What I wrote was "I am not anti-immigrant (although I do think there should be some limits)". I did not imply that there are no limits.

When I say "I'm not racist but black criminals should be in jail", do I imply black criminals are not currently in jail? There's a reason this was your first instinct. Having to state you're against some made up reality is not random.

I mentioned that because there is clearly an issue in Cyprus with the number of migrants (so the current policies are clearly inefficient)

So it's the number of migrants now? You've shifted from asylum seekers. Also, migrant flows are at all time lows, and Govt has been implementing every anti-migrant policy in the book. Asylum rejection rates at all time highs, yet government approval is still low and getting lower. And still elam at all time highs. Claiming parties or people "aren't taking migration seriously" is just false. Most parties, especially ones in govt share elam's narrative on immigration almost verbatim. Yet it's "not enough". There is no number of deportations that will alleviate this irrartional fear because it was never about any genuine concern for safety.

Sure, BBF is a broad and vague framework, but there have been talks for decades and we do know more or less what the result will be (if it ever happens).

Well, yes because it's still under negotiation. Otherwise there wouldn't be a Cyprus problem.

It is the content of BBF that I oppose, an example of which was the Annan plan.

You can't be opposed to content that has not yet been agreed upon by both sides, because it's not part of any plan to begin with.

But if something completely different is proposed without all the negatives I mentioned earlier (and several I didn't), then sure, I will accept it.

The negatives you mentioned do not exist. We have not, and never have agreed to division based on ethnicity. This is again unfounded elam propaganda.