(IS?) SECOND TRIBEL MIGRATION TO EUROPE: PROBLEMS, OPPORTUNITIES, THREATS, SOLUTIONS

Abstract

Migration is as old as human history. People can migrate to different places from their country of residence for various reasons. However, the consequences of mass migration movements, which are more than the number a country can tolerate, are much more severe. M.S. The first tribal migration that started after B.C. 350 caused many legal, political, social, cultural, sociological and psychological changes in Europe. In the last century, mass migration movements based on asylum have also been among the most important problems that the whole world and especially Europe have to deal with. EU member states, which have not come to a serious solution to the ongoing mass asylum crisis, have had to face this problem again by trying to find a sustainable solution.
Hundreds of thousands of people from war and internal turmoil, authoritarian regimes or because of poverty especially in the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa or Turkey or on the right passes to the European countries. As is known, a growing asylum-based immigration is actually a common problem in Turkey and Europe. However, the EU and its member states, instead of finding a permanent solution to this problem, especially retard achieving their country's problems through Turkey.
This study is based on the problem of mass migration movements based on asylum. In this context, it is questioned what went wrong by emphasizing the weakness of the asylum mechanisms based on the principles of cooperation, solidarity and fair responsibility sharing. This act of mass asylum in Turkey and draws attention to the opportunities and threats direction in terms of European countries. Turkey, including the problems of asylum in the European approach is focused on can be transformed into an opportunity in the context of shared values and interests.

Keywords

• Migration
• asylum
• asylum
• refugee
• solution
• opportunity

AVRUPA’YA İKİNCİ KAVİMLER GÖÇÜ (MÜ?): SORUNLAR, FIRSATLAR, TEHDİTLER, ÇÖZÜMLER

Abstract

Göç, insanlık tarihi kadar eskidir. İnsanlar çeşitli sebeplerle yaşadığı ülkeden farklı yerlere göç edebilmektedirler. Ancak bir ülkenin tolere edebileceği sayıdan fazla olan kitlesel göç hareketlerinin sonuçları çok daha ağır olmaktadır. M.S. 350 yıllarında başlayan ilk kavimler göçü özellikle Avrupa’da hukuki, siyasi, sosyal, kültürel, sosyolojik ve psikolojik pek çok değişikliğe sebep olmuştur. Son yüzyıl içinde de özellikle sığınma temelli kitlesel göç hareketleri de bütün dünyanın ve özellikle de Avrupa’nın uğraşmak zorunda kaldığı en önemli sorunlar arasında yer almıştır. Devam eden kitlesel sığınma krizine bugüne kadar ciddi bir çözüme yanaşmayan AB üye devletleri, sürdürülebilir bir çözüm bulmaya çalışarak adeta bu sorunla yeniden yüzleşmek zorunda kalmıştır. Yüz binlerce insan savaş ve iç karışıklıklardan, otoriter rejimlerden veya yoksulluktan dolayı özellikle Orta Doğu, Güney Asya ve Kuzey Afrika’dan ya Türkiye üzerinden veya doğrudan Avrupa ülkelerine geçmektedir. Bilindiği gibi, artan bir sığınmacılık temelli göç olgusu aslında Türkiye ve Avrupa’nın ortak bir sorunudur. Ancak AB ve üye devletler bu soruna kalıcı bir çözüm bulmak yerine özellikle Türkiye üzerinden sorunun kendi ülkelerine ulaşmasını geciktirmişlerdir. Bu çalışmada, sığınma temelli kitlesel göç hareketleri sorunu temel alınmıştır. Bu kapsamda işbirliği, dayanışma ve adil sorumluluk paylaşımı ilkelerinden hareketle sığınma mekanizmalarının zayıflığını vurgulayarak neyin yanlış gittiği sorgulanmaktadır. İşbu kitlesel sığınma hareketlerinin Türkiye ve Avrupa ülkeleri açısından fırsat ve tehdit yönüne dikkat çekilmektedir. Türkiye dâhil Avrupa sığınma yaklaşımında yaşanan sorunların, ortak değerler ve çıkarlar bağlamında fırsata dönüştürülebileceği üzerinde durulmaktadır.

Keywords

• Göç
• sığınma
• iltica
• mülteci
• çözüm
• fırsat

References

1. AB Anlaşmaları, http://ataum.ankara.edu.tr/temel-belgeler/ (14.04.2021)
2. Adsera, A., & Pytlikova, M. (2015). The role of language in shaping international migration. The Economic Journal, 125(586), F49–F81.
3. Alesina, A., Murard, E., Rapoport, H. (2019). Immigration and Preferences for Redistribution in Europe. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25562/w25562.pdf
4. Angeloni, S. & Spano, F. M. (2018). Asylum Seekers in Europe: Issues and Solutions, Int. Migration & Integration. 19:473–495
5. Bilgin, A. (2017). Göçmenlere Yönelik Deniz Operasyonlarında Frontex’in Müdahale Yetkisinin Uluslararası Hukuk Kapsamında Değerlendirilmesi. Hacettepe HFD, 7(2) 2017, 55–82.
6. Brekke, J., & Brochmann, G. (2015). Stuck in transit: secondary migration of asylum seekers in Europe, national differences, and the Dublin regulation. Journal of Refugee Studies, 28(2), 145–162.
7. Brian, T., & Laczko, F. (2014). Fatal journeys: tracking lives lost during migration. Geneve: International Organization for Migration.
8. Carrera, S., Blockmans, S., Cassarino, J. P., Gros, D., Guild, E., Letta, E. (2017). The European border and coast guard addressing migration and asylum challenges in the Mediterranean? Brussels: CEPS.

9. Cebeci, E., & Üstün, K. (2012). The Syrian quagmire: what’s holding Turkey back? Insight Turkey, 14(2), 13–21.
10. Costello, C., & Mouzourakis, M. (2016). EU law and the detainability of asylum-seekers. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 35(1), 47–73.
11. Çelebi, Ö., Özçürümez, S., Türkay, Ş. (2011). İltica, Uluslararası Göç ve Vatansızlık: Kuram, Gözlem ve Politika. Birleşmiş Milletler Mülteciler Yüksek Komiserliği.
12. Den Heijer, M., Rijpma, J. J., Spijkerboer, T. (2016). Coercion, prohibition, and great expectations: the continuing failure of the common European asylum system. Common Market Law Review, 53(3), 607–642.
13. Emmenegger, P., & Klemmensen, R. (2013). Immigration and redistribution revisited: how different motivations can offset each other. Journal of European Social Policy, 23(4), 406–422.
14. Euronews. (2020). https://tr.euronews.com/2020/03/02/cumhurbaskan-erdogan-ab-1-milyar-euro-teklif-etti-kabul-etmedim-biz-o-paray-da-buluruz
15. Eurostat Database. (2020). https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/asylum-and-managed-migration/data/database
16. Fajardo Del Castillo, T. (2020). The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration: a Soft Law Instrument for Management of Migration Respecting Human Rights”, Journal of International Law and International Relations, 8(8), pp. 51-94.
17. Freeman, G. P. (2006). National models, policy types, and the politics of immigration in liberal democracies. West European Politics, 29(2), 227–247.
18. Goodwin-Gill G.S. & McAdam, J. (2007). The Refugee In International Law. Oxford Publication.
19. Grech, P. (2017). Undesired properties of the European Commission’s refugee distribution key. European Union Politics, 18(2), 212–238.
20. Guild, E., Costello, C., Garlick, M., Moreno-Lax, V., Carrera, S. (2015). Enhancing the common European asylum system and alternatives to Dublin. Study for the European Parliament, LIBE Committee.
21. Hatton, T. J. (2017). Refugees and asylum seekers, the crisis in Europe and the future of policy. Economic Policy, 32(91), 447–496.
22. Hernandez, D., & Rudolph, A. (2015). Modern day slavery: what drives human trafficking in Europe? European Journal of Political Economy, 38, 118–139.
23. Hix, S., & Noury, A. (2007). Politics, not economic interests: determinants of migration policies in the European Union. International Migration Review, 41(1), 182–205.
24. IOM Key Migration Terms, https://www.iom.int/key-migration-terms (14.04.2021)
25. Kent, A. (2016). Political cartography: from Berlin to Brexit. The Cartographic Journal, 53(3), 199–201.
26. Larking, E. (2017). Controlling irregular migration in the Asia-pacific: is Australia acting against its own interests? Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 4(1), 85–103.
27. Levy, C. (2010). Refugees, Europe, camps/state of exception: Binto the zone, the European Union and extraterritorial processing of migrants, refugees, and asylum-seekers (theories and practice). Refugee Survey Quarterly, 29(1), 92–119.
28. Neumayer, E. (2004). Asylum destination choice: What makes some west European countries more attractive than others? European Union Politics, 5(2), 155–180.
29. OECD. (2020). International migration outlook 2020. https://www.oecd.org/migration
30. OECD. (2016). Making integration work: refugees and others in need of protection. https://www.oecd.org/migration/
31. Phillips, J. (2012). The ‘Pacific Solution’ revisited: a statistical guide to the asylum seeker caseloads on Nauru and Manus Island. Background note, Parliamentary Library.
32. Piopiunik, M., & Ruhose, J. (2017). Immigration, regional conditions, and crime: Evidence from an allocation policy in Germany. European Economic Review, 92, 258–282.
33. Thielemann, E. R. (2006). The effectiveness of governments’ attempts to control unwanted migration. In: Parsons, Craig A. and Smeeding, Timothy A., (eds.) Immigration and the Transformation of Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
34. Toshkov, D., & de Haan, L. (2013). The Europeanization of asylum policy: an assessment of the EU impact on asylum applications and recognitions rates. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(5), 661–683.
35. Trauner, F. (2016). Asylum policy: the EU’s ‘crises’ and the looming policy regime failure. Journal of European Integration, 38(3), 311–325.
36. Tubakovic, T. (2017). A Dublin IV recast: a new and improved system? Egmont European Policy Brief no. 46.
37. Türk, V., Corliss, S., Riera, J., Lippman, B., Hansen, E., Gebre Egziabher, A., Franck, M., Dekrout, A., Kuroiwa, Y. (2015). UNHCR, the environment & climate change. Geneva: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
38. Wagner, M., Dimitriadi, A., O’Donell, R., Perumadan, J., Schlotzhauer, J. H., Simic, I., Yabasun, D. (2016). The implementation of the common European asylum system. Study for the LIBE Committee. WMR (World Migration Report) (2020). https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/wmr_2020.pdf
39. Yücel, S. Y. (2017). Avrupa’nın Mültecilerle İmtihanı, SETA.