Turkey

Migration was a critical policy area for Turkey even before Turkey became an official candidate country to the EU in 1999. Especially, with the end of the Cold War in the 1990s Turkey began to face the challenges of being a country of origin and destination, while acting as a transit country for documented and undocumented migration. Although the foundations of a migration policy were shaped in Turkey prior to the EU accession process, the EU accession process had an important catalyser effect in transforming the migration and asylum policies. This paper presents an overall analysis of the changes experienced in Turkey since 1999 on the asylum field with a projection of three possible scenarios of convergence, cooperation and conflict on Turkey-EU relationship. In that respect, this paper aims to map out the important periods that have influenced the transformation of the asylum policy in Turkey. While locating the important events and drivers at the global, neighbourhood, EU and Turkish levels, this research based on extensive fieldwork interviews presents findings of a EU-Turkey relationship that lies between cooperation and conflict.

Turkey is part of a migration system that is spread over a large geographical area including Europe, Asia, Middle East and North Africa; which is resulting from geopolitical and historical factors and transformed by local, regional, and international events. The migration flows that Turkey experienced have changed throughout the phases of modern Turkey‟s history. In the Early Republican era from 1923 to 1950, as a part of the nation building process, Turkey saw mass emigration of its non-Muslim populations and the arrival of Muslims from the Balkans. In the period from 1950 to 1980, Turkey was mainly characterized as a country of emigration which attempted to recover its economy by sending thousands of migrants to Europe as a solution to unemployment and in order to receive remittances. The period after 1980‟s saw many developments in the migratory movements. One was the increase in the number of asylum seekers from Turkey, due to the military coup and the Kurdish question. Another development in the 1980s was the arrival of economic migrants into Turkey due to the socioeconomic transformation in the region. Thus, standing at the crossroads of three continents, today, Turkey is a country of emigration, immigration and transit migration. At the same time, the prospect of European Union membership has been an important aspect of Turkey‟s historical modernization project and its political relations to the EU have been very influential in the formation of its migration policy making. Within this context and along the guidelines provided by the EUMAGINE project, this report first gives a historical and socio-economic overview of Republic of Turkey and provides an analysis of migration flows and policies in Turkey. Then, the four research areas of Turkey, namely Emirdağ and Dinar in Afyon; VanMerkez in Van and Fatih in Istanbul selected for EUMAGINE research are described.

Turkey has long been characterized as a country of emigration due to the large-scale migration of Turkish workers to Western Europe beginning in the 1960s. However, Turkey has also increasingly become a country of immigration in recent years. In fact, migra-tion to Turkey is not a new phenomenon: Migration movements had occurred during the Ottoman period and in the immediate years following the foundation of the Republic of Turkey. Yet, it must be stressed that these migratory movements differ both in terms of nature and scale. While former migration move-ments to Turkey consisted of migrants of Turkish ethnicity from neighboring countries, recent migra-tion to Turkey has become much more diverse. At the crossroads of Asia, Africa, and the European Union (EU), Turkey now faces various migration flows such as transit migrants, clandestine immigrant workers, high-skilled personnel, asylum seekers, and refugees from different countries. Among these migrant groups are also German citizens who have settled in Turkey for various reasons. Because of these new migration flows into the country, as well as the EU harmonization process, Turkey, willingly or not, has been forced to adapt its migration legislation. In rela-tion to this, Turkey has entered into a serious reform process in recent years, and many fundamental legal amendments have been made regarding the status of foreigners in Turkey. The Law on Work Permits for Foreigners (Law No. 4817) and Law on Foreigners and International Protection (Law No. 6458) are of significant importance concerning foreigners’ legal participation possibilities in Turkey. Based on the empirical findings of my Mercator-IPC Fellowship, this report investigates the possibilities of German citizens’ legal membership on the “Turkish side” of the transnational German-Turkish space from the migrant’s perspective. In doing so, this report also reflects upon some general characteristics of the Turkish migration policy.

Turkey receives ever-increasing numbers of irregular migrants from its economically and politically unstable East and South trying to cross its territory towards Europe. Turkey has also experienced dramatic economic and social change. Therefore, with regard to international migration Turkey, once regarded as a sending country, has become a transit as well as a destination country. There are various categories of irregular migrants which may overlap. A smuggled, even a trafficked, migrant may seek asylum in Turkey. An asylum seeker may become an irregular employee. An irregular employee may apply for asylum. Similarly, someone who was heading for Europe through Turkey may get stuck in Turkey and be forced to start employment without a valid work permit. A rise in ‘irregular’ migration is an issue of concern in Turkey. Irregular migration has been perceived as having social, economic and security consequences. Restrictive legislation and reinforced control mechanisms have been introduced by Turkey over the years. International law and EU instruments are part of this legislation. 2003 was a milestone in coping with irregular migration since most of the legislation was adopted in that year and immediately afterwards. It should also be noted that despite Turkey’s restrictionist stance an intensification of global and regional disparities has brought about more irregular migration and, given the magnitude of the problem, the solutions are beyond the control of a single country, requiring international cooperation and coordination.

At the crossroads of Asia, Africa and Europe, Turkey faces irregular migration flows, both as a country of destination and of transit: the irregular migration flows to the country consist mainly of transit migrants, clandestine immigrant workers, asylum seekers and refugees. In the last decade, the major migration flows into Turkey have come from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh, while significant numbers have also arrived from Moldova, Romania, Ukraine, the Russian Federation and Georgia. Migrants from the former countries are mainly transients heading for Europe or other more developed parts of the world. They stay in Turkey only on a temporary basis. Migrants from the latter group of countries are foreign nationals who intend to work illegally in Turkey, for a limited period of time. Turkey’s position over the 1951 Geneva Convention, excluding non-European asylum seekers, further complicates the situation as non-Europeans account for the majority of asylum seekers in Turkey. Another feature of migration to Turkey is the national diversity of the immigrants: authorities in Turkey have identified 163 nationalities that have arrived in the country in the last decade. Clearly, Turkey has become a country with multiple roles in irregular migratory movements. Utilising a relatively revealing data set on the apprehending of irregular migrants provided by the security forces together with the findings of several surveys conducted in the country, this paper, first, documents the irregular migration experience in Turkey over the last 30 years. It also relates the phenomenon of irregular migration in Turkey to the wider context of European international migratory regimes. Then the paper outlines the developments associated with irregular migration in the country. The role of Turkey’s EU affairs within these changes is complex and contradictory, and not yet fully explored. After describing irregular migration, the paper explores, finally, the way in which the political construction of irregular migration is associated with the securitisation and economisation of international migratory regimes in Europe and around its peripheries.

Over the last decade while a shift from migrantion control to migration management has become an integral part of the EU-based political discources and policy practices relating to irregular migration, the issues of transit migration and readmission agreements seem to be high on the agenda. Within this context, the debate over irregular transit migration from Turkey to the EU is a perfect case study for analyzing how the phenomenon of irregular migration is affecting the European migration and border regimes. It is also an interesting case for analyzing the interplay between the migration-related issues and the EU-Turkey membership negotiations in which the whole notion of “migration management” turns into a type of conditionality measure for the progress and completion of the membership talks. This essay aims at elaborating the recent status of irregular migratory flows from Turkey to Europe referring to their changing volumes, trends and patterns. It also aims at relating the irregular migration through Turkey to the recently negotiated Readmission Agreement between the EU and Turkey which targets the return of apprehended irregular transit migrants in the EU member states to Turkey. In doing so, this essay intends to elaborate the ways in which the irregular transit migration in Turkey has impact on the European migration and border regimes.

With over 4.5 million persons born in Turkey living abroad – for the most part in Europe – Turkey is currently one of the most significant emigration countries in the world. If native-born children of immigrants are included, over 6 million, or more than 8 percent of the country’s population lives abroad. These large numbers are a product of various migratory flows from Turkey which began in the early 1960s with the arrival of Turkish migrants in various Western European countries, and continued with the arrival of Turks in Australia, and the oil-rich countries of North Africa and the Middle East (MENA), and then in the former communist countries such as the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The emigration history of the last fifty years in Turkey indicates that the migratory flows of Turkish citizens have become a part of various migratory systems. The main aim of this essay is two-fold. First, it attempts to document the dynamics and mechanism of project-tied migration from Turkey to the Russian Federation, particularly focusing on the case of project-tied migrant workers from Turkey to Moscow. Second, it looks at the migratory system between Turkey and the former communist countries of Eastern Europe, Central and Northern Asian countries, with special reference to macro, micro, and meso factors affecting the migration system concerned.

This report provides an overview of Syrian migration to Turkey since the start of the revolt in Syria in March 2011. The number of displaced Syrians crossing the border into Turkey has dramatically risen with the escalating use of violence employed by the Syrian regime ito suppress the revolt. According to the United Nations Refugee Agency, 182,621 Syrian refugees were living in Turkey mid-February 2013 (http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php). With the influx of huge numbers of Syrians into Turkey, anti-immigrant, anti-Arab discourses have surfaced among the Turkish public. Furthermore, due to the Turkish governments’ openly hostile position to the Syrian regime, Syrian migration became closely linked with Turkish domestic politics and foreign policy. Those individuals and political bodies critical of the Turkish government assumed an anti-immigrant position accusing displaced Syrians of being armed, sectarian rebels. Therefore, analyzing the Syrian migrant community in Turkey means contextualizing it within the political framework of the host-society.

(En)Turkey has been a country of asylum since Ottoman times. Due to recent economic and political turmoil in its near abroad and beyond, the country now receives thousands of asylum applications each year. And, as witnessed in the last years, there is the potential for a massive influx of refugees to Turkey. Turkey has long lacked a functioning asylum system and corresponding legislation. Although the 1951 Refugee Convention and its Protocol were ratified, with a limitation related to their geographical application, the country adopted a Regulation only in 1994 after facing a massive refugee influx from Iraq. Further there is still no asylum law in force. As an EU member candidate, Turkey is expected to adapt its asylum system to those of the EU, undertaking, at the same time, to take up the acquis in this field. This paper examines what has been done by Turkey and what else is needed.

In 2015, there were higher than normal migration flows from Turkey to Greece and then via the Western Balkans to other European Union (EU) countries, leading to what has been termed Europe’s ‘refugee crisis’. The primary research question guiding this study is: How can the fluctuations in migration flows on the Balkans route from January 2015-December 2018 be explained? The core sub-questions guiding this research are:What explanations are there for the sharp decrease in the number of refugees and migrants on the Balkans route even before the EU-Turkey Statement came into effect?What are the decision making factors of refugees and migrants when choosing to leave Turkey before and after the EU-Turkey Statement?To what extent do policy interventions impact refugees and migrants’ decision-making regarding routes and destination choices?

The EU and Turkey face mounting challenges both in relation to one another and internationally. The EU has recently been confronted with a series of crises, e.g. in the economic and migration dimensions. These developments as well as the Brexit-question are likely to make differentiation a growing phenomenon. On the other hand, Turkey faces polarisation between different political forces, the state and civil society. The neighbourhood is unravelling to the east and south and a power shift is under way at global level. This questions the regional roles of Turkey and the EU. Against this backdrop, FEUTURE’s research aims to: map the dynamics of EU-Turkey relations as to underlying narratives and thematic drivers; substantiate most likely future scenario(s) and assess its implications; draw policy recommendations. FEUTURE provides excellence and pursues an ambitious, inspiring and innovative programme in a three-phased structure of elaboration, exploration and extrapolation. It applies an inter-temporal, interdisciplinary and international approach by analysing drivers within six thematic dimensions (politics, security, economics, energy, migration, identity) and across four levels of analysis (EU, Turkey, neighbourhood, global). http://www.feuture.eu/

The EU and Turkey face mounting challenges both in relation to one another and internationally. The EU is confronted with an economic crisis which is likely to make differentiation a growing phenomenon. Turkey faces polarisation between different political forces, the state and civil society. The neighbourhood is unravelling to the east and south and a power shift is under way at global level. This questions the regional roles of Turkey and the EU. Accordingly, FEUTURE – a consortium of 13 experienced universities and think tanks from the EU, Turkey and the neighbourhood – aims to: (1) map the dynamics of EU-Turkey relations as to underlying narratives and thematic drivers; (2) substantiate most likely future scenario(s) and assess its implications; (3) draw policy recommendations. FEUTURE provides excellence and pursues an ambitious, inspiring and innovative programme in a three-phased structure of elaboration, exploration and extrapolation. It applies an inter-temporal, interdisciplinary and international approach by analysing drivers within six thematic dimensions (politics, security, economics, energy, migration, identity) and across four levels of analysis (EU, Turkey, neighbourhood, global). Phases 1 and 2 culminate in an extrapolation phase in which FEUTURE integrates new knowledge and tests the implications of 3 ideal-type future scenarios for EU-Turkey relations: conflict, cooperation and convergence. We engage in a trans-disciplinary exchange within an elite survey and with the knowledge-user community from the four levels of analysis exploiting the full range of virtual and social media as well as traditional means. FEUTURE’s work plan guarantees coherence of its research approach by streamlining work in one conceptual, one synthesis, two organisational and six thematic work packages. Joint WP meetings and three FEUTURE conferences assure intensive horizontal exchange. FEUTURE will achieve academic, practical and structural impact beyond the project.

In 2015, there were higher than normal migration flows from Turkey to Greece and then via the Western Balkans to other European Union (EU) countries, leading to what has been termed Europe’s ‘refugee crisis’. The primary research question guiding this study is: How can the fluctuations in migration flows on the Balkans route from January 2015-December 2018 be explained? The core sub-questions guiding this research are: What explanations are there for the sharp decrease in the number of refugees and migrants on the Balkans route even before the EU-Turkey Statement came into effect? What are the decision making factors of refugees and migrants when choosing to leave Turkey before and after the EU-Turkey Statement? To what extent do policy interventions impact refugees and migrants’ decision-making regarding routes and destination choices?

Since 2014, Turkey has not only hosted the world’s largest refugee population but has also modeled a best practice for the global refugee policy discussion. Turkey’s opening of its health, education, employment, and social services systems to Syrians under Temporary Protection (SuTP) sits at the basis of this successful response. At the start of 2019/2020 school year, 684,253 Syrian children under temporary protection were enrolled in the Turkish schools, while a network of 179 Migrant Health Centers is currently operating in thirty provinces across Turkey. Turkey has been the main funding source of this impressive response, incurring a total cost of more than $40 billion according to official data. In line with the principle of burden-sharing, which is highlighted in the Global Compact on Refugees, the international community has also made resources available to support Turkey in this unprecedented effort; over $4 billion has been mobilized through the Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan for Turkey (3RP) since 2015. Within this framework, Turkey’s experience on the key issues such as jobs and employment should be examined as lessons for both refugee hosting countries and donor countries alike. The country has provided Syrians under Temporary Protection the right to access work permits and formal employment. As a result, a total of 132,497 work permits have been issued to Syrian nationals between 2016 and 2019. This is why the United Nations Development Programme in Turkey (UNDP Turkey), as a long standing development partners in Turkey and the coleader of the Refugee and Resilience Response Plan (3RP), and the Atlantic Council IN TURKEY, the Turkey program of the Atlantic Council, a leading Washington-based think tank, have partnered for this research. The Atlantic Council launched its Turkey program in 2018, which grew out of its engagement with Turkey over ten years and is increasingly involved in migration and refugee issues, to contribute to the ongoing policy debate. Building on the experience and expertise of both organizations, our joint policy report, which is to be released after the June 30 Brussels Conference, aims at outlining pragmatic and innovative options at policy and programmatic levels to facilitate refugees’ access to decent employment. Self-reliance and access to formal employment Facilitating self-reliance for such a large number of refugees’ households remains a daunting task, even in the medium to long-term. This is especially the case in a context where increasing levels of unemployment in Turkey compounded by the socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have posed a serious challenge to job creation and increased competition for available opportunities. Despite a concerted effort and strong leadership , there have been challenges for refugees to achieve self-reliance, best highlighted by a recent assessment that 1.6 million refugees live below the poverty line. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the vulnerability associated with informal work and casual labor, with many refugees and host communities facing a sudden and unexpected loss of income. The internationally supported cash response to directly assist the most vulnerable (the Emergency Social Safety Net—ESSN—and the Conditional Cash Transfer for Education—CCTE) has been crucial in allowing refugees to meet their basic needs over the past couple of years. However, given the overall cost of such programs in the long-term, access to income and formal employment remains a key challenge. The Exit Strategy from the ESSN program released by the government in December 2018 marks a step towards a conducive policy framework to facilitate refugees’ access to formal employment. Policy options The main findings of the joint report highlight that: 1. The main challenge remains in matching refugees to the labor market by raising enhancing their skills. While international partners have contributed to this end over the past years, it hasn’t been enough for refugees to become employable options for many large Turkish companies—many of the most skilled Syrians fled to Europe. 2. Businesses’ support programs need to go beyond job placement of refugees in small businesses in exchange for business development support and grants. More integrated structural investments at the local level are needed, particularly, in industrial, manufacturing, and agricultural value chains. 3. While the presence of refugees can be seen as an asset to catalyze local development, host communities need to be supported equitably as well. 4. The current priority towards the formalization of existing jobs is paramount to ensuring decent work conditions for refugees, appropriate access to income, and fair competition between job seekers. The recent inspections to raise awareness of employers on employment regulations for Syrian workers have yielded important results in Istanbul, significantly increasing work permit applications by employers. This could be applied elsewhere. Private sector engagement and digital solutions Based on other international experiences, we also identified deepening engagement with the private sector and exploring digital livelihoods opportunities as emerging solutions to this issue. These two solutions are particularly tailored to the challenges of the situation in Turkey, as they can create opportunities for both Turkish companies and individual Syrians, alleviating pressure on the labor market. Digital solutions (such as digital entrepreneurship, e-commerce, or language and translation businesses) are particularly promising as they create new, sustainable job creation dynamics that have the potential to expand both within Turkey to benefit most vulnerable refugees and internationally by accessing new markets. Given the scale of the task at hand, every possible contribution should be maximized to further unleash the resilience and potential demonstrated by Syrian refugees and their host communities. The COVID-19 pandemic is proving to be an important test on the government’s and their international partners’ relevance and flexibility and their ability to quickly step up efforts in that direction. Pursuing these solutions and policy options would help further promote the refugee response in Turkey as a best practice in implementing the key principles of the Global Compact for Refugees.

The EU and Turkey face mounting challenges both in relation to one another and internationally. The EU is confronted with an economic crisis which is likely to make differentiation a growing phenomenon. Turkey faces polarisation between different political forces, the state and civil society. The neighbourhood is unravelling to the east and south and a power shift is under way at global level. This questions the regional roles of Turkey and the EU. Accordingly, FEUTURE – a consortium of 13 experienced universities and think tanks from the EU, Turkey and the neighbourhood – aims to: (1) map the dynamics of EU-Turkey relations as to underlying narratives and thematic drivers; (2) substantiate most likely future scenario(s) and assess its implications; (3) draw policy recommendations. FEUTURE provides excellence and pursues an ambitious, inspiring and innovative programme in a three-phased structure of elaboration, exploration and extrapolation. It applies an inter-temporal, interdisciplinary and international approach by analysing drivers within six thematic dimensions (politics, security, economics, energy, migration, identity) and across four levels of analysis (EU, Turkey, neighbourhood, global). Phases 1 and 2 culminate in an extrapolation phase in which FEUTURE integrates new knowledge and tests the implications of 3 ideal-type future scenarios for EU-Turkey relations: conflict, cooperation and convergence. We engage in a trans-disciplinary exchange within an elite survey and with the knowledge-user community from the four levels of analysis exploiting the full range of virtual and social media as well as traditional means. FEUTURE’s work plan guarantees coherence of its research approach by streamlining work in one conceptual, one synthesis, two organisational and six thematic work packages. Joint WP meetings and three FEUTURE conferences assure intensive horizontal exchange. FEUTURE will achieve academic, practical and structural impact beyond the project.

This report provides a concise overview of the existing conditions for Syrian refugees in Turkey in six areas: healthcare, education, labour, gender relations, civil society and social cohesion.

Since the late 1970s, international wars and intra-state violence have battered the country of Afghanistan, generating several waves of mass displacement. According to the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR, 2011), a tragic consequence of this violent legacy is that currently one out of every four refugees in the world is from Afghanistan – making it the leading country of origin for refugees. Although 2.7 million Afghans are now scattered across 79 countries, the majority of them sought refuge in neighboring or nearby countries such as Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Turkey. Finding “durable solutions” to resolve the plight of displaced people has become a priority for the UNHCR and the international community. While voluntary repatriation remains the most preferred solution, continued instability, the threat of persecution, and the inability to access basic services prevent many refugees from returning to their country of origin (UNHCR, 2011). This is particularly the case for Afghan refugees. Since almost half of all Afghan asylum claims have been lodged in Turkey or Germany (UNHCR, 2011), reliance upon the cooperation and protection of these two governments has become critical.Due to its unique geographical location, Turkey has been a key transit country for migrants. UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Francois Crepeau, noted in his 2012 Human Rights Council report that Turkey has become a hub, particularly for migrants from Asia, the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa and Northern Africa. Many refugees cross over Turkey on their way to Europe. It is estimated that approximately 55,000 migrants crossed from Turkey into Greece via the Evros River in 2011 (UNHCR in Turkey: Facts and Figures, 2010). Unfortunately, cooperation between the EU and Turkey to address the issue of these undocumented crossings has primarily focused on securing the border rather than addressing the needs of those migrating. In the last two decades, economic growth and political stability have strengthened Turkey’s appeal as a destination for migrants and asylum-seekers instead of a mere transit country. Continuing upheaval in neighboring countries such as Iraq and Syria has also added to the large influx of asylum seekers and refugees. By the end of 2011, UNHCR had processed 35,000 individuals as a “population of concern” in Turkey and this figure does not include the approximate 200,000 Syrian “guests” now living in camps along its southern border (UNHCR, 2011; Davutoğlu, 2012). Turkey’s geo-political position in the region is significant, and its support of the UNHCR’s goal to seek durable solutions for the thousands who migrate through the area is necessary. However, due to its current migration and border management policies and practices, those who find their way inside Turkey are often caught in a tenuous mixture of uncertainty and bureaucratic entanglements. This article seeks to examine, in particular, the plight of Afghan refugee women who have been caught between Turkey’s internal migration policies and international community’s reluctance to host their resettlement. A team consisting of a scholar-practitioner, two graduate students, and one translator researched how complex humanitarian experiences and exposure to war affected the emotional well-being of Afghan women in their home countries, during their migration to Turkey, upon their arrival in the Turkish city of Van and later during their second displacement to Mersin. In order to conduct this research, focus groups and individual interviews were conducted in the city of Mersin in 2012. A total of 20 Afghan refugee women participated in this project. The women who participated in the project were selected because (a) they had fled from Afghanistan due to the violence and war between 2006 and 2011, (b) they had chosen to come to Turkey and currently awaited resettlement to a third country, and (c) they had survived two earthquakes in Van and were re-settled again in Mersin1. Research analysis indicated that as one of the receiving countries, Turkey has not been particularly flexible throughout this vulnerable group’s migration process. Turkey’s internal border management and migration policies, along with the international community’s reluctance to permanently resettle Afghans have negatively and repeatedly impacted the lives of these refugees.

The aim of the paper is twofold. First, to outline the relationship of the EU and Turkey in the field of irregular migration and present the main drivers that underpin the relations from 1999 to 2017. While acknowledging that emphasis on irregular migration is given particularly post-2011, the paper argues that the dynamics characterising the relationship between Turkey and the EU do not change significantly in the pre-and post-2011 period. Secondly, the paper presents the most likely of the three scenarios – conflict, cooperation, and convergence – in the area of irregular migration drawing from the drivers of the past and present in the EU, Turkey, but also the Southern neighbourhood and beyond. The paper argues that though conflict is unlikely, equally so is convergence, with a model of transactional operational cooperation more likely and reflective of EU-Turkey relation on irregular migration management.

The historical complexity and volatility of EU-Turkey relations are reflected by research and teaching in this field. There are international research projects as well as many smaller and nationally funded studies and projects dealing with Turkey, including its relationship with the EU. Linking these different projects, diffusing knowledge on the European Integration process and exploiting synergies between international players constitutes real added-value for European Integration studies. To this end, VIADUCT builds a large network with partner institutions in every EU member state, Turkey and the neighbourhood extending its outreach in research and teaching beyond the EU. http://www.viaduct.uni-koeln.de/

Generally known as a migrant-sending country, in the last two decades Turkey has evolved into a migrant-receiving and transit country. Since the 1980s, in particular, Turkey has found itself on various migratory routes, receiving a steady influx of migrants and refugees from the Middle East, Asia, Eastern Europe and parts of Africa. As with much of the rest of the developed world, the immediate response of the Turkish authorities to these mixed flows has been characterized by a ‘securitizing’ and ‘criminalizing’ discourse. The main goals of this paper are twofold. First, I examine the historical development of Turkish asylum policy in order to illustrate the manner in which discourses on security play out in policy making. Second, based on accounts collected from refugees living in Istanbul and ‘satellite cities’ across Turkey, I explore the impact of these discourses and resulting policies on the everyday lives of refugees in Turkey, with particular attention to the ways in which the line drawn by the authorities between ‘illegal’ migrants and ‘genuine’ refugees are increasingly blurred.

Abstract: Turkey witnessed a massive influx of Iraqis in both 1988 and 1991, when respectively around 50,000 and 460,000 Iraqis sought refuge there. In 2003, Turkey took measures to guard against another mass influx: and though around two million Iraqis fled out of the country, only 10,000 arrived in Turkey. However, a larger number may flee to Turkey, particularly if security deteriorates in the northern parts of Iraq. Turkey is the only one of Iraq’s direct neighbours to be party to the UN Refugees Convention. Yet, Turkey nevertheless introduced a geographical limitation: Iraqis, like other non-Europeans, are not granted refugee status. However, the customary law principle of non-refoulement is applied to anyone, including Iraqis, considered either as “asylum seeker” or recognized as de facto refugee. With regard to the protection provided and the rights recognized, there is not much difference between their situation and a 1951 UN Convention refugee, except that they are not meant to stay and integrate into Turkey but to be resettled in a third country. Both procedural and substantive international refugee law standards are applied in Turkey. The UNHCR also plays a part and decides the cases of persons who have applied for “refugee status” in Turkey, helping the resettlement of Iraqis in third countries. Turkey has adopted a system for dealing with individual asylum claims and the system seems to have satisfied international legal standards. However, the system is not designed to answer collective asylum claims and might collapse in the event of a massive influx. Résumé La Turquie a déjà connu deux arrivées massives d’Irakiens en quête d’asile, en 1988 (50.000) et 1991 (460.000). En 2003, elle a pris des mesures pour prévenir une nouvelle arrivée de cette ampleur, il est en effet assez remarquable que seuls 10.000 des 2 millions d’Irakiens qui ont fuit leur pays sont arrivés en Turquie. Néanmoins, de nouvelles arrivées sont considérées comme possibles, en particulier, si les conditions de sécurité dans le Nord de l’Irak venaient à se détériorer. La Turquie est le seul pays directement voisin de l’Iraq a avoir ratifié la Convention de 1951 relative au statut des réfugiés. Elle a cependant formulé une réserve géographique de telle sorte que les Irakiens, comme tout autre « non européen » ne se voient pas reconnaître le statut de réfugié en vertu de la Convention. Néanmoins, le principe de non refoulement, dont le caractère coutumier est reconnu en droit international s’applique à chacun, en ce compris aux réfugiés en provenance d’Irak, qu’ils soient considérés comme demandeurs d’asile ou réfugiés de facto. Au regard de la qualité de leur protection et de leurs droits, peu de différences notables doivent être signalées par comparaison au statut reconnu aux « réfugiés » en vertu de la Convention de 1951. Avec une réserve notable, ils n’ont pas vocation à rester et à s’intégrer mais à être réinstallés. Les standards procéduraux et substantiels du droit international des réfugiés sont applicables en Turquie. Le UNHCR y joue un rôle majeur, il prend la décision de reconnaissance de la qualité de « réfugié » et intervient dans les procédures de réinstallations dans des pays tiers. La Turquie a mis en place un système pour traiter des demandes individuelles d’asile et ce système semble généralement rencontrer les standards internationaux. Il n’est néanmoins pas adapté dans les hypothèses d’afflux massifs.

he world is experiencing the highest levels of human displacement ever, with over seventy million people affected around the world. The conflicts in Syria and the wider Middle East have caused millions of people to flee their homes and livelihoods. In 2016 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, recognising the need for increased global cooperation to address the situation of refugees through a humanitarian, people-focused approach. Confronting the challenge of large numbers of refugees seeking new lives in Europe as a consequence of displacement from war and conflict in Syria and Iraq, the EU and Turkey reached a series of agreements that led to Turkey undertaking to restrict the flow of people – an arrangement that continues to affect some 3.5 million humans in need. This paper argues that the agreements struck between the EU and Turkey for controlling the refugee situation have not maintained a humanitarian approach. Instead, they have been, and continue to be, marked by a divisive and politicised discourse that reflects underlying tensions between the two parties rather than addressing the urgent requirements of a vulnerable population. This paper addresses the problems created by the EU-Turkey approach to handling refugees and explores options for pursuing a more humanitarian approach.