Bureaucratic challenges that refugees encounter: Burden of being a refugee in a small city¹

References

1. Alpes, M. J. (2017), ‘Papers that work: Migration brokers, state/market boundaries, and the place of law’, PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 40:2, pp. 262–77.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Ambrosini, M. and Boccagni, P. (2015), ‘Urban multiculturalism beyond the “backlash”: New discourses and different practices in immigrant policies across European cities’, Journal of Intercultural Studies, 36:1, pp. 35–53.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Andreetta, S. (2019), ‘Writing for different audiences: Social workers, irregular migrants, and fragmented statehood in Belgian welfare bureaucracies’, Journal of Legal Anthropology, 3:2, pp. 91–110.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bailey, F. G. (1969), Stratagems and Spoils: A Social Anthropology of Politics, Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bear, L. and Mathur, N. (2015), ‘Introduction remaking the public good: A new anthropology of bureaucracy’, Cambridge Anthropology, 33:1, pp. 18–34.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Bernstein, A. and Mertz, E. (2011), ‘Introduction: Bureaucracy: Ethnography of the state in everyday life’, PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 34:1, pp. 6–10.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Biehl, K. (2009), ‘Migration “securitization” and its everyday implications: An examination of Turkish asylum policy and practice’, Euro-Mediterranean Consortium for Applied Research on International Migration (CARIM), https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/11761/CARIM_SS_IV_Essay_2009_01.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 20 September 2022.
8. Broadhead, J. (2021), ‘How an interdisciplinary approach to narrative can support policymaking on migration and integration at the city level’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 697:1, pp. 207–20.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Castles, S. (2017), Migration, Citizenship and Identity Selected Essays, Sydney: Edward Edgar.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Chauvin, S. and Garcés-Mascareñas, B. (2012), ‘Beyond informal citizenship: The new moral economy of migrant illegality’, International Political Sociology, 6:3, pp. 241–59.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Chauvin, S. and Garcés-Mascareñas, B. (2014), ‘Becoming less illegal: Deservingness frames and undocumented migrant incorporation’, Sociology Compass, 8:4, pp. 422–32.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Codó, E. (2008), Immigration and Bureaucratic Control: Language Practices in Public Administration, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Düvell, F. (2019), ‘The “great migration” of summer 2015: Analyzing the assemblage of key drivers in Turkey’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45:12, pp. 2227–40.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Elliot, A. (2016), ‘Paused subjects: Waiting for migration in North Africa’, Time & Society, 25:1, pp. 102–16.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Erder, S. (2011), ‘Zor ziyaret: Nataşa mı? Döviz getiren bavul mu? Eski doğu bloku ülkelerinden gelen kadınların emek piyasasına girişi’, in S. Sancar and P. Özer (eds), 21. Yüzyıla Girerken Türkiye’de Feminist Çalışmalar Prof. Dr. Nermin Abadan Unat’a Armağan, Istanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları, pp. 191–218.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Erdoğan, M. (2017), Urban Refugees from ‘Detachment’ To ‘Harmonization’: Syrian Refugees and Process Management of Municipalities – The Case of Istanbul, Istanbul: Marmara Belediyeler Birliği Kültür Yayınları.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Erdoğan, M., Şener, B. and Ağca, M. (2021), Marmara’nın Kent Mültecileri, Belediyelerin Süreç Yönetimi, Istanbul: Marmara Belediyeler Birliği Kültür Yayınları.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Erdoğan, M. (2020), Suriyeliler Barometresi 2019: Suriyelilerle Uyum İçinde Yaşamın Çerçevesi, Ankara: Orion Kitabevi.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Genç, H. D. and Özdemirkıran-Embel, M. (2019), ‘Paradoxical perceptions on Syrians’ forced migration to Turkey: A case study of Istanbul Mukhtars’, Alternatif Politika, 11:1, pp. 168–91.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Genova, N. de (2002), ‘Migrant “illegality” and deportability in everyday life’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 31:1, pp. 419–47.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Glick Schiller, N. and Salazar, N. B. (2013), ‘Regimes of mobility across the globe’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39:2, pp. 183–200.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Graeber, D. (2015), The Utopia of Rules on Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy, New York: Melville House.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Helleiner, J. (2017), ‘Recruiting the “culturally compatible” migrant: Irish working holiday migration and white settler Canadianness’, Ethnicities, 17:3, pp. 299–319.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Khosravi, S. (2014), ‘Waiting’, in B. Anderson and M. Keith (eds), Migration: A COMPAS Anthology, Oxford: COMPAS, pp. 66–67.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Kirişci, K. (2014), Syrian Refugees and Turkey’s Challenges: Going Beyond Hospitality, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Syrian-Refugees-and-Turkeys-Challenges-May-14-2014.pdf. Accessed 10 September 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Könönen, J. (2018), ‘Border struggles within the state: Administrative bordering of non-citizens in Finland’, Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 8:3, pp. 143–50.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Korkut, U. (2016), ‘Pragmatism, moral responsibility or policy change: The Syrian refugee crisis and selective humanitarianism in the Turkish refugee regime’, Comparative Migration Studies, 4:1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-015-0020-9.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Law on Foreigners and International Protection (LFIP) (2013), Law No: 6458, 11 April, https://en.goc.gov.tr/kurumlar/en.goc/Ingilizce-kanun/Law-on-Foreigners-and-International-Protection.pdf. Accessed 25 December 2022.
29. Lipsky, M. (1980), Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Lüleci-Sula, Ç. and Sula, İ. E. (2021), ‘Migration management in Turkey: Discourse and practice’, Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 18:72, https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.1000756.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Marrow, H. B. (2009), ‘Immigrant bureaucratic incorporation: The dual roles of professional missions and government policies’, American Sociological Review, 74:5, pp. 756–76.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Navaro-Yashin, Y. (2007), ‘Make-believe papers, legal forms and the counterfeit: Affective interactions between documents and people in Britain and Cyprus’, Anthropological Theory, 7:1, pp. 79–98, https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499607074294.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Presidency of Migration Management (2022), ‘Geçici koruma’, 23 October, https://www.goc.gov.tr/gecici-koruma5638. Accessed 20 October 2022.
34. Sandoz, L. (2020), ‘Understanding access to the labor market through migration channels’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46:1, pp. 222–41.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Şaşmaz, O. Y. (2016), ‘1983–2015 döneminde genel seçimlerin sonuçlarina göre Elazığ’ın siyasi eğilimi’, Fırat Üniversitesi Harput Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3:1, pp. 77–96.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Şenoğuz, H. P. (2017), ‘Border contestations, Syrian refugees and violence in the southeastern margins of Turkey’, Movements: Journal for Critical Migration and Border Regime Studies, 3:2, https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01755300. Accessed 20 October 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Sharma, A. and Gupta, A. (2006), The Anthropology of the State: A Reader, Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Shore, C. and Wright, S. (1997), ‘Policy: A new field of anthropology’, in C. Shore and S. Wright (eds), Anthropology of Policy: Critical Perspectives on Governance and Power, London: Routledge, pp. 3–39.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Taş, D. and Tekkanat, S. S. (2018), ‘Yerel halk ve Suriyeli sığınmacılar arasında bir kent: Elazığ örneği’, Aksaray Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 10:4, pp. 77–90.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Tuckett, A. (2018), ‘Ethical brokerage and self-fashioning in Italian immigration bureaucracy’, Critique of Anthropology, 38:3, pp. 245–64, https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X18775199.
    [Google Scholar]
41. TÜİK (Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu) (2021), ‘Adrese dayalı nüfus kayıt sistemi sonuçları’, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Adrese-Dayali-Nufus-Kayit-Sistemi-Sonuclari-2021-45500. Accessed 15 October 2022.
42. UNHCR (UN Refugee Agency) (2021), ‘Güncel faaliyetler Mayıs 2021’, https://www.unhcr.org/tr/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2021/07/UNHCR-Turkey-Operational-Update-May-2021TR-F.pdf. Accessed 2 August 2022.
43. Üstübici, A. (2020), ‘Street-level justifications: Service providers mediating refugee reception in the urban context of Istanbul’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 35:1, pp. 74–92, https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/feaa061.
    [Google Scholar]
44. van Breugel, I. (2020), ‘Towards a typology of local migration diversity policies’, Comparative Migration Studies, 8:1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-020-00179-0.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Weber, M. (2009), ‘Bureaucracy’, in H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (eds), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, New York: Routledge, pp. 196–204.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Weiss, N. (2020), ‘The trauma of waiting: Understanding the violence of the benevolent welfare state’, in D. Abdelhady, N. Gren and M. Joormann (eds), Refugees and the Violence of Welfare Bureaucracies in Northern Europe, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 195–209.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Yazıcı, B. (2018), ‘Devlet antropolojisi’, in A. Bartu Candan and C. Özbay (eds), Kültür Denen Şey: Antropolojik Yaklaşımlar, Istanbul: Metis Yayınları, pp. 51–81.
    [Google Scholar]