“You Know, We Live in Fear”: Transit Migrants with Their Neglected Disabilities in IstanbulKumkapı

Abstract

When migrants are not able to reach their target country, they stop by in other countries on their migration route. Kumkapı area is one of the passing points for Europe targeted migration, which is home to long periods of waiting. This study will talk about the obstacles the international migrants go through in Kumkapı-İstanbul region; the immigrants who have left their home and try to keep their culture alive in a place they do not belong to. The obstacles these transit immigrants experience in an urban environment without the facility of making use of public and other services are reviewed with the ethnography method. Kumkapı area has been a transforming area since 1970's, and currently has a social mosaic that is filled with illegality and poverty. This region, which can be called an area of the excluded, has become an area that never gets visited by the other classes of the society.

Keywords

• Transit Migration; Neglected Disabilities; Kumkapı; İstanbul

Kaynakça

1. Akın, N. (1999). “Kumkapı: Tarihsel bir kesit”, Arredamento- Mimarlık, 5: 68-76.
2. Boswell, C. (2005). Migration in Europe. Policy Analysis and Research Programme of the Global Commission on International Migration.
3. Böcker, A. and Havinga, T. (1997). Asylum migration to the European Union: Patterns of origin and destination, Nijmegen: Institute for the Sociology of Law.
4. Brewer, K. T. and Yükseker, D. (2006). A Survey on African Migrants and Asylum Seekers in İstanbul, MiReKoc Research Project, Koç University, İstanbul .
5. Danış, D. A. (2004).“Yeni Göç Hareketleri ve Türkiye”, Birikim, No. 184-185:216-224.
6. Duffy, K. (1995). Social Exclusion and HumanDignity in Europe, Council of Europe, Brussels.
7. Düzgün, A. ve Çakırer Özservet, Y. (2013). “Obezite Engelliliği ve Obezlerin Kentte Mekansal Hareketlilik Durumları”, I. Ulusal “Engellileştirilenler” Sempozyumu, 7-8 Kasım 2013, Ulaşılabilir Kentler Engelsiz Mekanlar (UKEM) Hareketi, Selçuk Üniversitesi Mimarlık Bölümü, Konya, Kongre Kitabı pp.19-33.
8. Ehrkamp, P. and Leitner, H. (Guest Editorial). (2006). “Rethinking immigration and citizenship: new spaces of migrant transnationalism and belonging”, Environment and Planning A, vol. 38: 1591 -1597.

9. Elliot, R. ve Elliot N.J., 2003, “Using Ethnography in Strategic Consumer Research”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6(4):215-223.
10. Engelli ve Yaşlı Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü. (2002). ‘Türkiye Engelliler (http://www.eyh.gov.tr/tr/8245/Turkiye-Engelliler- Arastirmasi-Temel-Gostergeleri ) (Accessed 10 March 2014). Temel Göstergeleri’.
11. Goulding, C. (2005). Grounded Theory, Ethnography and Phenomenology a Comparative Analysis of Three Qualitative Strategies for Marketing Research, European Journal of Marketing, 39(3/4):294-308.
12. Kara, M. and Karakuyu, M. (2009). “The Socio-Economic Analysis of the Non-Muslim Population (i.e., Greek, Armenian and Jewish) in Contemporary Istanbul”. Fourth International Conference of the Asian Philosophical Association, Jakarta/Endonezya, Oct. 2009, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the Asian Philosophical Association, pp. 303-309.
13. Konuk, S. (2009). ‘Bir Planlama Yaklaşım Biçimi Olarak Kültürel Sürdürülebilirlik, Kumkapı Örneği’, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İTÜ FBE, İstanbul.
14. Kumkapı Yabancı Şube Müdürlüğü.(2008).Yasadışı göçmen verileri.
15. Müller – Wiener, W. (2003). Bizans’tan Osmanlı’ya İstanbul Limanı, Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, İstanbul.
16. Özgökçeler, S. and Alper, Y. (2010). “Özürlüler Kanunu’nun Sosyal Model Açısından Değerlendirilmesi”.İşletme ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, Vol.1, No.1:33-54.
17. Portes, A. and Robert, D. M. (1986). The immigrant enclave: Theory and empirical examples. In Joanne Nagel and Susan Olzak (eds). Competitive Ethnic Relations. Orlando. Academic Press, pp. 47-68.
18. Sever, H. Aslan, E. Gülenç, Ö. Arslan, S. (2007).Uluslar arası İnsan Hareketleri: Yabancıların Suç Analizi, İstanbul Emniyet Müdürlüğü Yabancılar Şubesi Yayınları, No. 1, İstanbul.
19. Seyyar, A. (2006). Özürlülere adanmış sosyal politika yazıları, Sakarya: Adapazarı B.Ş.B Yayınları.
20. Shepherd, J. D. (2006).‘Transnational Social Fields and the Experience of Transit Migrants in İstanbul’, Turkey, Master of Arts, Thesis in Anthropology, Texas Tech University, pp:92.
21. Sirkeci, İ. (2013). ‘Türkiye’nin Yaklaşan Göçmen Krizi: Suriyeli Mülteciler ve Diğerleri’, Cilt II, Sayı 8, s.6-10, Türkiye Politika ve Araştırma Merkezi (AnalizTürkiye), Londra: Analiz Türkiye
22. (http://researchturkey.org/?p=4177&lang=tr) (Accessed 6 March 2014)
23. Tekeli, İ. (1989). “Haritalar”, Dünden Bugünden İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, c.3.sy.556 – 560, Tarih Vakfı, İstanbul.
24. UN. (2013). ‘International Migration and Development’. (Accessed 6 March 2014)
25. UTSAM. (2012). Küresel Göç ve Fırsatçıları: Türkiye’de Yasadışı Göçmenler ve Göçmen Kaçakçıları. UTSAM Raporlar serisi:18.
26. Üner, G. (2006). ‘Kumkapı’da Kentsel Değişimin Belgelenmesi: Pervititch Haritalarıyla Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz’, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İTÜ FBE, İstanbul.
27. WHO. (2001). ICF İşlevsellik, Yetiyitimi ve sağlığın uluslar arası sınıflandırılması, Türlçe çevirisi, Ankara Bilge Matbaacılık. WHO. (2011). ‘World Report on Disability’. (http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789240 685215_eng.pdf?ua=1 ) (Accessed 10 March 2014)
28. Yılmaz, S. (2013). ‘En diptekiler’, Özgür Gündem, 19.10.2013. (http://ozgur-gundem.com/?haberID=86471&haber Baslik=EN+DİPTEKİLER &action=haber_detay&module= nuce) RESUME