Threshold Cities in the Context of International Migration: Displacement Governance and Liminality

Öz

The paper examines spatial, administrative and existential practices of exclusion, uncertainty and displacement experienced by migrants in the cities. The research is focused on the subject of the duality of inclusion and exclusion experienced by displaced populations in urban environments, in the face of widespread migration, how it operates through the dynamics of the ‘asylum paradox’. Urban areas are seen as places of contradiction that may be both sources of shelter and marginalization for migrants. Migrants living in cities have access to housing, job and social networks, but also endure hardships from physical isolation, legal vulnerability and structural exclusion. To explain the unequal distribution of migrants over cities, it is important to understand the circumstances contributing to this paradox. The research is conceptually informed by the concepts of spatiality, urban citizenship and liminality. Based on qualitative research grounded in secondary data analysis, the study finds that the MIPEX data provide insights indicating that migrant integration policies contribute to a decline in democratic satisfaction among people with attitudes and an increase in social polarization, according to the 2025 GRID and the 2026 World Migration Report, the vast majority of the 83 million people displaced by conflict and natural disasters have settled in urban areas. Against this background, metropolitan settings are viewed as dualistic spaces that offer emancipatory opportunities for migrants but also limiting, and perhaps discriminating, pressures. In this perspective, migrants are trying to survive by building networks of solidarity, developing geographic enclaves and reinterpreting their living circumstances.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• spatial segregation
• urban vulnerability
• threshold city
• urban citizenship
• migration governance

Destekleyen Kurum

There is no financial support.

Etik Beyan

Ethics committee approval is not required for this study. The wet-signed consent form regarding this has been added to the article's process file.

Teşekkür

There are no individuals or institutions to thank.

Uluslararası Göç Bağlamında Eşik Kentler: Yerinden Edilme, Yönetişim ve Liminalite

Öz

Bu makale, kentlerde yaşayan göçmenlerin maruz kaldığı dışlanma, belirsizlik ve yerinden edilme durumlarının mekânsal, idari ve varoluşsal boyutlarını incelemektedir. Araştırma, yaygın göç olgusu karşısında kentsel ortamlarda yerinden edilmiş nüfusların yaşadığı “dahil olma ve dışlanma” ikilemine odaklanmakta ve bu ikilemin “iltica paradoksu” dinamikleri aracılığıyla nasıl işlediğini ele almaktadır. Kentsel alanlar, göçmenler için hem barınma hem de marjinalleşmenin kaynağı olabilecek çelişkili mekanlar olarak görülmektedir. Şehirlerde yaşayan göçmenler barınma, iş ve sosyal ağlara erişime sahip olmakla birlikte, fiziksel izolasyon, hukuki savunmasızlık ve yapısal dışlanmadan kaynaklanan zorluklara da maruz kalmaktadır. Göçmenlerin şehirler arasında eşitsiz dağılımını açıklamak için, bu paradoksa katkıda bulunan koşulları anlamak önemlidir. Araştırma, mekânsallık, kentsel vatandaşlık ve liminalite kavramlarından kavramsal olarak beslenmektedir. İkincil veri analizine dayanan nitel araştırmaya dayanan bu çalışma, MIPEX verilerinin, göçmen entegrasyon politikalarının, belirli tutumlara sahip kişiler arasında demokratik memnuniyetin azalmasına ve sosyal kutuplaşmanın artmasına katkıda bulunduğuna dair içgörüler sağladığını ortaya koymaktadır. 2025 GRID ve 2026 Dünya Göç Raporu’na göre, çatışmalar ve doğal afetler nedeniyle yerinden edilen 83 milyon kişinin büyük çoğunluğu kentsel alanlara yerleşmiştir. Bu bağlamda, metropol ortamları, göçmenler için özgürleştirici fırsatlar sunarken aynı zamanda kısıtlayıcı ve belki de ayrımcı baskılar da yaratan ikili yapılı mekanlar olarak görülmektedir. Bu bakış açısıyla, göçmenler dayanışma ağları kurarak, coğrafi yerleşim alanları geliştirerek ve yaşam koşullarını yeniden yorumlayarak hayatta kalmaya çalışmaktadırlar.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• mekânsal ayrışma
• kentsel kırılganlık
• eşik kent
• kentsel yurttaşlık
• göç yönetişimi

Destekleyen Kurum

Finansal destek bulunmamaktadır.

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma için etik kurul iznine gerek yoktur. Buna ilişkin ıslak imzalı onam formu makale süreç dosyasına eklenmiştir.

Teşekkür

Teşekkür edilecek kişi veya kurum bulunmamaktadır.

Kaynakça

1. Aguiar, A. F. de M., Ellmanns, L., Franke, U., Gunaseelan, P., Meibauer, G., Müller, C., Schnabel, A., Trepp, U., Zaffran, R., & Zumsteg, R. (2018). Examining the urban dimension of the security sector: Providing security in urban environments: The role of security sector governance and reform. Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces.
2. Akdemir, İ. O., & Türkoğlu, E. (2022). Göçlerin mekânın dönüşümüne etkisi: Güney Marmara Bölümü örneği. Göç Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(2), 191–225. https://izlik.org/JA39NP25ZU
3. Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso.
4. Arendt, H. (1998). The human condition. The University of Chicago Press.
5. Awasthi, S. (2021). ‘Hyper’ urbanisation and migration: A security threat. Cities, 108, 102965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102965
6. 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
7. Bal, H. (2008). Kent sosyolojisi. Fakülte Kitabevi.
8. Balibar, É. (2002). Politics and the other scene. Verso.

9. Balibar, É. (2009). We, the people of Europe? Princeton University Press.
10. Bartram, D., Poros, M. V., & Monforte, P. (2019). Göç meselesinde temel kavramlar (I. A. Tuncay, Çev.). Hece Yayınları.
11. Bauman, Z. (2012a). Globalization: The human consequences. Polity Press.
12. Bauman, Z. (2016). Strangers at our door. Polity Press.
13. Baysal, B., & Lüleci, Ç. (2015). Kopenhag Okulu ve güvenlikleştirme teorisi. Güvenlik Stratejileri Dergisi, 11(22), 61–96. https://izlik.org/JA75XT76JP
14. Bisht, T. C. (2024). Forced displacement: A rapidly rising vulnerability and its challenges for an inclusive and sustainable Asia and the Pacific (ADBI Working Paper No. 1465). Asian Development Bank Institute. https://doi.org/10.56506/JXPD1578
15. Blokland, T., Hentschel, C., Holm, A., Lebuhn, H., & Margalit, T. (2015). Urban citizenship and right to the city: The fragmentation of claims. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(4), 655–665. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12259
16. Boese, M., & Macdonald, K. (2017). Restricted entitlements for skilled temporary migrants: The limits of migrant consent. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(9), 1472–1489. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2016.1237869
17. Bremner, L. (2005). Border/skin. In M. Sorkin (Ed.), Against the wall. The New Press.
18. Brubaker, W. R. (1990). Immigration, citizenship, and the nation-state in France and Germany: A comparative historical analysis. International Sociology, 5(4), 379–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/026858090005004003
19. Brun, C. (2015). Active waiting and changing hopes: Toward a time perspective on protracted displacement. Social Analysis, 59(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.3167/sa.2015.590102
20. Burgess, E. W. (1925). The growth of the city. In R. E. Park, E. W. Burgess, & R. D. McKenzie (Eds.), The city (pp. 47–62). The University of Chicago Press.
21. Burgess, E. W. (1967a). The growth of the city: An introduction to a research project. In R. E. Park, E. W. Burgess, & R. D. McKenzie (Eds.), The city: Suggestions for investigation of human behavior in the urban environment (pp. 47–62). The University of Chicago Press.
22. Castles, S. M., & Miller, M. J. (2008). Göçler çağı: Modern dünyada uluslararası göç hareketleri (B. U. Bal & İ. Akbulut, Çev.). İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
23. Chacko, E., & Price, M. (2021). (Un)settled sojourners in cities: The scalar and temporal dimensions of migrant precarity. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 47(20), 4597–4614. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1731060
24. Cohen, N., & Margalit, T. (2015). ‘There are really two cities here’: Fragmented urban citizenship in Tel Aviv. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(4), 666–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12260
25. Crawley, H., Hemmings, J., & Price, N. (2011). Coping with destitution: Survival and livelihood strategies of refused asylum seekers living in the UK (Oxfam Research Report). Oxfam. https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/wps/oxfam/0021554/f_0021554_17843.pdf
26. Dahl, R. A. (2005). Who governs?: Democracy and power in an American city. Yale University Press.
27. Fainstein, S. (2011). The just city. Cornell University Press.
28. Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France 1977–1978. Palgrave Macmillan.
29. Foucault, M. (2009). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France 1978–1979. Palgrave.
30. Gebhardt, D. (2016). When the state takes over: Civic integration programmes and the role of cities in immigrant integration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(5), 742–758. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2015.1111132
31. Giddens, A. (1985). The nation-state and violence: Volume two of a contemporary critique of historical materialism. Polity Press.
32. Giddens, A. (1997a). Sociology (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
33. Glick Schiller, N., & Çağlar, A. (2009a). Towards a comparative theory of locality in migration studies: Migrant incorporation and city scale. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35(2), 177–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691830802586179
34. Glick Schiller, N., & Çağlar, A. (2011). Introduction: Migrants and cities. In N. Glick Schiller & A. Çağlar (Eds.), Locating migration: Rescaling cities and migrants. Cornell University Press.
35. Goldfield, D. R. (Ed.). (2007). Multicentered metropolis and multiple-nuclei theory. In Encyclopedia of American urban history (Vol. 2, p. 504). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412952620.n285
36. Gözler, K. (2011). Anayasa hukukunun genel esasları ders kitabı (Güncelleştirilmiş 2. bs.). Ekin Basım Yayın Dağıtım.
37. GRID Report. (2025). Global report on internal displacement 2025. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. https://api.internal-displacement.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/idmc-grid-2025-global-report-on-internal-displacement.pdf
38. Griffiths, M. B. E. (2014). Out of time: The temporal uncertainties of refused asylum seekers and immigration detainees. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40(12), 1991–2009. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2014.907737
39. Hardyns, W., & Pauwels, L. J. R. (2017). The Chicago School and criminology. In J. H. Laub (Ed.), The handbook of the history and philosophy of criminology (pp. 123–139). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119011385.ch7
40. Harvey, D. (2009). Social justice and the city. University of Georgia Press.
41. Hennebry, J., & Williams, G. (2015). Making vulnerability visible: Medical repatriation and Canada's migrant agricultural workers. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 187(6), 391–392. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.141189
42. Hoyt, H. (1939). The structure and growth of residential areas in American cities. Federal Housing Administration.
43. İçduygu, A., & Biehl, K. (2012). Kentler ve göç. In A. İçduygu (Ed.), Kentler ve göç. İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
44. İçduygu, A., & Diker, E. (2017). Labor market integration of Syrians refugees in Turkey: From refugees to settlers. Göç Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 12–35. https://izlik.org/JA52XS52YH
45. İçduygu, A., Erder, S., & Gençkaya, Ö. F. (2014). Türkiye'nin uluslararası göç politikaları, 1923–2023. MireKoç Yayınları.
46. Janson, A., & Tigges, F. (2014). Fundamental concepts of architecture: The vocabulary of spatial situations. Birkhäuser.
47. Karadağ, A. (2015). Refugees of a city: The socio-spatial impacts of those Syrian refugees who arrive in İzmir. In G. Şeker, İ. Şirkeci, A. Tilbe, M. Okmen, P. Yazgan, & D. Eroğin (Eds.), Turkish Migration Conference 2015 selected proceedings (pp. 118–125). Transnational Press.
48. Kaya, E., Şentürk, H., Daniş, O., & Şimşek, S. (2008). Modern kent yönetimi-I. Okutan Yayıncılık.
49. Keleş, R. (1972). Şehirciliğin kuramsal temelleri. Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Yayınları.
50. Kirişçi, K. (2014). Syrian refugees and Turkey's challenges: Going beyond hospitality. Brookings Institution.
51. Lefebvre, H. (1996). Right to the city. In E. Kofman & E. Lebas (Eds.), Writings on cities, Henri Lefebvre. Blackwell.
52. Lefebvre, H. (2014a). Critique of everyday life: The three-volume text (M. Trebitsch, Trans.). Verso Books. (Original work published 1947, 1961, 1981)
53. Lefebvre, H. (2014b). Mekânın üretimi (I. Ergüden, Çev.; 2. bs.). Sel Yayıncılık.
54. Lei, J. (2025). Dilemmas of community integration for migrant populations in the urbanization process: An empirical analysis based on social identity theory. Journal of Sociology and Education, 1(8). https://doi.org/10.63887/jse.2025.1.8.13
55. Lobo, M. (2021). Living on the edge: Precarity and freedom in Darwin, Australia. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 47(20), 4615–4630. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1732585
56. Malkki, L. H. (1995). Purity and exile: Violence, memory, and national cosmology among Hutu refugees in Tanzania. The University of Chicago Press.
57. Marcuse, P. (1995). Not chaos, but walls: Postmodernism and the partitioned city. In S. Watson & K. Gibson (Eds.), Postmodern cities and spaces. Blackwell.
58. Marcuse, P., & Van Kempen, R. (Eds.). (2002). Of states and cities: The partitioning of urban space. Oxford University Press.
59. Marshall, T. H. (2000). Yurttaşlık ve toplumsal sınıflar. In A. Kaya (Trans.), Yurttaşlık ve toplumsal sınıflar (pp. 15–82). Gündoğan Yayınları.
60. Marshall, T. H., & Bottomore, T. (1992). Citizenship and social class. Pluto Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt18mvns1
61. McKay, H. D., & Shaw, C. (2010). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas: A study of rates of delinquency in relation to differential characteristics of local communities in American cities. In M. Andersen, P. Brantingham, & B. Kinney (Eds.), Classics in environmental criminology (pp. 87–123). Simon Fraser University Publications.
62. Melara, J. E., Grant, R., Oteng-Ababio, M., & Ayele, B. (2013). Downgrading: An overlooked reality in African cities: Reflections from an indigenous neighbourhood of Accra, Ghana. Applied Geography, 36, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.04.012
63. Negiz, N., & Yalçın, Ö. (2022). Kent ve göç. In A. Öcal (Ed.), Göç politikalarına disiplinler arası bir bakış (1st ed.). Detay Yayıncılık.
64. Nicholls, W. J., & Uitermark, J. (2016). Migrant cities: Place, power, and voice in the era of super diversity. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(6), 877–892. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2015.1126088
65. Nyers, P. (1998). Refugees, humanitarian emergencies, and the politicization of life. Refuge: Canada's Periodical on Refugees, 17(6), 16–22.
66. Nyers, P. (2006). Rethinking refugees: Beyond states of emergency. Routledge.
67. Oner, A. C., Durmaz-Drinkwater, B., & Grant, R. J. (2020). Precarity of refugees: The case of Basmane-İzmir, Turkey. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46(14), 3037–3054. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1732591
68. Pahl, R. E. (1969). Whose city. New Society, 23, 120–122.
69. Park, R. E. (1925). The city: Suggestions for the investigation of human behavior in the urban environment. In R. E. Park, E. W. Burgess, & R. D. McKenzie (Eds.), The city (pp. 1–46). The University of Chicago Press.
70. Portes, A. (2000). Immigration and the metropolis: Reflections on urban history. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 1(2), 153–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-000-1000-x
71. Rajca, L. (2020). The role of cities in the integration of immigrants in Europe. Studia Europejskie – Studies in European Affairs, 3/2020, 165–181. https://doi.org/10.33067/SE.3.2020.9
72. Şahin, S. Z. (2021). Kent yurttaşlığı temelinde göç ve kent konseylerini düşünmek. Göç Dergisi, 8(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.33182/gd.v8i1.773
73. Sassen, S. (1996). New employment regimes in cities: The impact on immigrant workers. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 22(4), 579–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.1996.9976561
74. Sassen, S. (1999). Guests and aliens. New Press.
75. Saunders, P. (1979). Urban politics: A sociological interpretation. Hutchinson & Company.
76. Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.006
77. Scott, J. W. (2009). A critical perspective on EU territoriality and geopolitics. TRAMES: A Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 13(3), 232–247. Doi: 10.3176/tr.2009.3.03
78. Serter, G. (2013). Şikago Okulu kent kuramı: Kentsel ekolojik kuram. Planning, 23(2), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.5505/planlama.2013.98608
79. Simmel, G. (1997). Bridge and door. In N. Leach (Ed.), Rethinking architecture: A reader in cultural theory. Routledge.
80. Smith, A. D. (2022). Milliyetçilik ve modernizm (F. Bakırcı, Çev.). FOL Yayınları.
81. Sottini, M. V. (2024). Spaces of intersectional struggle: Migrant women's urban citizenship amidst COVID-19 in South Korea. Cities, 147, 104711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.104826
82. Stavrides, S. (2010). Towards the city of thresholds. Professionaldreamers. https://www.academia.edu/36661656/Towards_the_city_of_thresholds
83. Tan, Y. (2021). Temporary migrants and public space: A case study of Dongguan, China. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 47(20), 4688–4704. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1732615
84. Thompson, D. (2016). Risky business and geographies of refugee capitalism in the Somali migrant economy of Gauteng, South Africa. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(1), 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2015.1073580
85. Thorns, D. C. (2004). Kentlerin dönüşümü, kent teorisi ve kentsel yaşam. Soyak Yayınları.
86. Turner, V. (1967). The forest of symbols: Aspects of Ndembu ritual. Cornell University Press.
87. Turner, V. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Aldine Publishing Company.
88. Uitermark, J., Rossi, U., & van Houtum, H. (2005). Reinventing multiculturalism: Urban citizenship and the negotiation of ethnic diversity in Amsterdam. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(3), 622–640. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2005.00614.x
89. Van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites of passage (M. B. Vizedom & G. L. Caffee, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1909)
90. Varsanyi, M. W. (2006). Interrogating “urban citizenship” vis-à-vis undocumented migration. Citizenship Studies, 10(2), 229–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621020600633168
91. World Migration Report. (2026). World migration report 2026. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/world-migration-report-2026
92. Yakar, M. (2021). Türkiye’ye göçün değişen zamansal ve mekânsal örüntüleri. Ege Coğrafya Dergisi, 30(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.51800/ecd.848106
93. Yeoh, B. S. A. (2006). Bifurcated labour: The unequal incorporation of transmigrants in Singapore. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 97(1), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2006.00493.x
94. Yıldız, A., & Uzgören, E. (2016). Limits to temporary protection: Non-camp Syrian refugees in İzmir, Turkey. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 16(2), 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2016.1165492
95. Yıldız, S., & Baygeldi, M. R. (2025). Urban security and migration. In A. Esen, M. Yayla, U. Ayhan, A. C. Arslan, & B. Erbaş (Eds.), Metropol ve güvenlik: İnsan hakları ve sivil toplum perspektifi (pp. 31–51). İstanbul University Press. https://doi.org/10.26650/B/SSc6SSc14SSc24.2025.007.03
96. Zacca Thomaz, D. (2022). Urban citizenship for all? Exploring the limits of an agenda in Sao Paulo's squats. Migration Studies, 10(2), 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mnab046