Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Siyasal Liderlerin Söylemleri ve Göçün Güvenlikleştirilmesi: Türkiye ve Amerika Birleşik Devletleri Karşılaştırması

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3, 1 - 38, 15.09.2021

Öz

1990’lardan itibaren insan hareketliliğinin küresel gündemde artan önemiyle uluslararası göç sıklıkla güvenlikleştirilen bir olgu olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Bu durum aynı zamanda uluslararası göçmenleri, güvenlik söz edimlerinin hedefi haline getirmektedir. Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, göç-güvenlik ilişkisini siyasal söylemler bağlamında incelemektir. Çalışmada dünya genelinde en çok uluslararası göçmene ev sahipliği yapan Amerika Birleşik Devletleri (ABD)ve en fazla sığınmacıya ev sahipliği yapan Türkiye örnekleri üzerinden siyasal lider söylemlerinin güvenlikleştirme sürecindeki rolü karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Bu doğrultuda Türkiye Cumhurbaşkanı Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’ın ve ABD Başkanı Donald John Trump’ın göçmenlere/sığınmacılara yönelik söylemleri, güvenlikleştirme teorisi ve eleştirel söylem analizi (ESA) yöntemiyle çözümlenmektedir. Çalışmanın başlıca bulguları, iki liderin göç ve güvenlik ilişkisini söz edimlerine yansıtma biçimindeki farklılıkları göstermektedir. Başkan Trump, göçmenlerle ilgili başta toplumsal, siyasal ve ekonomik olmak üzere pek çok yönden güvenlikleştirici söylemlere başvurmaktayken Cumhurbaşkanı Erdoğan, sığınmacıları ekonomik güvenlikle ilişkilendirmekle birlikte genellikle güvenlik dışılaştırıcı söylemler kullanmaktadır. Her iki ülkede de siyasal liderlerin göçmenlere ve sığınmacılara yönelik söz edimlerinin kamuoyu üzerinde etkisi olduğu gözlemlenmektedir.

Kaynakça

  • Abid, R. Z., Manan, S. A. and Rahman, Z. A. (2017). ‘A flood of Syrians has slowed to a trickle’: The use of metaphors in the representation of Syrian refugees in the online media news reports of host and nonhost countries. Discourse & Communication, 11(2), 121-140.
  • Aguila, E., Akhmedjonov, A. R., Basurto-Davila, R., Kumar, K. B., Kups, S. and Shatz, H. J. (2012). United States and Mexico: Ties that bind, issues that divide. Kaliforniya: RAND.
  • Akgül-Açıkmeşe, S. (2011). Algı mı, söylem mi? Kopenhag Okulu ve yeni-klasik gerçekçilikte güvenlik tehditleri. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 8(30), 43-73.
  • Alagöz, B. ve Demirkıran, Y. (2020). Düzensiz göç, güvenlik ve politika: İran ve Türkiye örnekleri. Ortadoğu Etütleri, 12(1), 206-237.
  • Albert, M. and Buzan, B. (2011). Securitization, sectors and functional differentiation. Security Dialogue, 42(4-5), 413-425.
  • Arslan, B. (2019). The securitization of Latin American immigrants in the USA: A comparative case study of Obama and Trump administrations. Yüksek lisans tezi. Ankara: ODTÜ.
  • Aydın-Düzgit, S. (Bahar 2011). Avrupa Birliği-Türkiye ilişkilerine postyapısalcı yaklaşım: Almanya örneğinde dış politika ve söylem analizi. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 8(29), 49-70.
  • Bagley, C. (1971). Immigrant minorities in the Netherlands: Integration and assimilation. International Migration Review, 5(1), 18-35.
  • Balzaq, T., Léonard, S. and Ruzicka, J. (2016). ‘Securitization’ revisited: Theory and cases. International Relations, 30(4), 494-531.
  • Başmısırlı, H. (2016). Securitization and de-securitization of migration policies of Germany and Turkey according to leadership rhetoric. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32967.29602
  • Baysal, B. (2020). 20 years of securitization: strengths, limitations and a new dual framework. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 17(67), 3-20.
  • BBC. (2017, 29 Ocak). Kanada Başbakanı’ndan ABD’nin göçmen yasağına karşı duruş. https://www.bbc.com/ turkce/haberler-dunya-38787558 adresinden 9.10.2020 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Benedicto, A. R. and Brunet, P. (2018). Building walls: fear and securitization in the European Union. Barcelona: Centre Delàs d’Estudis per la Pau Report (No. 35).
  • Bierbrauer, G. and Klinger, E. W. (2002). Political ideology, perceived threat, and justice towards immigrants. Social Justice Research, 15(1), 41-52. Bigo, D. (2002). Security and immigration: Toward a critique of the governmentality of unease. Alternatives, 27(Özel sayı), 63-92.
  • Bilgin, P. (2010). Güvenlik çalışmalarında yeni açılımlar: Yeni güvenlik çalışmaları. SAREM Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(14), 69-96.
  • Birkland, A. T. (2015). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making (3rd Edition). New York: Routledge.
  • Buonfino, A. (2004a). Discourse and Immigration as a security concern in the EU: A tale of two nations, Italy and Britain. Workshop: ‘Who makes immigration policy? Comparative perspectives in a post 9/11 world’, Uppsala, Finlandiya, 13-18 Nisan 2004. Erişim adresi: https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/paperproposal/4c3886d5-0415-4c92-a5ba-d89f3cde4a9a.pdf
  • Buonfino, A. (2004b). Between unity and plurality: The politicization and securitization of the discourse of migration in Europe. New Political Science, 26(1), 23-49.
  • Buzan, B. (2015). İnsanlar, devletler ve korku. E. Çıtak (Ed. ve Çev.). İstanbul: Röle Akademik Yayıncılık.
  • Buzan, B. (Yaz 2008). Askeri güvenliğin değişen gündemi. B. Yavuz (Çev.). Uluslararası İlişkiler, 5(18), 107-123.
  • Buzan, B. and Wæver, O. (1997). Slippery? Contradictory? Sociologically untenable? The Copenhagen School replies. Review of International Studies, 23(2), 241-250.
  • Buzan, B., Wæver, O. and De Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Londra: Lynne Rienner.
  • C.A.S.E. Collective. (2006). Critical approaches to security in Europe: A network manifesto. Security Dialogue, 37(4), 443-487.
  • Cabaniss, E. R. and Cameron, A. E. (2017). ‘Unassimilable and undesirable’: News elites’ discursive construction of the American immigrant during the Ellis Island years. Discourse & Society, 28(6), 614-634.
  • Cantat, C., Thiollet, H. and Pécoud, A. (2020). Migration as crisis. A framework paper. MAGYC Project.
  • Canveren, Ö. and Akgül-Durakçay, F. (2017). The analysis of the Hungarian government’s discourse towards the migrant crisis: A combination of securitization and Euroscepticism. Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 24(3), 857-876.
  • Castello, D. (2015). Discursive representations of migrants as victims and perpetrators in the British press: A corpus-assisted discourse analysis. Yüksek lisans tezi. Edgbaston: Birmingham Üniversitesi.
  • Ceyhan, A. and Tsoukala, A. (2002). The securitization of migration in Western societies: Ambivalent discourses and policies. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 27(Özel Sayı), 21-39.
  • Cirugeda, I. L. and Ruiz, R. S. (2013). Persuasive rhetoric in Barack Obama’s immigration speech: pre- and post-electoral strategies. Camino Real, 5(8), 81-99.
  • Collins, A. (2005). Securitization, Frankenstein’s Monster and Malaysian education. The Pacific Review, 18(4), 567-588.
  • De Cillia, R., Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. (1999). The discursive construction of national identities. Discourse & Society, 10(2), 149-173.
  • Demircan, A. (2013). Siyasetin kültürel ve sosyal hayattaki yansımaları bağlamında ‘ensâr ve muhacir’ kavramları. Anemon: Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1(1), 7-16.
  • Devran, Y. ve Özcan, Ö. F. (2016). Söylemlerin dilinden Suriye sorunu. Marmara İletişim Dergisi, 25, 35-52.
  • Dorner, L. M., Crawford, E. R., Jennings, J., Sandoval, J. S. O. and Hager, E. (2017). I think immigrants “kind of fall into two camps”: Boundary work by U.S.-born community members in St. Louis, Missouri. Educational Policy, 31(6), 921–947.
  • United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), Population Division. (2019). International Migration 2019: Report (No: ST/ESA/SER.A/438). https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/ population/migration/publications/migrationreport/docs/InternationalMigration2019_Report.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Van der Valk, I. (2003). Right-wing parliamentary discourse on immigration in France. Discourse & Society, 14(3), 309-348.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249-283.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). What is political discourse analysis? Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 11(1), 11-52.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (2003). Political discourse and ideology. Doxa Comunicaciòn, 207-225. https://repositorioinstitucional.ceu.es/bitstream/10637/6038/1/N_I_pp207_225.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (2009). News, discourse, and ideology. K. Wahl-Jorgensen ve T. Hanitzsch (Ed.). The handbook of journalism studies içinde (ss. 191-204). New York, London: Routledge.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (2015). Critical discourse analysis. D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton ve D. Schiffrin (Ed.). The handbook of discourse analysis (2. Baskı) içinde (ss. 466-485).
  • Van Mol, C. ve De Valk, H. (2016). Migration and immigrants in Europe: A historical and demographic perspective. B. Garcés-Mascareñas ve R. Penninx (Ed.). Integration processes and policies in Europe: Contexts, levels and actors içinde (ss. 31-55). Springer, IMISCOE Research Series.
  • Vezovnik, A. (2017). Securitizing migration in Slovenia: A discourse analysis of the Slovenian refugee situation, Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 16(1-2), 39-56.
  • Vuori, J. A. (2008). Illocutionary logic and strands of securitization: applying the theory of securitization to the study of non-democratic political orders. European Journal of International Relations, 14(1), 65-99.
  • Wæver, O. (1995a) Securitization and desecuritization. R. D. Lipschutz (Ed.). On security içinde (ss. 46-86). New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Wæver, O. (1995b). Identity, integration and security: Solving the sovereignty puzzle in E.U. studies. Journal of International Affairs, 48(2), 389-431.
  • Wæver, O. (Yaz 2008). Toplumsal güvenliğin değişen gündemi. B. Demirtaş-Coşkun (Çev.). Uluslararası İlişkiler 5(18), 151-178.
  • Weiner, M. (1992). Security, stability, and ınternational migration. International Security, 17(3), 91-126. Wilson, J. (2015). Political discourse. D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton ve D. Schiffrin (Ed.). The handbook of discourse analysis (2. Baskı) içinde (ss. 775-794).
  • Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory, and methodology. in Methods for critical discourse analysis (2nd Edition) (ss. 1-33). Londra: SAGE.
  • Wolfers, A. (1952). National security as an ambiguous symbol. Political Science Quarterly, 67(4), 481-502

Political Leaders’ Discourses and Securitization of Migration: A Comparison of Turkey and the United States

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3, 1 - 38, 15.09.2021

Öz

With the growing importance of human mobility in the global agenda since the early 1990s, international migration has increasingly evolved into a securitized phenomenon. This has also made international migrantsa prominent target group of security speech acts. The main objective of this study is to explore migration-security nexus in the context of political discourses. The paper brings a comparative perspective to the role of political leader discourses in the securitization of migration by examining the cases of the United States (USA), hosting the largest number of international migrants, and Turkey, the world’s top refugee hosting country. Through the analytical lens of critical discourse analysis (CDA) and securitization theory, the study unpacks the rhetoric used by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and American President Donald John Trump towards migrants/ asylum seekers. As the key findings demonstrate, the way the two leaders reflect the migration-security relationship to their speech acts significantly varies. President Trump associates migrants with security issues in multiple ways including social, political and economic spheres, while President Erdoğan’s discourse links migrants with security issues inthe economic realm, but his general discourse reflects a desecuritization approach. In both countries, it is observed that the discourses of political leaders concerning migrants and asylum seekers exert influence on public opinion.

Kaynakça

  • Abid, R. Z., Manan, S. A. and Rahman, Z. A. (2017). ‘A flood of Syrians has slowed to a trickle’: The use of metaphors in the representation of Syrian refugees in the online media news reports of host and nonhost countries. Discourse & Communication, 11(2), 121-140.
  • Aguila, E., Akhmedjonov, A. R., Basurto-Davila, R., Kumar, K. B., Kups, S. and Shatz, H. J. (2012). United States and Mexico: Ties that bind, issues that divide. Kaliforniya: RAND.
  • Akgül-Açıkmeşe, S. (2011). Algı mı, söylem mi? Kopenhag Okulu ve yeni-klasik gerçekçilikte güvenlik tehditleri. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 8(30), 43-73.
  • Alagöz, B. ve Demirkıran, Y. (2020). Düzensiz göç, güvenlik ve politika: İran ve Türkiye örnekleri. Ortadoğu Etütleri, 12(1), 206-237.
  • Albert, M. and Buzan, B. (2011). Securitization, sectors and functional differentiation. Security Dialogue, 42(4-5), 413-425.
  • Arslan, B. (2019). The securitization of Latin American immigrants in the USA: A comparative case study of Obama and Trump administrations. Yüksek lisans tezi. Ankara: ODTÜ.
  • Aydın-Düzgit, S. (Bahar 2011). Avrupa Birliği-Türkiye ilişkilerine postyapısalcı yaklaşım: Almanya örneğinde dış politika ve söylem analizi. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 8(29), 49-70.
  • Bagley, C. (1971). Immigrant minorities in the Netherlands: Integration and assimilation. International Migration Review, 5(1), 18-35.
  • Balzaq, T., Léonard, S. and Ruzicka, J. (2016). ‘Securitization’ revisited: Theory and cases. International Relations, 30(4), 494-531.
  • Başmısırlı, H. (2016). Securitization and de-securitization of migration policies of Germany and Turkey according to leadership rhetoric. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32967.29602
  • Baysal, B. (2020). 20 years of securitization: strengths, limitations and a new dual framework. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 17(67), 3-20.
  • BBC. (2017, 29 Ocak). Kanada Başbakanı’ndan ABD’nin göçmen yasağına karşı duruş. https://www.bbc.com/ turkce/haberler-dunya-38787558 adresinden 9.10.2020 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
  • Benedicto, A. R. and Brunet, P. (2018). Building walls: fear and securitization in the European Union. Barcelona: Centre Delàs d’Estudis per la Pau Report (No. 35).
  • Bierbrauer, G. and Klinger, E. W. (2002). Political ideology, perceived threat, and justice towards immigrants. Social Justice Research, 15(1), 41-52. Bigo, D. (2002). Security and immigration: Toward a critique of the governmentality of unease. Alternatives, 27(Özel sayı), 63-92.
  • Bilgin, P. (2010). Güvenlik çalışmalarında yeni açılımlar: Yeni güvenlik çalışmaları. SAREM Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(14), 69-96.
  • Birkland, A. T. (2015). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making (3rd Edition). New York: Routledge.
  • Buonfino, A. (2004a). Discourse and Immigration as a security concern in the EU: A tale of two nations, Italy and Britain. Workshop: ‘Who makes immigration policy? Comparative perspectives in a post 9/11 world’, Uppsala, Finlandiya, 13-18 Nisan 2004. Erişim adresi: https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/paperproposal/4c3886d5-0415-4c92-a5ba-d89f3cde4a9a.pdf
  • Buonfino, A. (2004b). Between unity and plurality: The politicization and securitization of the discourse of migration in Europe. New Political Science, 26(1), 23-49.
  • Buzan, B. (2015). İnsanlar, devletler ve korku. E. Çıtak (Ed. ve Çev.). İstanbul: Röle Akademik Yayıncılık.
  • Buzan, B. (Yaz 2008). Askeri güvenliğin değişen gündemi. B. Yavuz (Çev.). Uluslararası İlişkiler, 5(18), 107-123.
  • Buzan, B. and Wæver, O. (1997). Slippery? Contradictory? Sociologically untenable? The Copenhagen School replies. Review of International Studies, 23(2), 241-250.
  • Buzan, B., Wæver, O. and De Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Londra: Lynne Rienner.
  • C.A.S.E. Collective. (2006). Critical approaches to security in Europe: A network manifesto. Security Dialogue, 37(4), 443-487.
  • Cabaniss, E. R. and Cameron, A. E. (2017). ‘Unassimilable and undesirable’: News elites’ discursive construction of the American immigrant during the Ellis Island years. Discourse & Society, 28(6), 614-634.
  • Cantat, C., Thiollet, H. and Pécoud, A. (2020). Migration as crisis. A framework paper. MAGYC Project.
  • Canveren, Ö. and Akgül-Durakçay, F. (2017). The analysis of the Hungarian government’s discourse towards the migrant crisis: A combination of securitization and Euroscepticism. Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 24(3), 857-876.
  • Castello, D. (2015). Discursive representations of migrants as victims and perpetrators in the British press: A corpus-assisted discourse analysis. Yüksek lisans tezi. Edgbaston: Birmingham Üniversitesi.
  • Ceyhan, A. and Tsoukala, A. (2002). The securitization of migration in Western societies: Ambivalent discourses and policies. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 27(Özel Sayı), 21-39.
  • Cirugeda, I. L. and Ruiz, R. S. (2013). Persuasive rhetoric in Barack Obama’s immigration speech: pre- and post-electoral strategies. Camino Real, 5(8), 81-99.
  • Collins, A. (2005). Securitization, Frankenstein’s Monster and Malaysian education. The Pacific Review, 18(4), 567-588.
  • De Cillia, R., Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. (1999). The discursive construction of national identities. Discourse & Society, 10(2), 149-173.
  • Demircan, A. (2013). Siyasetin kültürel ve sosyal hayattaki yansımaları bağlamında ‘ensâr ve muhacir’ kavramları. Anemon: Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1(1), 7-16.
  • Devran, Y. ve Özcan, Ö. F. (2016). Söylemlerin dilinden Suriye sorunu. Marmara İletişim Dergisi, 25, 35-52.
  • Dorner, L. M., Crawford, E. R., Jennings, J., Sandoval, J. S. O. and Hager, E. (2017). I think immigrants “kind of fall into two camps”: Boundary work by U.S.-born community members in St. Louis, Missouri. Educational Policy, 31(6), 921–947.
  • United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), Population Division. (2019). International Migration 2019: Report (No: ST/ESA/SER.A/438). https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/ population/migration/publications/migrationreport/docs/InternationalMigration2019_Report.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Van der Valk, I. (2003). Right-wing parliamentary discourse on immigration in France. Discourse & Society, 14(3), 309-348.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249-283.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). What is political discourse analysis? Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 11(1), 11-52.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (2003). Political discourse and ideology. Doxa Comunicaciòn, 207-225. https://repositorioinstitucional.ceu.es/bitstream/10637/6038/1/N_I_pp207_225.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (2009). News, discourse, and ideology. K. Wahl-Jorgensen ve T. Hanitzsch (Ed.). The handbook of journalism studies içinde (ss. 191-204). New York, London: Routledge.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (2015). Critical discourse analysis. D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton ve D. Schiffrin (Ed.). The handbook of discourse analysis (2. Baskı) içinde (ss. 466-485).
  • Van Mol, C. ve De Valk, H. (2016). Migration and immigrants in Europe: A historical and demographic perspective. B. Garcés-Mascareñas ve R. Penninx (Ed.). Integration processes and policies in Europe: Contexts, levels and actors içinde (ss. 31-55). Springer, IMISCOE Research Series.
  • Vezovnik, A. (2017). Securitizing migration in Slovenia: A discourse analysis of the Slovenian refugee situation, Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 16(1-2), 39-56.
  • Vuori, J. A. (2008). Illocutionary logic and strands of securitization: applying the theory of securitization to the study of non-democratic political orders. European Journal of International Relations, 14(1), 65-99.
  • Wæver, O. (1995a) Securitization and desecuritization. R. D. Lipschutz (Ed.). On security içinde (ss. 46-86). New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Wæver, O. (1995b). Identity, integration and security: Solving the sovereignty puzzle in E.U. studies. Journal of International Affairs, 48(2), 389-431.
  • Wæver, O. (Yaz 2008). Toplumsal güvenliğin değişen gündemi. B. Demirtaş-Coşkun (Çev.). Uluslararası İlişkiler 5(18), 151-178.
  • Weiner, M. (1992). Security, stability, and ınternational migration. International Security, 17(3), 91-126. Wilson, J. (2015). Political discourse. D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton ve D. Schiffrin (Ed.). The handbook of discourse analysis (2. Baskı) içinde (ss. 775-794).
  • Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory, and methodology. in Methods for critical discourse analysis (2nd Edition) (ss. 1-33). Londra: SAGE.
  • Wolfers, A. (1952). National security as an ambiguous symbol. Political Science Quarterly, 67(4), 481-502
Toplam 50 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Siyaset Bilimi
Bölüm Araştırma Makaleleri
Yazarlar

Fulya Memisoglu

Selin Kabacaoğlu Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 15 Eylül 2021
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2021 Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3

Kaynak Göster

APA Memisoglu, F., & Kabacaoğlu, S. (2021). Siyasal Liderlerin Söylemleri ve Göçün Güvenlikleştirilmesi: Türkiye ve Amerika Birleşik Devletleri Karşılaştırması. İnsan Ve Toplum, 11(3), 1-38.