The refugee numbers announced by Imamoglu were discussed at the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Council.

The second meeting of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM) Council for the month of July was held at the IMM Presidency building. The question submitted by AK Party Pendik Council Member Murat Türkyılmaz regarding the refugee numbers announced by IMM President Ekrem İmamoğlu during his trip to Germany was unanimously accepted by the council members.

The second meeting of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM) Council for the month of July, chaired by Deputy Speaker of the Council Gökhan Gümüşdağ, was held at the IMM Presidency building. During the council meeting, AK Party Esenyurt Council member Harika Öztürk stated that the information provided by IMM President Ekrem İmamoğlu regarding the number of refugees in Istanbul was incorrect and submitted a question on this matter. The question was rejected by the council with a majority of votes. Subsequently, AK Party Pendik Council Member Murat Türkyılmaz stated, ‘It is expected that a Mayor accurately and truthfully shares the data and information with the public. Therefore, the criteria on which the statistical data announced in Germany were determined are of interest to the public.’ The new question presented by Murat Türkyılmaz with these statements was unanimously accepted by the council members.

‘Making unfounded claims about refugees is a contradiction’
AK Party Esenyurt Council member Harika Öztürk stated in her question that the numbers provided by IMM President Ekrem İmamoğlu regarding refugees in Düsseldorf, Germany were inaccurate. Öztürk expressed, ‘IMM President Ekrem İmamoğlu stated in a meeting in Düsseldorf, Germany on June 20, 2024, that there are 2 million 500 thousand refugees in Istanbul, which means nearly 17%, 18% of the official population. Such an increase is not possible, it is not accurate. It is unfair to both refugees and Istanbul residents.’ She emphasized the contradiction in the Mayor’s statements about the official population of Istanbul based on official figures while making unfounded claims about refugees. She mentioned that in 2022, he mentioned that 19 million 300 thousand people live in Istanbul based on ISKI’s water consumption data. At that time, he included supposedly 2.5 million refugees in the unofficial count of 19 million, but today he is considering them within the official population of 16 million and even providing ratios. Furthermore, she mentioned that later on, the IMM President reiterated the statement based on ISKI’s water consumption data of 2.5 million refugees in Ankara in a live broadcast. In contrast, the statement made by our Ministry of Interior on June 21, 2024, is as follows: According to the official figures of our Directorate General of Migration Management, there are a total of 1 million 87 thousand 17 foreigners in Istanbul, including 530,612 Syrians under temporary protection, 3,250 foreigners under international protection, and 553,153 foreigners with residence permits.’

’10 million refugees would not be here’
CHP Bahçelievler Council Member Gencay Özcan stated, ‘The numbers given, which cannot be accurately determined but are known by all local authorities in Istanbul, are well above the given numbers of refugees that both district municipalities and the metropolitan municipality serve. Our friend who asked this question would not ask this question if he spoke to AK Party Mayors. We can say that if our friends were as uncomfortable with the uncontrolled influx of refugees as they are with Ekrem Başkan’s trip abroad and had protected the borders sufficiently, perhaps millions, maybe even 10 million refugees would not be here today.’

‘It is expected that a Mayor accurately and truthfully shares the data and information with the public’
In response, AK Party Pendik Council Member Murat Türkyılmaz stated, ‘It is expected that a Mayor accurately and truthfully shares the data and information with the public. Therefore, the criteria on which the statistical data announced in Germany were determined are of interest to the public. In the past, CHP had many politically oriented question submissions. We followed a constructive policy regarding the transmission of question submissions to the presidency as a matter of courtesy. Today, we sadly see that the current attitude of CHP stems from its authoritarian and tutelary approach though it has changed recently. They cannot even tolerate a question submission directed to the presidency.’