Mültecilerin Kentte Ötekileştirilmesi: Kamu Politikasının Yoksunluğu Kente Karşı Suç Mudur?

Öz

Bu çalışma, mültecilerin kentsel mekânlarda ötekileştirilmelerinde kamu politikasının yoksunluğunu ve bu olgunun kente karşı bir suç olup olmadığını kavramsal bir şekilde tartışmaktadır. Kent mültecileri, Birleşmiş Milletler Mülteciler Yüksek Komiserliği tarafından özellikle 2000’li yılların başından itibaren desteklenen kampsızlaştırma politikasının sonucu olarak, kampa kıyasla daha insani ve normal gündelik yaşam deneyimleri sunan kent mekânlarında uluslararası koruma altında bulunmaktadırlar. Son on yılda giderek artan bir eğilim gösteren kent mültecisi istatistikleri, kentin mülteciler açısından bir uyum fırsatı mı ötekileştirme aracı mı olduğu sorusunu da gündeme getirmektedir. Türkiye’nin de 2011 yılından bu yana deneyimlemekte olduğu Suriye iç savaşı kaynaklı mülteci göçünün bir sonucu olarak, Göç İdaresi Başkanlığı’nın 2025 yılı itibariyle Türkiye’deki 2,3 milyon Suriyeli mültecinin %98’e yakını kentlerde ikamet etmektedir. Bu durum özelinde, eldeki çalışma kentin bir ötekileştirme mi uyumlaştırma aracı mı olduğunu tartışmakta ve bunu kentsel kamu politikası ile kente karşı işlenen suç kavramı ekseninde yapmayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, ötekileştirmenin kent mültecilerine yöneldiği durumda kamu politikasının yoksunluğunun kente karşı işlenen bir suç olarak ele alınabileceğini ve kamu politikasının yoksunluğunda kentsel mekânın bir uyum aracından ziyade ötekileştirme alanı olduğunu ileri sürmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kent Mültecileri
• Geçici Koruma Altındaki Suriyeliler
• Kentsel Politika

Exclusion of Refugees in Urban Areas: Is the Lack of Public Policy an Offense Against the City?

Öz

This paper examines whether refugees’ otherness in urban spaces, within the framework of public policy, constitutes an offense against the city. Urban refugees, as a consequence of the decampment policy, particularly advocated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees since the beginning of the 2000s, reside in urban areas under international protection, enjoying more humane and normal daily life experiences compared to those in camps. Over the last decade, particularly, the trend of urban refugees has increased, prompting researchers to question whether urban areas offer opportunities for integration or serve as tools of exclusion for refugees. As a result of the Syrian civil war outbreak in 2011, Türkiye has been experiencing Syrian refugee migration, and as of 2025, there are 2.3 million Syrian refugees, of whom nearly 98% are residing in urban areas. In the wake of this situation, this research aims to discuss whether urban space serves as a tool for integration or exclusion, with a focus on public policy and offenses against the city. Our research ultimately asserts that the lack of public policy can be considered an offense against the city in the case of exclusionary practices against refugees in urban spaces, and urban spaces are more often exclusionary rather than harmonization tools.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Urban Refugees
• Syrians under Temporary Protection
• Urban Policy

Kaynakça

1. Akar, S., & Erdoğdu, M. M. (2019). Syrian Refugees in Turkey and Integration Problem Ahead. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 20(3), 925-940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-018-0639-0
2. Altıntaş, S. (2018). Davetsiz Misafirler: Türkiye’deki Mültecilerin Maduniyet Görünümleri. İDEALKENT, 5(14), 252-276.
3. Altıok, B., & Tosun: (2018). How to Co-exist? Urban Refugees in Turkey: Prospects and Challenges (UNESCO Chair on International Migration Policy Brief) [Policy Brief]. Yaşar University. https://mirekoc.ku.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ALTIOK-and-TOSUN-2018-How-to-coexist.pdf
4. Baban, F., Ilcan, S., & Rygiel, K. (2017). Syrian refugees in Turkey: Pathways to precarity, differential inclusion, and negotiated citizenship rights. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(1), 41-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2016.1192996
5. Babül, E. M. (2024). Compulsory guesthood, social cohesion, and the politics of hospitality in Turkey. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 30(2), 379-398. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9655.14063
6. Bauman, Z. (2013). Liquid Life. John Wiley & Sons.
7. Bayirbağ, M. K. (2013). Continuity and Change in Public Policy: Redistribution, Exclusion and State Rescaling in Turkey. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(4), 1123-1146. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12000
8. Bazurli, R. (2019). Local Governments and Social Movements in the ‘Refugee Crisis’: Milan and Barcelona as ‘Cities of Welcome’. South European Society and Politics, 24(3), 343-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2019.1637598

9. Bélanger, D., & Saracoglu, C. (2020). The governance of Syrian refugees in Turkey: The state-capital nexus and its discontents. Mediterranean Politics, 25(4), 413-432. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2018.1549785
10. Bélanger, D., & Saraçoğlu, C. (2022). Processes of Wage Theft: The Neoliberal Labor Market and Syrian Refugees in Turkey. İçinde E. Balkan & Z. K. Tonak (Ed.), Refugees on the Move (NED-New edition, 1, C. 45: 262-280). Berghahn Books. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jj.9941332.16
11. Benhabib, S. (2018). Ötekilerin hakları: Yabancılar, yerliler, vatandaşlar (B. Akkıyal, Çev.; 4. bs). İletişim Yayınları.
12. Betts, A., Memişoğlu, F., & Ali, A. (2021). What Difference do Mayors Make? The Role of Municipal Authorities in Turkey and Lebanon’s Response to Syrian Refugees. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34(1), 491-519. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feaa011
13. Boenigk, S., Fisk, R., Kabadayi, S., Alkire, L., Cheung, L., Corus, C., Finsterwalder, J., Kreimer, A. A., Luca, N., Omeira, M., Paul, P., Santos, M. F., & Smidt, N. (2021). Rethinking Service Systems and Public Policy: A Transformative Refugee Service Experience Framework. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 40(2), 165-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915620962815
14. Cox, K. R., & Mair, A. (1988). Locality and Community in the Politics of Local Economic Development. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 78(2), 307-325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1988.tb00209.x
15. Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: A Short Introduction. Wiley.
16. Danış, D. (2018). Türkiye’de kent mültecileri ve misafirperverlik. TESEV.
17. Davis, T. (2010). Third Spaces or Heterotopias? Recreating and Negotiating Migrant Identity Using Online Spaces. Sociology, 44(4), 661-677. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038510369356
18. Demirkol, A. (2022). Kentlerde Yer Duygusu: Karadeniz Ereğli ve Özelleştirmenin Yerel Etkileri. İdeal Kent Yayınları.
19. Düvell, F. (2014). Turkey’s Transition to an Immigration Country: A Paradigm Shift. Insight Turkey. https://www.insightturkey.com/articles/turkeys-transition-to-an-immigration-country-a-paradigm-shift
20. Elias, N., & Scotson, J. L. (1994). The Established and the Outsiders. SAGE.
21. Fazel, M. (2018). Refugees and the post-migration environment. BMC Medicine, 16(1), 164. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1155-y
22. Ferris, E. (2020). Making Sense of Public Policy on Refugee Integration. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 690(1), 200-224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716220941577
23. Foucault, M. (1986). Of Other Spaces (J. Miskowiec, Çev.). Diacritics, 16(1), 22-27. https://doi.org/10.2307/464648
24. GİB. (2025). Göç İdaresi Başkanlığı Yıllara Göre Geçici Koruma Kapsamındaki Suriyeliler. https://goc.gov.tr/gecici-koruma5638
25. Göçoğlu, V., & Göçoğlu, İ. D. (2025). Local potentials for achieving sustainable development goals: Qualitative evidence from local governments in Türkiye. Local Government Studies, 51(4), 651-672. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2024.2380028
26. Gökarıksel, B., & Secor, A. J. (2020). Affective geopolitics: Anxiety, pain, and ethics in the encounter with Syrian refugees in Turkey. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 38(7-8), 1237-1255. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654418814257
27. Gölcü, A., & Dağlı, A. N. (2017). Haber Söyleminde ‘Öteki’yi Aramak: Suriyeli Mülteciler Örneği. Akdeniz Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28, 11-38. https://doi.org/10.31123/akil.437410
28. Güngördü, F. N., & Bayırbağ, M. K. (2019). Policy and Planning in the Age of Mobilities: Refugees and Urban Planning in Turkey. Içinde Ö. B. Özdemir Sarı: S. Özdemir, & N. Uzun (Ed.), Urban and Regional Planning in Turkey (ss. 185-211). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05773-2_10
29. Haines, D. W. (1982). Southeast Asian Refugees in the United States: The Interaction of Kinship and Public Policy. Anthropological Quarterly, 55(3), 170-181. https://doi.org/10.2307/3318026
30. Harvey, D. (2015). Asi Şehirler: Şehir Hakkından Kentsel Devrime Doğru. (A. D. Temiz, Çev.). Metis Yayınları.
31. Irgil, E. (2022). When the Government Comes to the Neighbourhood: Everyday Regulations and Syrian Refugees’ Encounters with Local State Authorities. Journal of Refugee Studies, 35(2), 893-909. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feac008
32. Jubilut, L. L. (2010). Enhancing refugees’ integration: New initiatives in Brazil. Forced Migration Review, 1(35), 46-47.
33. Kale, B. (2017). The Limits of an International Burden-sharing Approach: The Syrian Refugee Protection Crisis and Its Consequences on Turkey’s Refugee Policy. PERCEPTIONS: Journal of International Affairs, 22(3), 55-84.
34. Kale, B., & Erdoğan, M. (2019). The Impact of GCR on Local Governments and Syrian Refugees in Turkey. International Migration, 57(6), 224-242. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12658
35. Karaman, N. (2022). Coding Whiteness and Racialization: Living in the Space as an Insider-Outsider. Journal of International Students, 12(S2), 124-140. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v12iS2.4336
36. Karmaz, E. (2021). Mekânın gündelik yaşam içinde kurgulanışı: Özne-mekân etkileşim süreci. İçinde S. C. Beritan, E. Haspolat, H. Sağlam, & D. Yıldırım (Ed.), Mekânı düşünmek: Felsefe, politika, mimarlık, sinema (ss. 67-89). Nika Yayınevi.
37. Kaya, A. (2020). Migration as a Leverage Tool in International Relations: Turkey as a Case Study. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 17(68), 21-39. https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.856870
38. Keleş, R. (2015). Kent, Kentsel Siyaset ve Çevre Yazıları. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
39. Keleş, R. (2016a). Kentleşme Politikası (15. bs). İmge Kitabevi.
40. Keleş, R. (2016b). Şehirciliğin Kuramsal Temelleri. İdeal Kent Yayınları.
41. Kırdım, Ş. E., & Demirkol, A. (2021). Türk göç hukukunu TWAIL üzerinden değerlendirmek: Dünya beş’ten ne kadar büyük? Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(2), 1577-1613.
42. Kırmızıgül, Ç. M. (2019). Komşudan Yabanciya, Misafirden Mülteciye: Yerel Halkin Gözünden Türkiye’de Mülteciler. Nüfusbilim Dergisi, 41(1), 84-102. Kirisci, K. (2003, Kasım 1). Turkey: A Transformation from Emigration to Immigration. Migrationpolicy.Org. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/turkey-transformation-emigration-immigration
43. Knight, K. T. (2017). Placeless places: Resolving the paradox of Foucault’s heterotopia. Textual Practice, 31(1), 141-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950236X.2016.1156151
44. Koca, B. T. (2015). Deconstructing Turkey’s “Open Door” Policy towards Refugees from Syria. Migration Letters, 12(3), 209-225.
45. Küfeoğlu, S. (2022). SDG-11: Sustainable Cities and Communities. Içinde S. Küfeoğlu (Ed.), Emerging Technologies: Value Creation for Sustainable Development (ss. 385-408). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07127-0_13
46. Lefebvre, H. (2015). Şehir Hakkı. (I. Ergüden, Çev.) Sel Yayıncılık.
47. Lowndes, V., & Polat, R. K. (2022). How do local actors interpret, enact and contest policy? An analysis of local government responses to meeting the needs of Syrian refugees in Turkey. Local Government Studies, 48(3), 546-569. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2020.1825386
48. Łukasiewicz, K., Oren, T., & Tripathi: (2023). Local welfare system response to refugees: Between innovations, efficiency, and creating unequal opportunities. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 49(1), 350-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2021.1905506
49. Mackenney, R. (1989). The city-state: 1500-1700. Humanities Press International.
50. Olga, L. (2013). A Border within a Border: The Migrants’ Squatter Settlement in Patras as a Heterotopia. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 28(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2012.751731
51. Oliver, C., Dekker, R., Geuijen, K., & Broadhead, J. (2020). Innovative strategies for the reception of asylum seekers and refugees in European cities: Multi-level governance, multi-sector urban networks and local engagement. Comparative Migration Studies, 8(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-020-00189-y
52. Oner, A. C., Durmaz-Drinkwater, B., & Grant, R. J. (2021). Precarity of refugees: The case of Basmane-İzmir, Turkey. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 47(20), 4651-4670. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1732591
53. Oomen, B. (2021). Chapter 19: Cities, refugees and migration. Edward Elgar.
54. Penbecioğlu Savran, S., & Demirkol, A. (Ed.). (2024). Dış göçün odağında Türkiye kentleri: Kuram, uygulama ve mekânın değişimi. İdeal Kent Yayınları.
55. Relph, E. C. (1976). Place and Placelessness. Pion.
56. Relph, E. (2015). Sense of Place: an Overview. http://www.placeness.com/sense-of-place-an-overview/ (28.08.2025).
57. Sanyal, R. (2012). Refugees and the City: An Urban Discussion. Geography Compass, 6(11), 633-644. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12010
58. Saraçoğlu, C., & Bélanger, D. (2018). Mekan, Yer ve Şehir: Türkiye’de Suriyeli Karşıtlığının Kentteki Görünümleri. Eğitim Bilim Toplum Dergisi, 16(62), 46-73.
59. Saraçoğlu, C., & Bélanger, D. (2019). Türkiye’deki Suriyeli Mülteci İşçileri Konumlandırmak: Mekânsal Ayar, Sermaye ve Devlet. Praksis, 51, 159-179.
60. Saraçoğlu, C., & Bélanger, D. (2021). Governance through discipline in the neighbourhood: Syrian refugees and Turkish citizens in urban life. Canadian Geographies / Géographies Canadiennes, 65(4), 463-475. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12704
61. Sarıoğlu, G. (2019). İstanbul Esenyurt’taki Suriyelilere İlişkin Medya Analizi. Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi, 2(1), 192-211. https://doi.org/10.33712/mana.512330
62. Savran, S., & Sat, N. A. (2019). Ankara’da Suriyeli Göçmenlerin Yer Seçimi Tercihlerinin İncelenmesi ve Bir Etnik Kentsel Adacık Örneği Olarak Önder, Ulubey, Alemdağ Mahalleleri. Journal of Ankara Studies / Ankara Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(2), 283-302. https://doi.org/10.5505/jas.2019.33154
63. Seamon, D., & Sowers, J. (2008). Place and Placelessness (1976): Edward Relph. Key Texts in Human Geography. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446213742.n6
64. Seethaler-Wari: (2018). Urban Planning for the Integration of Refugees: The Importance of Local Factors. Urban Planning, 3(4), 141-155. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v3i4.1696
65. Sibley, D. (1995). Geographies of exclusion: Society and difference in the West. Routledge.
66. Smith, K. B., & Larimer, C. W. (2018). The public policy theory primer (Third edition). Routledge.
67. Stokols, N., & Shumaker: (1981). People in places: A transactional view of settings.
68. Şengül, H. T. (2009). Kentsel çelişki ve siyaset: Kapitalist kentleşme süreçlerinin eleştirisi. İmge Kitabevi.
69. Şiriner Önver, M., Kanbak, A., & Pınarcıoğlu Ocakhan, N. Ş. (2022). Examination of Metropolitan Municipalities in Turkey with Urban Refugees. Journal of Current Debates in Social Sciences, 5(2), 147-156. https://doi.org/10.29228/cudes.66988
70. Toruńczyk-Ruiz, S., Cárdenas, D., & Verkuyten, M. (2024). Born a local or living like one: Understandings of local belonging and outgroup attitudes. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology, 6, 100199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cresp.2024.100199
71. Tuan, Y.-F. (1972). Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception : Attitudes and Values. Department of Geography, University of Minnesota.
72. Tuan, Y.-F. (1975). Place: An Experiential Perspective. Geographical Review, 65(2), 151-165. https://doi.org/10.2307/213970
73. Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. E. Arnold.
74. Tuan, Y.-F. (1979). Space and Place: Humanistic Perspective. Içinde S. Gale & G. Olsson (Ed.), Philosophy in Geography (ss. 387-427). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9394-5_19
75. Tumen, S. (2023). The case of Syrian refugees in Türkiye: Successes, challenges, and lessons learned (World Development Report 2023: Migrants, Refugees, and Societies).World Bank.https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/a007833298df4b9c3735602711dd9289-0050062023/original/WDR2023-Turkey-case-study-FORMATTED.pdf
76. Tümtaş, M. S. (2018). Toplumsal Dışlanmadan Vatandaşlık Tartışmalarına Suriyeli Kent Mültecileri. Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi, 18(37), 26-47. https://doi.org/10.25294/auiibfd.420796
77. Ulubay, S., & Önal, F. (2022). Göç tartışmaları bağlamında yabancılaşmanın kaynağı olarak mekân. Megaron, 17(2), 264-273. https://doi.org/10.14744/MEGARON.2022.97957
78. UNDP Türkiye. (2024). Anasayfa. Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma İçin Küresel Amaçlar. https://www.kureselamaclar.org/
79. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press.