Comparative Analysis of Migration Policies of Turkey and the EU

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 3, 1603 - 1632, 30.12.2025

Deniz Cengiz

https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.1613623

Öz

The primary aim of this study is to analyze the migration governance and the differences in integration policies implemented by Turkey and EU countries by comparing their migration policies at historical, legal, and practical levels. In this context, the study evaluates the migration policies in Turkey, beginning with those shaped during the early nation-state building period, and extends to the Temporary Protection model developed in response to the recent Syrian-origin forced migration crises. Concurrently, it examines the longer-term and more institutionalized migration policies of EU countries such as Germany, France, Italy, and Scandinavian nations through a historical chronology. The methodology of the study incorporates a comparative analysis method, utilizing reports published by international and national organizations, including Eurostat, UNHCR, Frontex, and Turkey’s Directorate General of Migration Management (DGMM), alongside existing literature and case studies as data sources. These data are analyzed and interpreted to provide a comprehensive perspective. In conclusion, significant differences have been identified between Turkey and the EU in terms of integration strategies, burden-sharing of migration, and human rights-focused approaches. The study suggests that adopting a more sustainable and human rights-centered approach to migration governance is imperative. For instance, it recommends that Turkey construct its integration policies on a more institutional framework, while the EU should ensure a fairer distribution of the migration burden.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Migration policies , Turkey , EU

Türkiye ve AB’nin Göç Politikalarının Karşılaştırmalı Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı Türkiye ile AB ülkelerinin göç politikalarını tarihsel, yasal ve uygulama düzeyinde karşılaştırmak suretiyle, söz konusu ülkelerin göç yönetimini ve uygulanan entegrasyon politikalarındaki farklılıkları analiz etmektir. Bu kapsamda çalışma, Türkiye’de ilk dönemden itibaren ulus-devlet inşası üzerinden ortaya konulan göç politikalarından başlayarak, son dönemde meydana gelen Suriye kökenli zorunlu göç nedeniyle ortaya çıkan krizlere yanıt niteliğinde geliştirilen geçici koruma modeline kadarki süreç değerlendirilmekte, diğer taraftan Almanya, Fransa, İtalya ve İskandinav ülkeleri gibi AB ülkelerinin ortaya koyduğu daha uzun vadeli ve kurumsal göç politikaları tarihsel bağlamda bir kronoloji izlenerek karşılaştırmaktadır. Çalışmanın metodolojisi mevcut literatürün yanında, Eurostat, UNHCR/BMMYK, Frontex ve Türkiye Göç İdaresi Başkanlığı (GİB) gibi uluslararası ve ulusal kuruluşların yayınladığı raporlar, örnek vaka incelemeleri birer veri seti kaynağı olarak kullanılmıştır. Söz konusu veriler karşılaştırmalı analiz metodu kullanılmak suretiyle tartışılmış ve yorumlanmıştır. Sonuç olarak Türkiye ve AB arasında entegrasyon stratejileri, göç yükünün paylaşımı ve insan hakları odaklı yaklaşımlar bağlamında önemli farklılıklar tespit edilmiştir. Bu kapsamda daha sürdürülebilir ve insan haklarını merkeze alan bir yaklaşımın benimsendiği bir göç yönetiminin ortaya konması, örneğin Türkiye’nin entegrasyon politikalarının daha kurumsal bir perspektif üzerine inşa etmesi, AB’nin ise göç yükünü adil bir şekilde paylaşması gerektiğini önermektedir.

Kaynakça

• Abadan-Unat, N. (2011). Unending migration: From guest workerhood to transnational citizenship. Bilgi University Press.
• Amnesty International. (2013). At Europe’s border: Human rights violations at Greece’s border with Turkey. http://www.madde14.org/index.php?title=UA%C3%96_-_Avrupa%27n%C4%B1n_S%C4%B1n%C4%B1r%C4%B1nda
• Amnesty International. (2017, December 11). Libya’s dark web of collusion. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde19/7561/2017/en/
• Barigazzi, J. (2020, October 8). Germany’s Horst Seehofer: Yes, we can get a political deal on migration. Politico Europe. https://www.politico.eu/article/german-interior-minister-we-can-succeed-in-reaching-a-first-deal-on-migration-asylum-migrants/
• Bendel, P. (2014). Coordinating immigrant integration in Germany: Mainstreaming at the federal and local levels. International Migration Review, 48(1), 43–67.
• Bevelander, P., & Hellström, A. (2019). Integrating immigrants into the Nordic welfare states: The challenging case of Sweden. Springer.
• Bilgin, A. A. (2017). Assessing the power of Frontex in maritime operations against irregular migrants under international law. Hacettepe Law Review, 7(2), 55-82.
• Borjas, G. J. (1989). Economic theory and international migration. International Migration Review, 23(3), 457–485.
• Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2018). From the Euro to the Schengen crises: European integration theories, politicization, and identity politics. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(1), 83–108.
• Carrera, S., & den Hertog, L. (2015). Whose Mare? Rule of law challenges in European border surveillance in the Mediterranean (CEPS LIBE Paper No. 79). Centre for European Policy Studies.
• Castles, S., & Miller, M. J. (2009). The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world. Bilgi University Press.
• Çetin, E. (2022). EU–Turkey relations under the shadow of the contested politics of migration. Journal of International Policy Research, 8(3), 55–62.
• Council of Europe. (2016). A stronger European response to the Syrian refugee crisis (Resolution 2107).
• Daoudov, M. (2015). The role of local governments in the integration of foreigners in Turkey. In Y. Bulut (Ed.), The role of public administration in international migration and refugee integration (pp. 39–65). Umuttepe Publishing.
• de Haas, H. (2010). The internal dynamics of migration processes: A theoretical inquiry. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1587–1617.
• Doğan, M. (2009). Demographic movements in the township of Büyükçekmece. Management and Education Academic Journal, 5(2), 66–75.
• Dura, S. (2018). The EU in the Central Mediterranean: Impact and implications of the comprehensive approach. European Journal of Migration and Law, 20(2), 205–222.
• Ensari, P., Üstübici, A., Kavur, N., & Ekhtiari, M. (2023). Migration-relevant policies in Turkey (MIGNEX Background Paper v2). Peace Research Institute Oslo. https://www.mignex.org/tur
• Erdoğan, M. M. (2014). Syrians in Turkey: Social acceptance and integration study. Hacettepe University Migration and Politics Research Center.
• Erdoğan, M. M. (2017). From rupture to integration: Urban refugees – The case of Istanbul. Marmara Municipalities Union.
• Erdoğan, M. M. (2022). Syrians barometer 2022. Orion Publishing.
• Erdoğan, Z. (2021). Transition from open-door to integration politics and the policy of tolerance in the German asylum system. Atatürk University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 25(Special Issue), 65–86.
• European Asylum Support Office. (2020). EASO asylum report 2020: Annual report on the situation of asylum in the European Union. https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EASO-Asylum-Report-2020.pdf
• Fassin, D. (2015). Enforcing order: An ethnography of urban policing. Polity Press. FRA – Fundamental Rights Agency. (2019). Opinion on the hotspot approach in EU migration policy. https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2019-opinion-hotspots-update-03-2019_en.pdf
• Government of Spain. (2020). Non-paper: Spain’s position on the new pact on migration and asylum. https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/presidente/actividades/Documents/2020/251120-Non%20paper%20Pacto%20Migratorio.pdf
• İçduygu, A. (2005). Transit migration in Turkey: Trends, patterns, and issues. CARIM Research Reports, 2005/04. European University Institute.
• İçduygu, A., Erder, S., & Gençkaya, Ö. F. (2014). Turkey’s international migration policies, 1923–2023: From nation-state formation to transnational transformations. Koç University Migration Research Center. İçduygu, A., & Millet, E. (2016). Syrian refugees in Turkey: Insecure lives in an environment of pseudo-integration. Global Turkey in Europe Working Paper, 13, 1–15.
• Kamil, İ. (2016). Causes of the 1950–1951 migration from Bulgaria to Turkey. Journal of Balkan Research Institute, 5(2), 31–65.
• Kayam, H. C. (1993). The Turkish–Greek population exchange according to the Lausanne Peace Treaty and its discussion in the Turkish Grand National Assembly. Atatürk Research Center Journal, 9(27).
• Kirişci, K. (1996). Turkey’s immigration and emigration dilemmas at the turn of the century. International Migration, 34(3), 387–408.
• Kirişci, K. (2012). Turkey’s new draft law on asylum: What to make of it? In S. Paçacı-Elitok & T. Straubhaar (Eds.), Turkey, migration and the EU: Potentials, challenges and opportunities. Hamburg University Press.
• Kirişci, K., & Ferris, E. (2015). Not likely to go home: Syrian refugees and Turkey’s challenges. Brookings Institution. Kodaman, Ö. (2008). The population exchange between Turkey and Greece (Unpublished master’s thesis). Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University.
• Lavenex, S. (2001). The Europeanization of refugee policies: Between human rights and internal security. European Journal of Migration and Law, 3(3–4), 241–269.
• Lavenex, S. (2018). ‘Failing forward’ towards which Europe? Organized hypocrisy in the Common European Asylum System. Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(1).
• Mabogunje, A. L. (1970). Systems approach to a theory of rural–urban migration. Geographical Analysis, 2(1), 1–18. Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A., & Taylor, J. E. (1993). Theories of international migration: A review and appraisal. Population and Development Review, 19(3), 431–466.
• MEDAM. (2020). Assessment report on asylum and migration policies in Europe. https://www.medam-migration.eu/publications/assessment-reports/2020-medam-assessment-report/
• Nur, R., & Crew, J. C. (2007). Behind the scenes of the Lausanne Peace Conference (2nd ed.). Örgün Publishing.
• Oran, B. (Ed.). (2002). Turkish foreign policy: Facts, documents, and interpretations from the War of Independence to the present. İletişim Publishing.
• Orban, V. (2016, September 12). Address to the Hungarian Parliament. https://abouthungary.hu/speeches-and-remarks/prime-minister-viktor-orbans-address-in-parliament-before-the-start-of-daily-session-full-text-in-english
• Özçürümez, S., & Şenses, N. (2011). Europeanization and Turkey: Studying irregular migration policy. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 13(2), 233–248.
• Piore, M. J. (1979). Birds of passage: Migrant labour and industrial societies. Cambridge University Press. Polish Presidency of the Visegrad Group. (2020). Joint statement on the European Commission’s new pact on migration and asylum. https://www.euronews.com/2020/09/24/hungary-poland-and-czech-republic-oppose-eu-migration-pact
• Portes, A. (1995). Economic sociology and the sociology of immigration: A conceptual overview. In A. Portes (Ed.), The economic sociology of immigration: Essays on networks, ethnicity, and entrepreneurship (pp. 1–41). Russell Sage Foundation.
• Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24. Republic of Türkiye. (2013, April 11). Law on Foreigners and International Protection (Law No. 6458). https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/
• Saatçioğlu, B. (2020). The European Union’s refugee crisis and rising functionalism in EU–Turkey relations. Turkish Studies, 21(2), 169–187.
• Stark, O. (1991). The migration of labor. Basil Blackwell.
• Şahin, C. (2016). Turkey’s population. In M. H. Kanat (Ed.), Turkey’s geography and geopolitics (pp. 220–248).
• Tanoğlu, A. (1953). The recent migration movements of Turks from Bulgaria (1950–1951). Istanbul University Journal of Economics, 14(1–4), 128–161.
• Tekin, C., & Altunsoy, Y. (2019). Mass migrations from Bulgaria to Turkey in the Republican era. Karatay Journal of Social Research, Special Issue II, 119–147.
• Todaro, M. P. (1969). A model of labor migration and urban unemployment in less developed countries. American Economic Review, 59(1), 138–148.
• Trevisanut, S. (2009). Maritime border control and the protection of asylum seekers in the European Union. Touro International Law Review, 12, 156–178.
• Uluslararası Af Örgütü [Amnesty International]. (2013). At Europe’s border: Human rights violations at Greece’s border with Turkey. http://www.madde14.org/index.php?title=UA%C3%96_-_Avrupa%27n%C4%B1n_S%C4%B1n%C4%B1r%C4%B1nda
• UNHCR. (2022). Global trends: Forced displacement in 2021. UNHCR. van Heukelingen, N. (2021). A new momentum for EU–Turkey cooperation on migration: Opportunities and challenges. Clingendael Institute.
• Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world-system: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. Academic Press.
• Woods, A., & Kayalı, N. (2017). Interaction with Syrian communities: The role of local governments in Istanbul. Istanbul Policy Center.
• Yücel, İ., & Sümer, G. Ç. (2024). The role of municipalities in the integration of Syrian refugees into the city. Premium Social Sciences International Refereed Journal, 8(49), 1560–1575.
• Zolberg, A. R., Suhrke, A., & Aguayo, S. (1989). Escape from violence: Conflict and the refugee crisis in the developing world. Oxford University Press.