How many migrants can Cyprus bear?

It has become a common question that arises in all discussions on migration: how many migrants can Cyprus bear? This article answers this very question. The reader is asked to patiently follow the arguments through so that they understand the rationale.

It has been stated many times by the Minister of Interior, Mr. Nouris, that Cyprus cannot bear any more immigrants. An appropriate parliamentary setting has now been created, where the question can be taken to parliament: the Ad Hoc Parliamentary Committee for the Study of the Demographic Problem, chaired by the offspring of the criminal organisation Golden Dawn, ELAM (The National Popular Front).

But the question is always posed in a vague way, and to answer it requires clarification. When we say how many migrants can Cyprus handle, do we mean how many foreigners in general? Do we mean foreigners from specific countries, say African countries? Do we mean refugees? Do we mean how many can we bear who are locked up in detention centres, unemployed and totally dependent on the state? Or do we ask about the resilience the economy has to working migrants that are part of the productive forces, also spending money in the economy and paying social security? There are many variables.

Let me consider several scenarios before giving the answer. Scenario 1: the Minister of Interior means that Cyprus can no longer afford to maintain unemployed people locked up in Pournara. Okay. Get them out and give them permission to work until their application is assessed. Scenario 2: He means the Asylum Service and the newly established International Protection Administrative Tribunal that considers their asylum applications can't take it anymore, due to excessive workload. Okay. Let new staff be hired or transferred from elsewhere, let more efficient procedures be put in place. Scenario 3: He means the Cypriot society cannot bear to see other blacks or Arabic speakers and coexist with them. Okay. Let's implement programs that target both immigrants and locals so that a culture of acceptance can be fostered.

But let's say he's not willing to do any targeted positive action. Which is exactly the reality: he doesn't want to open up detention centres to allow migrants freely join the labor market; he doesn't want a culture of acceptance to be created; and he doesn't want to enlarge the relevant government departments. He is only willing to continue the policy of detention, exclusion (from local communities) and repulsion (pushbacks at sea and at land). The policies of denial, that is.

Thus, we are left with a question that is posed indeterminately ("how many migrants can Cyprus bear?") that is never explicated as above, i.e. either as an inability to maintain prisoners or unemployed people, or as a question of excessive burden on certain state institutions. Because when it is formed in this way, positive solutions open up.

The question is not posed in terms of its logistical characteristics, because that is how possible solutions become obvious that the government does not wish to implement. On the other hand, the solution prefigured by the vague question "how many migrants can Cyprus bear?" is different. Mr Nouris has already answered it: Cyprus cannot bear any more immigrants. And he is already proceeding with solutions of denial, solutions of negation. But these denial solutions, with the solution of pushbacks at sea being the most prominent, are violent. The question has been answered by the government ("Cyprus can't take any more migrants") and because it has been answered thus, the way has been paved for pushbacks and refoulements, which are all illegal.

So the next time someone asks you "how many migrants can Cyprus take?", know that you are looking at a question that is an implicit justification or even incitement to violence against those we supposedly can't handle anymore. Let's say I answer the question with the number '100 thousand migrants', that's how many Cyprus can handle. What are you legitimised to do to the hundredth thousandth first? To use violence, obviously. The question, then, conceals within it a desire for violence. Let that desire be thwarted. The question is rejected in its entirety.

NOVEMBER 7, 2021