Precarity and survival of migrants in Türkiye: An overview of the divide between migration policy and practice

Abstract

Introduction

Türkiye has been in the spotlight in global discussions on the governance of migration for more than a decade now. Recent data from the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR) records the total population of refugees and asylum seekers in Türkiye at 3.6 million, of which more than 3.3 million are Syrians (UNHCR, 2023). These figures, however, do little to describe the true picture of forced migration in Türkiye. Before the mass migration from Syria started 10 years ago, Türkiye was already a transit country as well as a destination for migrants escaping persecution and poverty from countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and importantly, the former Soviet Union. Many of these migrants found respite in Türkiye, working irregularly to support their families in their countries of origin and perhaps to fund onward journeys. This environment of relative openness changed dramatically in the last decade, effectively turning Türkiye into the world’s largest refugee-holding country (Williams et al., 2020). Türkiye has yet to lift the geographic restriction of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which means only those fleeing as a consequence of “events occurring in Europe” can be given refugee status. This restriction also means that Türkiye grants only “Temporary Protection” to Syrian refugees, obliging other asylum seekers or forced migrants to apply for “International Protection” and resettlement from the UNHCR.¹ Unregistered asylum seekers or forced migrants are considered undocumented migrants and can be deported. Its geographic position on the borders of the European Union (EU) and at the crossroads of multiple migrant flows makes it inevitably a key country in geopolitical migration politics. This special issue offers a critical analysis of Türkiye’s instrumentalization of the power these migration flows have gained by an increasingly emboldened and nationalistic government.

Without a doubt, Türkiye’s regulations have grown into a complex system of migration management with the diversification of migration flows. Since the early 2000s, the government introduced several migration regulations aimed at different groups, such as asylum seekers and unaccompanied children (mostly from Afghanistan), marriage-related migration (which is highly feminized), and documented and undocumented migrants in general. This special issue examines precarity among different migrant groups by examining the current policy and practice from the perspectives of different actors (i.e., practitioners, local authorities, representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and migrants). Based on qualitative research in several cities in Türkiye including Düzce, Van, Isparta, Antalya, Adana and Istanbul, the issue offers some important insights of Türkiye’s increasingly complex migration management by critically analyzing policy and the real-life experiences of migrants. These studies show the mismatch between migration policies and practices using case studies, such as Afghan boys in Van City, post-Soviet women in cross-border marriages, agricultural migrant workers and male forced migrants in Düzce City. Recent studies also point out the informality and ambiguity that have become a part of migration management in Türkiye (Danış and Soysüren, 2014). These case studies show that policies do not result in improving the real-life experiences of migrants; on the contrary, policies and regulations push migrants further into informal arrangements and consequently precarious living conditions. In fact, even some public employees turn to informal ways to overcome the difficulties for migrants because of the disconnect between the policy and practice (see Yüksel’s paper in this issue). This situation can be clearly observed in the experiences of disadvantaged migrant groups of women, youth and male forced migrants in several cities.

Precarity is a broad term referring to a loss of labor security and uncertainty due to neo-liberal economic policies since the early 1980s (Şenses, 2020). The concept of “a class-in-the-making” (Standing, 2011) refers to “a common experience of insecurity among workers” (Şenses, 2020: 51) affected by similar policies. Policies that increase precarity are clearly not unique to Türkiye, but we argue that there are some specifically Turkish elements under the Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (AKP —Justice and Development Party) government. Türkiye’s ongoing response to population movement as a “crisis” frames migrants as threats to security and economic, political and social stability, and underpining a dual strategy whereby migrants become simultaneously a source of funding and political leverage. Türkiye’s adopted role as the guardian of EU’s Eastern border has empowered it to assert its increasingly nationalist agenda at the expense of displaced and vulnerable migrants in the country. The role of the EU in bringing about these policies of precarity is important as they are used by the Turkish government. Policies include (1) changes to visa and citizenship regulations, (2) welfare reforms, (3) the use of non-government organizations (NGOs) and international NGOs (INGOs), and (4) the realignment of relationships between academics and government which has influenced knowledge production and data collection. Fixed, often fortified, national borders perpetuate a “crisis” mode of government that keeps migration control at the forefront of policymaking and politics, promotes precarity and insists on the essential “otherness” of migrants. These changes have led to the hardening of border controls as well as anti-migrant and anti-refugee policies in Türkiye, which have much in common with the arguments put forward by Alison Mountz in her book, Death of Asylum (2020).

This special issue demonstrates how precarity has become not just an outcome of policy but a key tool of migration control and management. We offer a critical analysis of the precarious position of different migrant groups as well as transit and undocumented migrants under Türkiye’s Temporary Protection Regime. The informal working and living conditions of refugees and migrants backed by ambiguous regulations, the widespread informal economy combined with economic instability, and the government turning a blind eye to the systematic exploitation of migrants create a situation that reinforces and deepens the precarious conditions of migrants. In fact, undocumented migrants, asylum seekers and refugees under Temporary Protection are often defined as “a new precariat of Türkiye” (Bélanger and Saraçoğlu, 2020; Ertorer, 2021; Şenses, 2016). The special issue also shows how the existing legal rights available to Syrians have built two different pathways to integration—one is formal integration through which Syrian refugees can make claims to citizenship rights and negotiate their access to employment, humanitarian assistance and social services; the other one is precarious, informal integration in which Syrians are becoming an indispensable part of labor-intensive industries facilitating Türkiye’s advantage in the global competition for cheap labor (Dedeoğlu et al., 2019). Although focusing closely on Türkiye, this special issue has clear relevance to the management of forced migration globally as routes to asylum become narrower, borders become securitized and migration becomes a key component of foreign and domestic politics.

Gender is also an important component of precarity among migrants. It is well known that women are more likely to live in poverty than men and be employed in precarious, gendered and poorly paid jobs. Gendered poverty also shapes the ways women migrate as they try to keep the cost of migration to a minimum by relying on unofficially operating employment agencies or mediators who make migration possible for many women by helping find them a job and charging heavily for their services after migration (Coşkun, 2018; Eder, 2015). Gendered forms of precaritization also occur in material and non-material forms, with the latter usually operating at a discursive level (Şenses, 2020). When migrant women are typically imagined as “vulnerable victims” (Freedman, 2015; Schrover and Moloney, 2013), this assumption presents women as easy targets for different forms of exploitation and harassment. The presumptions, prejudices and stereotyping that migrant women face as “victims” of male violence affect women’s lives, work conditions and legal statuses, and position them in “a unique category at the margins of what is ‘acceptable’” (Şenses, 2020: 60). In this Butlerist interpretation of precarity, non-material forms of precarity (Butler, 2004) also bring material precarity to women and reproduce gender inequality as they define their social relationships, roles and identities in a hierarchical social structure (Şenses, 2020: 60). While migrant women, especially forced migrants, may access legal procedures through this victimization discourse, the politics of victimhood also creates “a distinct form of precarity among women by limiting alternative forms of politics and resistance against such vulnerability” (Şenses, 2020: 63). By presenting some case studies of migrant women, this special issue also contributes to the analysis of these distinct forms of gendered precarity.

The articles

This special issue originated from the editors’ discussions at conferences over several years. The first outcome of these discussions was the edited book, Women, Migration and Asylum in Türkiye (Williams et al., 2020). We wanted to expand the analysis of migrant life beyond Türkiye’s metropolitan areas, acknowledging the complexity of the migrant experience. Hence, the contributors to this issue include established academics as well as early career researchers from Türkiye, the EU and those with a migrant background. Their empirical research engaged with the lived experiences of migrants, the staff of NGOs and statutory services, policymakers and local government officials. While developing theoretical understandings of conceptual issues such as precarity, gender, otherness and architectures of enmity, the papers emphasize the voices of migrants and acknowledge their heterogeneity and struggles. Focusing on migration policy and governance, this special issue explores how policies aim at managing and controlling migrants and how migration affects the intimate lives of different groups of migrants and refugees.

In the first paper, “Gendered precarity of migrant women in the satellite city of Isparta,” Sallan Gül, Kahya Nizam and Türkmen Er describe how the policies of satellite cities impact migrant women. Focusing on Isparta City, the study shows how small cities such as Isparta restrict the lives of women refugees or asylum seekers. Under the current “temporary protection” regulations on refugees, they show how gender inequalities and being a refugee or asylum seeker affect women’s lives in these small cities and deepen their precarious position through limited access to economic and social resources available in the satellite city of Isparta. Their study portrays a relatively “successful” satellite city as a waiting area for refugees. Based on in-depth interviews with women from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, the paper suggests that gendered and informal employment, and traditional gender roles within patriarchal families often prevent women from accessing some basic services, social networks, travel and employment rights.

In the second paper, “Ambiguity and migration governance in the satellite city of Düzce, Türkiye,” Kübra Yüksel carries out an analysis of policy and governance in a small satellite city and provides insights on local practices. Demonstrating the interplay between government and NGOs, this paper shows how local interpretations of national policies lead to different practices in the local context. Based on the perspective of local authorities, who are usually difficult to access for social researchers, her article focuses on how the national migration policies of Türkiye are enforced and practiced at the local level in Düzce City. Through in-depth interviews with public employees in local offices, NGOs and refugees, her research shows that local efforts, usually backed by local NGOs, rely on irregular and temporary support for asylum seekers and refugees. The paper shows the important role of informality in refugees’ daily life. Informal networks, built by different public institutions intertwine with local NGOs, in controlling and supporting asylum seekers and refugees. The article concludes that migration governance cannot be achieved through national-based policies alone and that solutions to locally specific issues require locally developed practices.

Sultan Ebru Bulgurcuoğlu and Reyhan Topcuoğlu’s paper, “The precarious lives and survival strategies of unaccompanied Afghan youth in Türkiye,” analyzes the support system for young, independent Afghan youth in Van, a remote satellite city. The paper suggests that the Afghan youth’s life experiences, culture and expectations differ from the general logics of child protection and the image of the child in Türkiye. By pointing out the mismatch between the services the state provides and the needs and desires of young people on the move, Afghan unaccompanied youth challenge the international refugee system and are forced to develop their own survival strategies. The paper portrays the institutional failure of referring identified children to social services and the growing precarity and informal living conditions of Afghan unaccompanied youth outside the institutional care in Türkiye. Their research shows how Afghan youth live in fear of deportation, depicts their experiences of the worst forms of child labor, and how constructions of masculinity in Türkiye play a role in young men “choosing” and normalizing precarity.

Özge Sarıalioğlu’s study, “Encounters of Syrian refugees and locals in the informal garment sector of Esenler district, Istanbul,” draws attention to the asymmetrical relationships between refugees and locals in one of the most refugee-populated areas of Istanbul. Conflict and competition between Syrian refugees and locals are visible especially in workplaces, such as the garment workshops, where both parties work together. The asymmetrical relations between the locals and the Syrian refugees are shaped by interactions, discourses between the groups, and legal and structural mechanisms. As a result of the lack of protection and social support, Syrian refugees gain space in the informal garment sector. Based on empirical data from more than 60 in-depth interviews with locals and Syrian refugees, Sarıalioğlu’s paper examines how the “otherness” of Syrian refugees is structured in many spaces of everyday life. By including locals’ perspective, the paper contributes to the literature by revealing interactions between Syrians and locals, and by showing how the actual integration process for Syrian refugees living under “temporary protection” works in real-life experiences. The paper portrays Syrian refugees’ coping tactics to improve their conditions and gain bargaining power vis-à-vis their employers.

From Istanbul, we move to the agricultural areas with Saniye Dedeoğlu’s study, “Harvesting precarity: The regimes governing migrant labor in Türkiye’s agricultural sector,” which demonstrates the largely unacknowledged role of migrant labor in maintaining agricultural production. The article focuses on Syrian, Azeri and Georgian agricultural workers in Türkiye as a case study to analyze the ways in which the precarious status of migrant labor in Turkish agriculture has been maintained. According to the findings, the “differential inclusion” of migrant labor in the Turkish agricultural sector is sustained by the governance of seasonal agricultural work through simultaneous interactions between regimes of border management, bonding (i.e., social networks forged among co-ethnics and/or between local and migrant groups) and the labor market. Migrant workers in the agricultural sector are highly vulnerable, a condition made possible by the antagonistic encounters of different ethnic, cultural and religious groups in rural Türkiye. The focus on the three regimes reveals how Türkiye’s policy on migrant workers creates and sustains the precaritization of migrant labor in agriculture.

Fatma Kızılelmas discusses the experiences of Syrian, Iraqi and Afghan men in her paper “Labor exploitation, discrimination and coping tactics of male forced migrants in Türkiye.” Drawing on 39 in-depth interviews with Afghan, Iraqi and Syrian men in Düzce, Kızılelmas examines the forms of discrimination against male forced migrants and documents how these men, especially the single ones, are often stigmatized and subjected to exploitation and marginalization. Although the three national groups are living in Türkiye under different legal statuses, the findings point to similar marginalization and exploitation processes for all three groups. To cope with systematic discrimination and exploitation, male forced migrants adopt different tactics, such as keeping silent, speaking Turkish in public spaces, concealing their identity, avoiding encountering locals and adopting a deferential attitude towards the local people. By examining the discrimination against male forced migrants from a gender perspective, Kızılelmas questions masculinity through phenomena such as class, race or global inequality.

In their paper “State restrictions and gender-based violence in cross-border marriages: The case of Kyrgyz women in Türkiye,” Emel Coşkun and Elvira Budaichieva focus on cross-border marriages between migrant women and local men. Their interviews with Kyrgyz women show that while marriage may seem like a strategy to grant women security, it may in fact leave them living in precarity, with few independent rights and in potentially dangerous situations. Challenging the new regulations on cross-border marriages built on the discourses of “illegal” migration and trafficking in women, the paper shows that marriage is not as safe as it is expected. Although marriage-related migration with Turkish men can lead to regularization when documents are hard to come by, marriage can render migrant women dependent on their husbands and vulnerable to different forms of male violence, especially during the obligatory waiting period of three years. Women endure difficult conditions for fear of losing the chance of citizenship in Türkiye. The paper analyzes how state surveillance and male control within the family contribute to making migrant women obedient, traditional wives within the family structure.

The final paper, by Ayça Kurtoğlu, Armağan Teke Lloyd and Zafer Salimoğlu, “A gendered analysis of Palestinian refugee women’s experiences of migration from Syria to Türkiye,” interrogates a different group of refugee women in Türkiye. Their case study challenges the assumed homogenized categories of refugee women by presenting one of the most invisible groups among Syrian refugees in Türkiye: Palestinian women. Based on interviews with Palestinian women refugees, the paper discusses how women’s migration history is affected by their gendered and ethnic identities. They argue that migration policies and border control fail to take into account the subjective conditions and needs of different groups of forced migrants and women.

Türkiye has become a destination country for different migrant groups and there is a need to look beyond rural/urban or registered/unregistered migration dichotomies as various groups experience similar difficulties and precarious living conditions. The papers presented in this issue offer a critical analysis of the migration regime of Türkiye through the lived experiences of different migrant and refugee groups, not only in metropolitan areas but also across Anatolia. As migration management and migrant groups spread across the country, this special issue gives a deeper understanding of current flows in different cities in Türkiye and points out similar precarious living conditions among different groups. The papers in this issue uncover the huge disparity between policy and practice that impinges on the lived experiences of migrants or refugees. Both migrants and public employees may turn to informal solutions or practices when policies do not offer solutions or guidelines to migrants’ problems. The disparities and ambiguities between policy and practice also relegate migrants and refugees to the bottom of the social hierarchy and push them into precarious positions. This is particularly visible in small Anatolian cities like Düzce, Isparta or Van where different migrant groups live. We hope that the papers presented here will contribute to the literature and promote a research agenda that is cognizant of the different ways in which migrants experience precaritization and how their gender (as women and men) affects the response of governmental and non-governmental actors and their practices in the field.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

References

Bélanger

Saracoglu

(2020) The governance of Syrian refugees in Turkey: The state-capital nexus and its discontents. Mediterranean Politics 25(4): 413–432. DOI: 10.1080/13629395.2018.1549785.

Butler

(2004) Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London and New York: Verso Books.

Coşkun

(2018) Criminalisation and prostitution of migrant women in Turkey: A case study of Ugandan women. Women’s Studies International Forum 68: 85–93. DOI: 10.1016/j.wsif.2018.03.002.

Danış

Soysüren

(2014) Giriş [Introduction]. In: Danış

Soysüren

(eds) Sınır ve Sınırdışı: Türkiye’de Yabancılar, Göç ve Devlete Disiplinlerarası Bakışlar [Border and Deportation: Interdisciplinary Views of Foreigners, Migration and the State in Türkiye]. Ankara: Notabene Yayınları, pp. 15–40 [In Turkish].

Dedeoğlu

Sefa Bayraktar

Çetinkaya

(2019) Yoksulun umudu çocuk: Türkiye’de suriyeli tarım ışçisi çocuklar [Syrian child agricultural workers in Türkiye: Children are the only hope of the poor]. Çalışma ve Toplum 4(63): 2585–2610. Available at: https://www.calismatoplum.org/tr/makale/yoksulun-umudu-cocuk-turkiyede-suriyeli-tarim-iscisi-cocuklar [In Turkish].

Eder

(2015) Turkey’s neoliberal transformation and changing migration regime: The case of female migrant workers. In: Castles

Ozkul

Cubas

(eds) Social Transformations and Migration: National and Local Experiences in South Korea, Turkey, Mexico and Australia. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 133–150.

Ertorer

(2021) Asylum regimes and refugee experiences of precarity: The case of Syrian refugees in Turkey. Journal of Refugee Studies 34(3): 2568–2592. DOI: 10.1093/jrs/feaa089.

Freedman

(2015) Gendering the International Asylum and Refugee Debate (2^nd edn). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

General Directorate of Migration Management (DGMM) (2014) Temporary Protection Regulation. Available at: https://en.goc.gov.tr/temporary-protection-in-law-onforeigners-and-international-protection and https://www.goc.gov.tr/kurumlar/goc.gov.tr/Gecici-Koruma-Yonetmeligi-Ingilizce.pdf.

10.

Law on Foreigners and International Protection (LFIP) (2013) Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu [Law On Foreigners and International Protection]. Trans: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/tr/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2017/04/LoFIP_ENG_DGMM_revised-2017.pdf.

11.

Mountz

(2020) The Death of Asylum: Hidden Geographies of the Enforcement Archipelago. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

12.

Schrover

Moloney

(2013) Introduction: Making a difference. In: Schrover

Moloney

(eds) Gender, Migration and Categorisation: Making Distinctions Between Migrants in Western Countries, 1945–2010. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 7–54.

13.

Şenses

(2016) Rethinking migration in the context of precarity: The case of Turkey. Critical Sociology 42(7–8): 975–987. DOI: 10.1177/0896920515606503.

14.

Şenses

(2020) Gender, women and precarity: Examples from Turkey. In: Williams

Coşkun

Kaşka

(eds) Women, Migration and Asylum in Turkey: Developing Gender-Sensitivity in Migration Research, Policy and Practice. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 49–67.

15.

Standing

(2011) The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

16.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2023) Türkiye fact sheet, September. Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/tr/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2023/10/bi-annual-fact-sheet-2023-09-turkiyeF.pdf (accessed 28 December 2023).

17.

Williams

Coşkun

Kaşka

(2020) Women, migration and asylum seeking in Turkey: Research, policy and practice. In: Williams

Coşkun

Kaşka

(eds) Women, Migration and Asylum in Turkey: Developing Gender-Sensitivity in Migration Research, Policy and Practice. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 1–17.