold in the Euroean Courts permanent restrictions to residence based on ethnicity, it will be even more difficult, in fact impossible, to uphold a total ban on residence (which is what you are in effect proposing?)

Personally, I really don't believe that a European Court would totally destroy the solution to the Cyprus Problem and plunge the country into chaos, because of a legalistic detail. I don't think this is how European Courts work.


About territorial adjustment and political participation: There are many reasons why offering more territory to GC state may be helpful.
1) Reduce the refugee problem to much much smaller scale.
2) Reduces the chance of GCs being elected as a senator from TC state even if the election law (The one offered by Annan Plan) is found discriminatory by ECHR.

These are the main reasons why I have offered to give more land to GC state and has less GCs in the TC state.

On the other hand, my proposal of political participation being limited is not tied to territorial adjustment. Even if this political participation can not be limited, then giving more territory to GC state helps us in the above two areas.

Furthermore, my proposal does not limit political participation of GCs in the political process of TC state. They will be able to participate in the TC politics completely but only their political participation to federal government election process will be limited, and that also will be limited on the grounds of primary vs. secondary residency limitation (they will have two residencies instead of one) not on the basis of ethnictiy. So unlike what you think GCs in TC state will not be in vulnerable position of second class citizen. (I think this was your usage while ago)

Any GC that settles in TC state will have its residency treated as secondary residency and their GC address as their primary residency. So when they participate in federal elections they will be participating from GC state and when they are participating in TC state elections they participate in their secondary residency. And also we can put special majority rules to state government so that even they are minority in TC state they can be protected. We can take the government of state very similar to federal government so that they will be as protected in TC state as TCs are protected in federal level.

As I am fully aware of the fact that in no TC will try to oppress and GC at state level where they can get retalitory acts at the federal level, I am not afraid of giving GCs the same rights that I ask for TCs in the federal level. I mean every TC is aware of the fact that being majority in numbers in one state does not mean that much in a small country like Cyprus if you are minoroty in numbers in the whole island.

It’s very simple really. The whole idea stems from the fact that you can not restrict political participation on the basis of ethnicity but on the basis of residency.

We are only saying that a quota of the annual Green Card lottery be diverted towards a particular group of people, the settlers in Cyprus. That is all.

I look forward to hear from you ... :)


About the green card. Trust me knowing USA politics very well. It will never happen. It would be great if it does happen but it just simply won’t. The moment INS (Immigration Naturalization service) change its policy and allocate any quotes to settlers, it will be taken into court by Greek Americans, and all the other immigrants like Mexicans, etc for violating the equality. Law takes years to change in USA, it moves so slowly.

But it will always stay as a good wish.

Take care,
turkcyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:40 am

Previous

Return to Cyprus Problem Solution Proposals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest