Immigration: To enter and settle in a country or region to which one is not native. Example. Turkey- non EU member. So Turks entering the EU currently would be classified as immigrants.
Migration: Takes place WITHIN nations or regions (the EU) which are native. So someone moving from Edinburgh to London would be a migrant (both cities being part of the UK) and someone moving from Paris to Madrid would also be a migrant by definition (as Paris is a city in France, and Madrid a city in Spain which are both part of the region the EU)
So...if Turkey joins the EU; Turks entering say Austria from Turkey would be migrants. Their status would have changed from immigrant to migrant upon joining the EU
By definition migrants and immigrants are not the same thing, a fact overlooked by people who try to trivialise the real issues some people have with the EU and issues around economic migration.
Not quite...
an immigrant is someone moving into a place
an emigrant is someone moving away from a place
a migrant is someone moving, full stop.
Obviously even under your definition, the distinction is purely technical.
Interesting point. That had escaped me.
Not to mention Caribbean immigration - in fact until five years ago or so, that was always the main focus of Dutch anti-immigration agitation. (Since the 70s. Before that, it was Christian Indonesian immigration.)
Problem was that nothing much could be done...seeing as people from the Dutch Antilles are Dutch citizens. They're trying to do something now though...creating a huge uproar in the Antilles.
Well it had one before 1923 as well...but yeah, point taken...
...although what does the Constitution have to do with the admission of Turkey? Oh, well, voters...
...and these are by far the most legitimate concerns.
The Kurdish legal situation is so that admission right now is absolutely not an option. On the "Armenian" front, the issue is purely one of freedom of speech. On both counts, it is precisely the Ataturkian, "Westernizing" tradition that is the problem. Which is a little weird.
The rise of political Islam in Turkey occurred in the 70s, ie as soon as there were free elections. I suppose you're talking about the Islamic parties breakthrough into the mainstream - forming the government for a first and now a second time.
They have moderated a lot - and they have had strong civil rights, and even pro-European planks in their programs even before that. Most pro-European liberals voted AKP at the last elections. Of course, it's in part just a case of joint enemies, ie Ataturkist generals.
On the Cyprus question, I've always been of the opinion that the Turks were more sinned against than sinning - and the events of the last few years have proved me right. I think if they could, most European politicians would like to undo the admission of only part of Cyprus.
As to the agrarian sector - true. All true. Although the gulf is not as wide as it was when Spain, Portugal and Greece were admitted in the 80s.
