MiReKoc MIGRATION RESEARCH PROGRAM AT THE KOÇ UNIVERSITY __________________________________________________ MiReKoc Research Projects 2005-2006 “INTEGRATION IN LIMBO” Iraqi, Afghan, Maghrebi and Iranian Migrants in Istanbul A. Didem Danış Address: Galatasaray University, Sociology Dept. Ciragan Cad. No.36, Ortakoy 34357 Istanbul, Turkey Email: [email protected] Tel: +90. 212. 227 44 80 (x.405) Fax: +90. 212. 260 53 45 Koç University, Rumelifeneri Yolu 34450 Sarıyer Istanbul Turkey Tel: +90 212 338 1635 Fax: +90 212 338 1642 Webpage: www.mirekoc.com/mirekoc_eng.cgi E.mail: [email protected] Table of Content ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………… i List of tables …………………………………………………………………………………. iii List of photographs ………………………………………………………………………….. iv 1. INTRODUCTION (A. Didem Danış) …………………………...……..……………….. 1 1.1 Research Question …………………………………………………….......... 1 1.1.2 Terminology………………………………………………………………. 3 1.2 Design and Methodology ……..…………………………………………………… 3 1.3 Theoretical Significance ……………………………………………………………7 1.3.1 Incorporation of Migrants in Developing Countries ……………………… 7 1.3.2 Social Networks …………………………………………………………… 8 1.4 Changing Patterns of Migration Waves to Turkey………………………………...10 1.4.1 ‘Muhacirs’: Welcomed migrants of nation-state formation era…………... 10 1.4.2 Non-European Irregular Migrants in Istanbul …………………………... 11 1.5 Socio-Spatial and Economic Setting for Migrants’ Incorporation ………………. 16 1.5.1 Urban Scenery: Istanbul, home for migrants …………………………….. 16 1.5.2 A Vibrant Informal Economy: a pole of attraction for all migrants……… 18 1.5.3 Suitcase Trade ……………………………………………………………. 22 2. IRAQIS IN ISTANBUL: SEGMENTED INCORPORATION (A. Didem Danış) ...… 27 2.1 A Large But Invisible Migrant Group …………………………………………… 27 2.1.1 In between legal categories ………………………………………………. 29 2.1.2 A Short Chronology of Iraqi Migration ………………………………….. 33 2.2 Iraqi Kurds: Changing patterns in a long-standing migration wave ……………... 34 2.2.1 Massive refugee arrivals between 1989 and 1991 ……………………….. 34 2.2.2 1990s and early 2000s: ‘Explosion’ of Iraqi Kurdish irregular migration ..36 2.2.3 Iraqi Kurds in Istanbul: Fractional Incorporation ………………………... 40 2.2.4 The fading out of Kurdish emigration from Iraq after 2003 ……………... 43 2.3 Iraqi Turkmens: Ethnic brotherhood, easier incorporation? ……………………... 44 2.3.1 A mystery: The size of Iraqi Turkmen population ………………...…….. 44 2.3.2 From 1950s to 1991: Educational migration of the Turkmen ……...……. 46 2.3.3 Post-1991: Mass departure ………………………………………………. 50 2.3.4 The Association and its identity cards: certificate of Turkishness ………..52 2 2.3.5 Ethnic business in Osmanbey and Laleli ………………………………… 54 2.4 Iraqi Assyro-Chaldeans: religious networks and ‘deliberate indifference’…......... 57 2.4.1 A community en route: Iraqi Assyro-Chaldeans ………………………… 57 2.4.2 Social Networks of the Assyro-Chaldeans ………………………………..59 2.4.3 Religious Networks: Church as the center of community ……………….. 61 2.4.4 Caritas: social services for the Assyro-Chaldeans ……………………….. 64 2.4.5 Priests at the center of the religious network …………………………….. 64 2.4.6 The limits of socio-economic incorporation through religious ties ……... 66 3. AFGHANIS IN ZEYTINBURNU: A CROSS BETWEEN ‘PERMANENCY’ AND ‘TRANSITION’ (Cherie Taraghi) ………………………………………………………….68 3.1 Afghans in Zeytinburnu: a Brief History ………………………………………… 70 3.1.1 Legal Status ……………………………………………………………. 72 3.2 Integrating in Istanbul …………………………………………………………… 74 3.2.1 The Afghan Turkmen ……………………….……….…………………. 74 3.2.2 The Afghan Turkmen Social and Solidarity Foundation..……………… 80 3.2.3 Afghan Refugees and Afghans with an ‘Irregular’ Status..…………….. 81 4. TRANSIT MAGHREBIS IN ISTANBUL: TRAJECTORIES, PROFILES AND STRATEGIES (Jean-François Pérouse) …………………………………………….…… 92 4.1 A distinct presence with varying chronologies for each “national group”….….... 93 4.1.1 Itineraries and methods of entry into Turkey …………….…………… 95 4.2 Profiles of “transitors” and forms of transit …………………………..…………. 96 4.2.1 The tourist ……………………………………………………………… 96 4.2.2 The shuttle trader and the merchant ……………………………………. 97 4.2.3 The candidate for exile toward Europe …………………………….... 101 4.2.4 The nanny ...………………………………………………………… 103 4.2.5 The employee and the worker ………………………………………. 104 4.2.6 The student and the apprentice………………………………………... 106 4.2.7 The prostitute …………………………………………….…………… 106 4.2.8 The person in escape ……………………………………...…………... 107 4.2.9 The articulation between the categories or the risks of classification….107 4.3 Strategies implemented …………………………………………………………. 108 4.3.1 The inscription in a network more or less pre-constructed and stable.…108 4.4 Components of the network …………………………………………………..... 110 4.4.1 Invaluable family ……………………………………………………... 110 3 4.4.2 The boss/protector ………………………………………………….... 111 4.4.3 Housing ……………………………………………………………..... 111 4.4.4 School, health and the question of “relationship with Turks” ……….. 112 4.5 Strategies to Exit ……………………………………………………………….. 113 4.5.1 The regular exit from the country and intra-urban mobility ……............…...... 113 4.5.2 The exit ways of the transit …………………………………………… 113 4.6 The reign of contingency and subversion of the codes……………………….…. 113 5. IRANIANS IN ISTANBUL: CHANGING MIGRATORY PATTERNS AND MODES OF INCORPORATION (A. Didem Danış & Cherie Taraghi) …...…………………….. 116 5.1 More than a million transit migrants! ................................................................... 116 5.2 Since the 1990s: Ethnic and religious minorities on the route …………………. 117 5.3 In search of a better life ………………………………………………………… 119 5.4 Visa-free regulation between Turkey and Iran …………………………………. 120 5.5 Networks for survival, networks for incorporation …………………………... 121 6. CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………………..123 6.1 Social networks facilitating ‘segmented incorporation’ ………………………... 124 6.2 Incorporation into housing and labor sectors …………………………………... 125 6.3 School, health and other social services ……………………………………….. 126 6.4 Implications of state policies for ‘integration in limbo’ ……………………....... 127 REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………….. 128 4 Abstract Turkey has acquired a central position in the international irregular migrations systems in the last decades and thus has become a crossing point on a regional and international scale. This led to the inflow of thousands of migrants and asylum seekers, mainly from politically turbulent and economically unstable non-European countries. Despite their increasing number, people who arrive to Turkey face a vacuum in terms of migrant and refugee reception policies due to the limited legal, financial and institutional capacities. Given the weakness of state assistance and non-governmental organizations providing services for regular or irregular migrants, social networks have primary importance for migrants’ survival and socio-economic incorporation in Turkey. Since the first moments of their arrival, every migrants get into contact with informal reception mechanisms. The aim of our project is to investigate the ‘unofficial integration’ models of four specific migrant groups in Istanbul, namely Iraqi, Afghan, Maghrebi and Iranian migrants. We have chosen these four migrant groups because these are the most significant nationalities among irregular migrants and are ‘ineligible’ to acquire refugee status in Turkey due to the geographical limitation. We focus on how these four groups survive in an environment of extreme precariousness and what kind of resources they mobilize for incorporation into employment and housing markets. Below, we first introduce the legal, social and economic background that migrants face during their stay in Turkey. We present the impact of changing patterns of migration waves to Turkey and the role of the vibrant informal economy, in particular the suitcase trade, in migrants’ insertion into economic sphere. Then in each individual chapter we depict group profiles of Iraqi, Afghan, Iranian and Maghrebi migrants in Istanbul, without disregarding fluidity and elusiveness among migrants’ status. In order to overcome the difficulty related to the vagueness among the boundaries of these categories we discern characteristics of flow diversities as well as the impact of migratory past and legal status on patterns of migrants’ integration. The concept of ‘segmented assimilation’ of Portes & Zhou (1993), which we choose to read as ‘segmented incorporation’ provides a useful analytical tool to understand different patterns of foreigners’ insertion into Turkish society. Migrants’ incorporation necessitates some sort of bond between the migrants and the receiving society, or more correctly with a fragment of the society. The bridging social capital used for entering into the host society leads to a ‘fractional integration’: migrants who mobilize distinct social capitals (based on familial, linguistic, religious, ethnic or economic ties) are inserted into specific social niches in the receiving society. Migrant incorporation is not a ‘straight-line progression’ but it is a process that often leads to multiple end points. Yet, it is certain that it is also an unequal and hierarchized incorporation, since de facto integration depends on migrants’ networking capacity. Differences in the content and impact of the ‘bridges’ (i.e. mediating agents) influence the success of the migrants’ incorporation process. The accomplishment of migrants’ incorporation also relies on the capacity of each social segment they incorporate. We should underline that our findings on Iraqi, Afghan, Maghrebi