Diaspora policies have recently become prominent for an increasing number of states. While the growing body of literature on new diaspora policies and institutions has shown these as a sign of a state's willingness to include populations... more
Diaspora policies have recently become prominent for an increasing number of states. While the growing body of literature on new diaspora policies and institutions has shown these as a sign of a state's willingness to include populations from abroad into the polity, an equally new adjacent literature has emphasised the exclusive and controlling aspect of extra-territorial power of authoritarian states. This article argues that a consideration of co-occurrence of positive and negative diaspora politics is needed for a holistic understanding of state-led transnationalism and its contested relationship to national territory and popular sovereignty. In this article, we build on the example of Turkish policies, which on the one hand took considerable steps to include its citizens abroad and on the other continued the exclusion of the ‘enemies of the state’ and re-defined the limits of political membership at home and abroad. By analysing the new diasporic institutional practices, the enfranchisement of external citizens and the right to exit along with loss of citizenship provisions, we show that Turkish state policy disrupts the assumed holy trinity of nation-state-territory forging a de-territorialised unity between internal and external citizens, as well as a de-territorialised division along the lines of party loyalty. Looking at diasporic engagements in all three dimensions - institutional, political and legal-through the lens of citizenship, we demonstrate that they are neither the extension of a heavy handed extra-territorial state power nor of an all-inclusive diaspora policy but a more complex combination of the two.
Research Interests:
Turkey has been part of an expanding European border regime through the construct of ‘transit’. Against the essentializing use of this term, this article aims to draw attention to the varied nature of ‘transit’ migration based on... more
Turkey has been part of an expanding European border regime through the construct of ‘transit’. Against the essentializing use of this term, this article aims to draw attention to the varied nature of ‘transit’ migration based on ethnographic research conducted in two cities of Turkey: Edirne and Kayseri. While both cities are subject to the EU-ization of migration and asylum management, we argue that their geographical positions cause variations in how they experience EU-ization and how they receive border-crossers and refugees. Variations are further intensified by different configurations of il/legality and il/licitness in each city. We claim that neither the state nor the European border regime, as actors and producers of il/legality, can predetermine the outcome of such configurations. ‘Transit’-ing is rendered il/licit, depending on the visibility and duration of the stay of border-crossers and refugees, their impact on local economies and the attitudes of local state actors.
Research Interests:
Considering that established migrant associations often play an active role in migrants’ rights advocacy, the relationship between them and the growing numbers of irregular migrants needs careful scrutiny. Looking at the encounters... more
Considering that established migrant associations often play an active role in migrants’ rights advocacy, the relationship between them and the growing numbers of irregular migrants needs careful scrutiny. Looking at the encounters between irregular Bulgarian Turkish migrants and associations established by their co-ethnics who hold Turkish citizenship in Turkey, our ethnographic evidence shows that co-ethnic migrant associations mobilise the legal frame of ‘ethnic deservingness’ with the intention of welcoming co-ethnics to the Turkish homeland. In the absence of other formal organisations for rights advocacy, associations’ appeals to this frame emerge as a civic resource for the irregular newcomers in their permanent residency claims. At the same time, the same frame hides unequal power relations within co-ethnic communities, that is, newcomers’ peripheral positions within associations and the economic costs of filing claims via associations. This situation creates a representational gap in the associational context between its active members with higher legal capital and irregular newcomers with lower legal capital. Tackling the problem of representation determined by the legal hierarchy, this study questions whether migrant associations should still be considered important political actors when undocumented/irregular migrants outnumber regulars—especially with regard to the immediate political/legal actions they require.