Who do migrant associations represent? The role of ‘ethnic deservingness’ and legal capital in migrants’ rights claims in Turkey

ABSTRACT

Considering that established migrant associations often play an active role in migrants’ rights advocacy, the relationship between them and the growing numbers of irregular migrants needs careful scrutiny. Looking at the encounters between irregular Bulgarian Turkish migrants and associations established by their co-ethnics who hold Turkish citizenship in Turkey, our ethnographic evidence shows that co-ethnic migrant associations mobilise the legal frame of ‘ethnic deservingness’ with the intention of welcoming co-ethnics to the Turkish homeland. In the absence of other formal organisations for rights advocacy, associations’ appeals to this frame emerge as a civic resource for the irregular newcomers in their permanent residency claims. At the same time, the same frame hides unequal power relations within co-ethnic communities, that is, newcomers’ peripheral positions within associations and the economic costs of filing claims via associations. This situation creates a representational gap in the associational context between its active members with higher legal capital and irregular newcomers with lower legal capital. Tackling the problem of representation determined by the legal hierarchy, this study questions whether migrant associations should still be considered important political actors when undocumented/irregular migrants outnumber regulars—especially with regard to the immediate political/legal actions they require.

KEYWORDS:

• Migrant associations
• rights claims
• representation
• ethnic deservingness
• legality

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Michael McCann, Amanda Fulmer, Leila Kawar, Mark Fathi Massoud, Joel Migdal, Reşat Kasaba and the participants of the Turkish Circle at the University of Washington for their valuable feedback on an early draft, and Ayşen Üstübici, Elif Keskiner, Rémy Koolschijn, Floris Vermeulen and Sébastien Chauvin for their crucial input at a critical stage. Finally, I am indebted to Ayşe Parla for her candid mentorship and indispensable support.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. For Bourdieu (1991) the amount and type of capital that an agent possesses also locates him in the social field according to the ‘distribution of species of power (or capital)', yet not only with respect to the overall volume of the capital they possess but also according to the relative weight of the different kinds of capital in the total set of their assets. Since, in the case of migrants, the first pertinent variable that determines the relative weight emerge as their legal statuses, I focus here on the ‘legal’ capital.

2. I use the legal field instead of Bourdieu's juridical field since my analysis is focused on how all sorts of legal rules and regulations shape a field where associations and migrants meet.

3. According to the editor of BTSA's journal, membership stands at 40,000. The BMCA's website states a figure of 15,000 members in 2010.

4. Izmir BMCA is part of the Federation of Balkan Turks Migrant and Refugee Associations.

5. During one of our visits, the General Secretary showed discontent with the ‘legal position deemed worthy of an association representing the rights of immigrants' and with being treated no differently from ‘association of canary-bird-lovers'. Nevertheless, he did not tell whether the BTSA had applied for this special status, and if so, why it was rejected. Updated information available at: http://www.dernekler.gov.tr/tr/AnasayfaLinkler/sss/kamu-yararina-calisan-dernek.aspx [accessed 11 November 2014].

6. The condition of permanent residency was brought with the 2003 amendment (law no. 4778) to the old association law of Turkey (no. 2908). The new association law (no. 5253) abolished law no. 2908 but did not regulate foreigners' membership in associations nor nullify the 2003 amendment. P.c., General Secretary of BMCA, 9 January 2010.

7. On the precarious status of the post-1990s labour migrants in Turkey, see among others (Akalın 2007; Eder 2007).

8. For a detailed comparison of the two associations please, see (Kaşlı 2010).

9. This regulation applied to the Turks of Western Thrace, Iraq, Eastern Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Bulgaria. Following an appeal from the Chamber of Engineers and Architects, implementation of this regulation stopped but later resumed in June 2012. http://www2.tbmm.gov.tr/d24/7/7-7365sgc.pdf [accessed 20 November 20 2014].

The General Secretary explained that, in his court files, he referred to such confidential regulations and 1981 Law no. 2527 which allowed people of Turkish descent to work in their field of occupation, nullified after the 2003 Law on Work Permits for Foreigners came into force to address all non-citizens.

10. P.c., General Secretary, 9 January 2010.

11. Although it was repeated in the foreigners department and BTSA, the existence and the exact criteria of a fixed list of 900 people was not confirmed by any authority.

Additional information

Funding

The research for this paper was funded by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey [project grant numbers 106K162 and 108K522] and undertaken by Ayşe Parla while I worked as projects’ research assistant at Sabanci University, Istanbul.