I believe (but am not certain) that the RoC currently defines Turkish settlers as those who have settled in Cyprus from Türkiye and also those born in Cyprus, from one or two ‘settler’ parents. So this includes anyone born in Cyprus with a mother or father born in Türkiye. Do you know if this correct?
The reason I ask is because most of the time when I personally hear the argument about how many Russians are in the South (from Turkish Cypriots), it’s used to discredit the argument by Greek Cypriots around Turkish settlers ie “But there are as many Russians over there” etc.
Given the above, it would therefore be interesting to know how many Russians are in the South when applying the same definition (if my understanding is correct).
Hi, I started to write a reply and seem to have lost it. So my understanding of how the Republic of Cyprus applies the law is as follows. Believe it or not, it seems to boil down to "sperm/egg entered via unrecognized port".
So if you have one Turkish Cypriot parent with a Republic of Cyprus passport and one parent with a Turkish passport there have been three/four possibilities.
1. They met and married in an internationally recognized jurisdiction (including Turkey). You were born in an internationally recognized jurisdiction. You get citizenship.
3. They met and married in northern Cyprus. You were born in northern Cyprus. You don't get citizenship as far as I can tell.
4. They met and married in northern Cyprus. You were born in an internationally recognized jurisdiction. You don't get citizenship as far as I can tell.
I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure 3 and 4 will eventually be found unlawful on discriminations at the ECHR because of an ICJ case on Namibia about recognizing civil certificates (birth/marriage/death) of places that have no international recognition. But in the meantime young people will have paid non-EU rates for university fees, and their opportunities will have been restricted because they will not have had the same freedom of movement, etc.
It’s far more detailed than I had understood. But it still feels like a very complicated way to keep the settler issue alive.
With the international recognition factor included, I can now at least understand the theory. Even if I totally disagree with it. It’s difficult to see it as anything other than racist.
It’s this kind of treatment which we need to get past. Trade and representation in international fora are of course hugely important. But the impact of these sorts of decisions cut very deep in other areas of life.
To give you an example of how this can work in practice - and in relation to sport - we can look at the last Olympics and the finals of the female High Jump. Among the finalists we had:
- Buse Savaşkan.
Born in Cyprus to a Turkish Cypriot mother and Turkish mainland father (who’s own parents where born in Cyprus. Although I haven’t managed to verify that for certain). She has never expressed any desire to represent the RoC, but had she done so, she would not have qualified, because she is a ‘settler’. Her only route to competing was by representing Türkiye.
- Elena Kulichenko
Born in Russia. To Russian born parents. She had previously represented Russia in international athletics. This time, post Russian sporting sanctions, she was representing Cyprus.
I find that very hard to square. For the Turkish Cypriots, Buse was an example of what we can achieve, despite our tiny population. But at the same time the circuitous route for her to be at the games and seeing her representing Türkiye, not ourselves, was a reminder of how we are somehow less than even second class citizens in our home and are instead ‘illegal’.
Apologies if that sounds too overblown, but it really is a cruel policy which does nothing to help build any kind of trust. Quite the opposite.
And please be assured that I’m not shooting the messenger.
Hi Fiona, all enjoying the content. Thank you.
I have a question;
I believe (but am not certain) that the RoC currently defines Turkish settlers as those who have settled in Cyprus from Türkiye and also those born in Cyprus, from one or two ‘settler’ parents. So this includes anyone born in Cyprus with a mother or father born in Türkiye. Do you know if this correct?
The reason I ask is because most of the time when I personally hear the argument about how many Russians are in the South (from Turkish Cypriots), it’s used to discredit the argument by Greek Cypriots around Turkish settlers ie “But there are as many Russians over there” etc.
Given the above, it would therefore be interesting to know how many Russians are in the South when applying the same definition (if my understanding is correct).
Hi, I started to write a reply and seem to have lost it. So my understanding of how the Republic of Cyprus applies the law is as follows. Believe it or not, it seems to boil down to "sperm/egg entered via unrecognized port".
So if you have one Turkish Cypriot parent with a Republic of Cyprus passport and one parent with a Turkish passport there have been three/four possibilities.
1. They met and married in an internationally recognized jurisdiction (including Turkey). You were born in an internationally recognized jurisdiction. You get citizenship.
2. They met and married in an internationally recognized jurisdiction (including Turkey). You were born in northern Cyprus. You didn't used to get citizenship. But if this link means people born in Cyprus to people married abroad then this seems to have changed recently. See this link. https://cyprus-mail.com/2024/02/29/move-to-give-14-citizenships-for-people-in-mixed-marriages-welcomed
3. They met and married in northern Cyprus. You were born in northern Cyprus. You don't get citizenship as far as I can tell.
4. They met and married in northern Cyprus. You were born in an internationally recognized jurisdiction. You don't get citizenship as far as I can tell.
I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure 3 and 4 will eventually be found unlawful on discriminations at the ECHR because of an ICJ case on Namibia about recognizing civil certificates (birth/marriage/death) of places that have no international recognition. But in the meantime young people will have paid non-EU rates for university fees, and their opportunities will have been restricted because they will not have had the same freedom of movement, etc.
Thanks so much for the explanation, Fiona.
It’s far more detailed than I had understood. But it still feels like a very complicated way to keep the settler issue alive.
With the international recognition factor included, I can now at least understand the theory. Even if I totally disagree with it. It’s difficult to see it as anything other than racist.
It’s this kind of treatment which we need to get past. Trade and representation in international fora are of course hugely important. But the impact of these sorts of decisions cut very deep in other areas of life.
To give you an example of how this can work in practice - and in relation to sport - we can look at the last Olympics and the finals of the female High Jump. Among the finalists we had:
- Buse Savaşkan.
Born in Cyprus to a Turkish Cypriot mother and Turkish mainland father (who’s own parents where born in Cyprus. Although I haven’t managed to verify that for certain). She has never expressed any desire to represent the RoC, but had she done so, she would not have qualified, because she is a ‘settler’. Her only route to competing was by representing Türkiye.
- Elena Kulichenko
Born in Russia. To Russian born parents. She had previously represented Russia in international athletics. This time, post Russian sporting sanctions, she was representing Cyprus.
I find that very hard to square. For the Turkish Cypriots, Buse was an example of what we can achieve, despite our tiny population. But at the same time the circuitous route for her to be at the games and seeing her representing Türkiye, not ourselves, was a reminder of how we are somehow less than even second class citizens in our home and are instead ‘illegal’.
Apologies if that sounds too overblown, but it really is a cruel policy which does nothing to help build any kind of trust. Quite the opposite.
And please be assured that I’m not shooting the messenger.