Turkey’s Migration Transition And Its Implications For The .

3y ago
15 Views
3 Downloads
307.59 KB
13 Pages
Last View : 16d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Samir Mcswain
Transcription

Turkey’s Migration Transitionand its Implications for theEuro-Turkish Transnational Spaceby Ahmet İçduyguKoç University, İstanbulApril 2014WORKING PAPER 07

Turkey’s Migration Transition and its Implicationsfor the Euro-Turkish Transnational SpaceAhmet İçduygu*Turkey Migration European Union EU EnlargementAbstractOne area of the Euro-Turkish migration regime that has beenoverlooked is the migration transition of Turkey, as it rapidly developsfrom a net emigration setting to a net immigration setting. Focusingon the last hundred-year history of emigration and immigration flowsin Turkey, this essay analyses various stages of migration transition inthe country. Turkey has changed its migration profile from the massiveemigration of the 1960s and 1970s to extensive immigration duringthe 1990s and 2000s. The transformation of Turkey’s migration policieshas been greatly affected by the country’s exposure to globalizationand its integration into the European migratory system. At the sametime, Turkey’s migration transition has also had repercussions on thistransnational space. As Turkey undergoes migration transition, theasymmetric relationship between the EU and Turkey tends to evolvetowards relatively symmetrical relations as reflected in the readmissionagreement and the launching of the “visa liberalization dialogue”.IntroductionTurkey’s policies on international migration and migrants, concerningboth inflows and outflows, have undergone a great transformationsince the early 1990s.1 This process includes a variety of changesin the administrative and legislative arrangements in the country:from dual citizenship policies to diaspora politics, from asylumregimes to visa regulations, from work permits for foreigners to newborder management. This process has been greatly affected by thecountry’s relations with the European Union (EU) and its exposure toglobalization. Indeed, Turkey’s new policies on international migrationare being made in the context of both processes.2 Globalization andEU-ization have been a central part of the discourse shaping thedebate over these policies since at least the early 1990s. Previously,widespread nationalism and later developmentalism madeconservative and conventional national migration policies politicallyviable. However, since the 1990s and 2000s, the idea that a degreeof openness and liberalism could contribute to migration policieshas dominated the related domestic policy debates. As a result, theTurkish state has been faced with increased challenges in the so-calledmanagement of migratory regimes affecting the country.* Ahmet İçduygu is Professor Dr., Department of InternationalRelations, Koc University, and Director of Migration Research Center(MiReKoc) at Koc University, Istanbul.1 Liza Mügge, “Managing Transnationalism: Continuity and Change in TurkishState Policy”, in International Migration, Vol. 50, No. 1 (February 2012), p. 20-38;Ahmet İçduygu and Damla B. Aksel, “Turkish Migration Policies: A Critical HistoricalRetrospective”, in Perceptions, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Autumn 2013), p. 167-190, http://sam.gov.tr/?p 4233; Seçil Paçacı Elitok, “Turkey’s Prospective EU Membership from aMigration Perspective: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back?”, in Perceptions, Vol. 18, No.3 (Autumn 2013), p. 1-11, http://sam.gov.tr/?p 4257.2 As noted by Flockhart in 2010, “‘EU-ization’ is different from ‘Europeanization’because of its focus on the EU and because it is predominantly concerned with‘political encounters’, where specific political entities such as the EU and MemberState representatives engage in the transfer of institutional and organizationalpractices and policies”. Trine Flockhart, “Europeanization or EU-ization? The Transferof European Norms across Time and Space”, in Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol.48, No. 4 (September 2010), p. 790-791. In the context of the EU-ization of migrationpolicies in Turkey, see Ahmet İçduygu, “EU-ization Matters: Changes in Immigrationand Asylum Practices in Turkey”, in Thomas Faist and Andreas Ette (eds.), TheEuropeanization of National Policies and Politics of Immigration, Basingstoke, PalgraveMacMillan, 2007, p. 201-222; Ahmet İçduygu and E. Fuat Keyman, “Globalization,Security and Migration: The Case of Turkey”, in Global Governance, Vol. 6, No. 3 (JulySeptember 2000), p. 383-398.April 2014WORKING PAPER 072

Globalization and EU-ization of Turkey’s international migrationpolicies do not mean that these policies are now being completelyaligned with modern international standards. Indeed, a number ofscholars, policy makers and activists still criticize the country’s policiesfor their failures in dealing with the migratory flows and in providingservices for the well-being of migrants.3 The claim being madehere is not that the migration policies of Turkey are fully changedand modernized. In fact, these policies are mostly old-fashioned,incomplete, and insufficient. Nevertheless, in recent years, relativelymore liberal discourse has been a fundamental factor in determiningthe policy alternatives available to the Turkish state in its efforts toreformulate its migration policies. The factual transition in migrationis accompanied by discursive and policy developments that takeplace on a terrain fraught with tension between nationalist and statistlegacies which are rooted in the politics of the past, and the currentworldviews which are based on neo-liberalism in an age of globalism.As such, the Turkish state is steadily adapting itself to the new role thatcountries plays in emigration and immigration in a globalized worldthat increasingly implies an environment of rights. Migrant-centredperspectives now tend to capture some portions of the state-centredrealms of dominant migration policies.Turkish immigration policy:The main purpose of this paper is to advance the understandingof past and present changes in the migratory status of Turkey, aswell as to identify the wider economic, demographic and politicaltransformations explaining these trends. A central question is theextent to which the most recent migration- and migrant-relatedpolicies are related to and different from past ones and why this isthe case. Answering these questions can help us not only to betterunderstand the impact of the past on the present, but also that of thepresent on the future. In this context, specific reference is made to themigratory system between Europe and Turkey and to its implicationsfor the future of the Euro-Turkish transnational space.During this period, while people of Turkish origin and Islamic faithwere encouraged to migrate to Turkey, non-Muslims in Turkey werediscouraged from remaining in the country. According to estimates,nearly one million people of Turkish origin and Islamic faith arrived inthe country in the period of 1923-39: around 200,000 from Bulgaria,400,000 from Greece, nearly 150,000 Romania and another 150,000from other parts of the Balkans.6 On the other hand, about 16 millionpeople were living in Turkey at the start of the First World War,including 13 million Muslims and 3 million non-Muslims. Among the3 million non-Muslims were 1.5 million Rums, 1.2 million Armenians,128,000 Jews and 176,000 non-Rum and non-Armenian Christians.7The mobility patterns based on the forced migration of Armeniansand Rums resulted in the reduction of the non-Muslim population inTurkey from 19 percent in 1914 to 3 percent in 1927, and then later ondecreased to nearly 1 percent in the 1950s – constituting only 200,000people.8 In short, in the first half of the 20th century, there weremass emigration and immigration movements shaping the Turkishpopulation (see Figure 1 in the Annex).Turkey’s Transformation into a Country of ImmigrationTurkey has changed its migration profile decisively over the course ofthe last century, during which it has gone through various stages inmigration transition, which are visualized in Table 1. Turkey’s historyof migration transition incorporates periods where the managementof different migration patterns overlapped. Modern Turkey’s earliestrecorded migration was prompted by the uneasy process of nationbuilding and the nationalist policies of un-mixing, which created a twoway immigration and emigration circulation cycle. During the 1960,policies that encouraged mass emigration, especially to Europeancountries, intersected with state-led developmentalist policies, rapidurbanization, and internal migration. Another instance of overlappingoccurred with the advent of liberalization and globalization afterthe 1980s, in which the state became increasingly responsive to thedemands of emigrants abroad and the rising flow of migrants of nonMuslim origin. The impact of Europeanization in the 2000s creatednew alliances, as well as tensions in the management of migration andled to the establishment of new administrative and legal structures,boosting state authority.4The prominent ideology that shaped Turkish migration policies,regarding both immigration and emigration for most of the country’searly history was nationalism, which viewed mobility and populationmanagement as one of the main tools of nation-state building. Duringthe debate on the establishment of a new ministry on PopulationExchange, Development and Settlement, in his address to the TurkishParliament on 13 October 1923, Mr. Tunalı Hilmi, a powerful memberof the parliament, conveyed a simple vision of the basic goals of3 Seçil Paçacı Elitok, “Turkey’s Prospective EU Membership from a MigrationPerspective ”, cit., p. 1; Alexander Bürgin, “European Commission’s agency meetsAnkara’s agenda: why Turkey is ready for a readmission agreement”, in Journal ofEuropean Public Policy, Vol. 19, No. 6 (August 2012), p. 883-899.4 Ahmet İçduygu and Damla B. Aksel, “Turkish Migration Policies: A Critical HistoricalRetrospective”, cit., p. 167.April 2014I don’t need ostentatiousness but people. Let more than ahundred Turkish families come from Adakale (Ada Kaleh)in Tuna: let them build Anatolian villages on the shores ofSakarya –Tuna of Anatolia – or in any other islet! We shouldremember: we have a countless number of [my] Turks not onlyright besides us, in Aleppo and Damascus, but also as far awayas Basra, Mecca, Yemen, and not only in Egypt, but in Sudanand Morocco [ ] They should all come [ ] They shouldbe brought if they don’t come [ ] The law about “there isno such thing as empty space in nature, it gets filled and itdisappears” led me to deep thoughts in school during scienceclasses. Thinking of it in terms of “Sociology,” which I had notheard of at that time, the question of “If I don’t fill the emptycountry with Turks, who else would fill it?” would make mysoul shiver. It still does [ ] Yes, if God bestows us with such asublime victory; but if we don’t respond swiftly in “developing[the country] with population”, I would not be providing thereal salvation to the nation: We can be sure that if we do notprovide such a real victory, then the victory will fall through.5Nationalist ideology influenced the earliest republican legislationaddressing the treatment of immigration and emigration. The stateled emigration was maintained by agreements of reciprocity withother countries (in 1913 and 1925 with Bulgaria, in 1923 with Greece),forced displacements (as in the case of the 1915 Armenian emigration)and migrations triggered by deterrence policies (including The WealthTax of 1942). Among the social engineering initiatives for Turkifying thepopulation living in the Turkish Republic were also the administrativeand legal arrangements facilitating the immigration and settlement ofTurkish populations, which were put in force primarily in the 1930s.9The 1934 Law on Settlement, which was designed primarily as a legaltool of immigration and settlement in the country,10 established two5 Obtained (and translated) from the Parliamentary Archives of the Turkish GrandNational Assembly, by Damla B. Aksel, assistant of the author and PhD Scholar in theDepartment of International Relations at Koç University, İstanbul.6 Ahmet İçduygu, Şule Toktaş and B. Ali Soner, “The Politics of Population in a NationBuilding Process: Emigration of Non-Muslims from Turkey”, in Ethnic and Racial Studies,Vol. 31, No. 2 (February 2008), p. 358-389.7 Youssef Courbage and Phillipe Fargues, Christians and Jews under Islam, London andNew York, I.B. Tauris, 1998, p. 128.8 Ahmet İçduygu, Şule Toktaş and Ali Soner, “The Politics of Population in a NationBuilding Process.”, cit., p. 363-365.9 Ayhan Aktar, Varlık Vergisi ve Türkleştirme Politikaları, Istanbul, İletişim, 2000; AhmetYıldız, Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyebilene, İstanbul, İletişim, 2007.10 Ahmet İçduygu, “Den Nationalstaat errichten und bewahren, auch in derglobalisierten Welt: Der politische Hintergrund internationaler Migration in die Türkei”,in Barbara Pusch and Tomas Wilkoszewski (eds.), Facetten internationaler Migrationin die Türkei: Gesellschaftliche Rahmenbedingungen und persönliche Lebenswelten,Würzburg, Ergon, 2008, p. 3-23; Kemal Kirişçi, “Turkey: A Transformation fromEmigration to Immigration”, in MPI’s Online Journal, 1 November 2003, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/node/4802; Soner Çağaptay, “Kemalist Dönemde Göç ve İskanPolitikaları: Türk Kimliği üzerine bir Çalışma”, in Toplum ve Bilim, No. 93 (Summer 2002),WORKING PAPER 073

divergent statuses by: (a) facilitating the migration and integration ofthose of “Turkish origin and culture” either as migrants or as refugees,and (b) preventing and impeding the entry as migrants or refugees ofthose who did not meet this criterion. While these two statuses were inline with what had been the state’s migration policy since the late 19thcentury, they also paved the way for succeeding patterns of migrationto and from Turkey. As a result of these patterns of migration, both thequantity and quality of the population of Turkey changed. This in turnmeant that the population of Turkey was enlarged, and membershipin the national bourgeoisie changed hands from the non-Muslimsto the newly enriched Muslim merchants. This new bourgeoisie wasalso supported by the state elites who were attempting to grow andmodernize the national economy through paternalistic policies.11Nationalism provided the foundation for the migration policies ofTurkey in the first half of the 20th century.12 Exclusion of the nonTurkish and non-Muslim populations and inclusion of Turks andMuslims was the first comprehensive system of migration policy in thecountry. During the Second World War and the following period, bothdomestic and foreign policy concerns contributed to strengtheningthese two-way operations of emigration and immigration. In thedecades after the war, however, these factors would converge withthe growing liberal economic values, and ultimately would result insignificant changes in the Turkish migration policies.The post-Second World War period had implications on the economic,social and political transformations all around the world, bringingeconomic dynamism, increases in industrial production, as well associal and geographical mobility. Meanwhile rapid integration ofTurkey, both economically and politically, into the world capitalistsystem was a noticeable part of these transformations. Consequently,all these changes also had implications for Turkey, where traditionalmigration values of nationalism were affected by a mentality ofdevelopmentalism and market freedoms. As a result, the primaryfocus of the international migration policies in Turkey in this periodsomehow shifted from a nationalism-centred paradigm to a moredevelopmentalism-originated liberal paradigm (see Table 1 in theAnnex).13Formulating a strategy of labour exporting as a tool of its economicdevelopment, Turkey entered into new relations with labourdemanding industrialized countries through labour recruitmentagreements beginning with the 1961 Agreement with Germany.Thousands of Turkish workers left their home to find their employmentsin various European countries (see Figure 1 in the Annex). ModernTurkey witnessed for the first time in its history mass emigration ofits Turkish and Muslim populations abroad. The main goals regardingthese labour agreements were different from the viewpoints of thelabour demanding versus the labour supplying country (i.e. Turkey),which reflects the classical core-peripheral model of migrationtheories. The interests of the European core countries were to respondto the post-war labour shortage via short term migration from lessdeveloped countries, while the interests of the peripheral countrieswere to send migrants abroad, in order to benefit from emigrants’economic (export of surplus labour power and remittances) and social(transfer of knowledge and know-how) capital that they would gainin Europe. For both sides, migration was supposed to be temporary.14In his talk to the parliament on 25 February 1962, the Minister ofLabour, Mr. Bülent Ecevit reflects on the state’s perspectives on labouremigration providing the foundation of migration policies with ap. 218-241; Ahmet Yıldız, Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyebilene, cit.11 Çağlar Keyder, Türkiye’de Devlet ve Sınıflar, İstanbul, İletişim, 1989, p. 136-137.12 Ahmet İçduygu, “Den Nationalstaat errichten und bewahren auch in derglobalisierten Welt.”, cit., p. 5-8; Ahmet İçduygu and Damla B. Aksel, “TurkishMigration Policies: A Critical Historical Retrospective”, cit., p. 169-180.13 Ahmet İçduygu, “50 Years After the Labour Recruitment Agreement with Germany:The Consequences of Emigration for Turkey”, in Perceptions, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Summer2012), p. 13, http://sam.gov.tr/?p 2727.14 Ahmet Akgündüz, Labour Migration from Turkey to Western Europe, 1960-1974. AMultidisciplinary Analysis, Aldershot and Burlington, Ashgate, 2008, p. 7-15.April 2014developmentalist approach.As you know workers from various countries work in Germany.Based on the information we received from Germany I shouldtell you proudly that the Germans, who are known to bemeticulous about work discipline, are more satisfied with theTurkish worker than all other foreign workers. This is a livingexample of how efficient the Turkish worker can be under theadministration of a manager who knows how to employ aworker, who knows the staff relations and the art of managing.[.] Sending workers to Germany is not disadvantageous forthe worker’s public and professional life, but rather helpful.This is because for a few years now, it has been known thatunemployment has become a source of trouble in ourcountry. Under such circumstances, the opening of this doorhas reduced the problem of unemployment, and increasedthe possibility for negotiation between employees andbusiness owners. [.] If I understood correctly, a spokesmanfriend demanded that it be obligatory for the Turkish workersin Germany to send money to Turkey. Our opinion is that thisis impractical and against human rights. In practice, manyworkers already send back money to their families that theyleave behind. However, I should note the bitter truth that thedifference between the official and free market exchangerate unfortunately decreases the amount of foreign exchangeearnings that our country and our treasury receive throughthe money sent to Turkey.15However, many migrants confounded expectations by settling downin Europe, and even bringing their families to join them. The economicdownturn in Western Europe in the 1970s ended the recruitment oflabour from Turkey; Turkish emigration to Europe, however, did notcome to an end.16 The evolution of Turkish migrant communities inEurope was remarkable.17 Starting with the outflow of a few Turkishmigrants in late 1961, there were more than half a million Turkishmigrants and their relatives living in Europe by the early 1970s, almosttwo million by the early 1980s, more than two and a half million bythe early 1990s, and over three million by the early 2000s.18 Whatseems primarily to have contributed to this increase was, firstly, familyreunification and marriage migration over time,

the 1990s and 2000s. The transformation of Turkey’s migration policies has been greatly affected by the country’s exposure to globalization and its integration into the European migratory system. At the same time, Turkey’s migration transition has also had repercussions on this transnational space. As Turkey undergoes migration transition .

Related Documents:

Data Migration Planning Analysis, Solution Design and Development Mock Migration Pilot Migration Released Data Migration Active Data and User Migration Inactive Data Migration Post Migration Activities Small Bang The details for each step include: Data Migration Planing - Develop the migration strategy and approach, and define the scope,

The maximun group size while turkey hunting is five hunters. While turkey hunting, a weapon may not be in possession within 300 feet of a baited area. You may hunt turkey from a blind or tree stand. Turkey hunters may harvest coyotes incidentally prior to harvesting their daily bag limit of turkey. Report coyote harvest by phone .

A New Migration Testing Strategy Pre-Migration Testing The concept of pre-migration testing is not often covered during migration planning. The professionals involved in migration planning are not much aware of comprehensive pre-migration testing and the value it can add to a migration and particularly those migrations that are considered complex.

Migration overview In the context of Migration Manager, migration is the process of promoting . A migration group can be either internal or user-defined. Internal migration groups are included with the product and are linked to other logically related migration groups called dependencies. You cannot modify internal migration

A data center migration is the movement of one (or more) . - Final Data Migration Plan - Test Migration - Migration - Post Migration Transition - 24/7/365 Support . hand and are using it relative to the migration project. You would be amazed how many people never ask, "Will this work for us in year two and .

Summary v Preface viii 1 Introduction 1 2 Background 2 3 Historical and Geostrategic Context 5 4 Turkey, the Kurds, and Relations with Iraq 8 5 Turkey and Iran 12 6 Turkey, Syria, and the Water Crisis 16 7 Turkey and the Middle East Peace Process 20 8 Conclusion: Turkey’s Future Role in the Middle East 23 Conference P

Turkey Trot traditions. This includes a growing number of North Texas communities, both large and small, most notably the Dallas Turkey Trot - Capital One Bank Dallas YMCA Turkey Trot, est. 1968, and the Fort Worth Turkey Trot -Moritz FW YMCA Turkey Trot, est. 1982.

API refers to the standard specifications of the American Petroleum Institute. ASME refers to the standard specifications for pressure tank design of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. WATER TANKS are normally measured in gallons. OIL TANKS are normally measured in barrels of 42 gallons each. STEEL RING CURB is a steel ring used to hold the foundation sand or gravel in place. The .