SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İDEALKENT / 2026 / Sayı: 51

The urban threshold of return: Urban rootedness, legal uncertainty, and translocal mobility among Syrians in Gaziantep

Geri dönüşün kentsel eşiği: Gaziantep’teki Suriyeliler arasında kentsel köklülük, hukuki belirsizlik ve translokal hareketlilik

İbrahim Halil Yılmaz(GAZİANTEP ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-0769-7336
Journal
İDEALKENT
Pages
1–1
Publication Date
2026-08-20
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that return is viewed not as a definitive and one-way decision, but as an uncertain and conditional process shaped by back-and-forth mobility, family obligations, economic opportunities, and changing political conditions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines how Syrians living in Gaziantep assess return in relation to urban rootedness, legal status, experiences in public spaces, and translocal mobility.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Utilizing an instrumental case study design, this research is based on semi-structured interviews conducted with 32 Syrians living in Gaziantep.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that return is viewed not as a definitive and one-way decision, but as an uncertain and conditional process shaped by back-and-forth mobility, family obligations, economic opportunities, and changing political conditions.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:kentsel dışlanma · Suriyeliler · geri dönüş göçü

Abstract

This study examines how Syrians living in Gaziantep assess return in relation to urban rootedness, legal status, experiences in public spaces, and translocal mobility. Utilizing an instrumental case study design, this research is based on semi-structured interviews conducted with 32 Syrians living in Gaziantep. The findings indicate that return is viewed not as a definitive and one-way decision, but as an uncertain and conditional process shaped by back-and-forth mobility, family obligations, economic opportunities, and changing political conditions. Legal uncertainty regarding temporary protection complicates return for some participants, while experiences of othering weaken their sense of urban belonging. By employing the concept of the “urban threshold,” this study reveals how return in a border city is shaped by the combined effects of urban rootedness, legal uncertainty, public recognition, and translocal mobility, thereby contributing to research on refugees and forced migration

Özet

Bu çalışma, Gaziantep’te yaşayan Suriyelilerin geri dönüş kararlarını kentsel köklülük, hukuki statü, kamusal alan deneyimleri ve translokal hareketlilik bağlamında nasıl değerlendirdiklerini incelemektedir. Araçsal vaka çalışması olarak tasarlanan araştırma, Gaziantep’te yaşayan 32 Suriyeliyle yapılan yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmelere dayanmaktadır. Bulgular, geri dönüşün kesin ve tek yönlü bir karar olmaktan çok, ileri-geri hareketlilik, aile yükümlülükleri, ekonomik imkânlar ve değişen siyasi koşullara bağlı, belirsiz ve koşullu bir süreç olarak görüldüğünü göstermektedir. Geçici korumaya ilişkin hukuki belirsizlik bazı katılımcılar için geri dönüşü karmaşıklaştırırken, ötekileştirilme deneyimleri kentsel aidiyet duygusunu zayıflatmaktadır. Geri dönüşü “kentsel eşik” kavramıyla ele alan çalışma, sınır kenti bağlamında geri dönüş düşüncesinin kentsel köklülük, hukuki belirsizlik, kamusal tanınma ve translokal hareketliliğin ortak etkisiyle nasıl şekillendiğini göstererek mülteci ve zorunlu göç literatürüne katkı sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yılmaz, İ. H. (2026). The urban threshold of return: Urban rootedness, legal uncertainty, and translocal mobility among Syrians in Gaziantep. İDEALKENT, Sayı: 51, 1–1. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.1981021

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (43)

  1. Biehl, K. S. (2014). Migration, urban space and diversity: A case from Istanbul. Insight Türkiye, 16(4), 55-63.
  2. Blokland, T. (2017). Community as urban practice. Polity Press.
  3. Blomley, N. (2004). Unsettling the city: Urban land and the politics of property. Routledge.
  4. Brah, A. (1996). Cartographies of diaspora: Contesting identities. Routledge.
  5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE.
  6. 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
  7. Darling, J. (2017). Forced migration and the city: Irregularity, informality, and the politics of presence. Progress in Human Geography, 41(2), 178–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132516629004
  8. Del Carpio, X., & Wagner, M. (2015). The impact of Syrian refugees on the Turkish labor market (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 7402). World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-7402
  9. Emin, M. N., & Çelik, Z. (2026). Opportunities and anxieties of homecoming: The role of education in Syrian refugees’ return decisions. Insight Turkey, 28(1), 113–133.
  10. Erdoğan, M. M. (2020). Suriyeliler barometresi 2019: Suriyelilerle uyum içinde yaşamın çerçevesi. Orion Kitabevi.
  11. Faist, T. (2000). The volume and dynamics of international migration and transnational social spaces. Oxford University Press.
  12. Güloğlu, M. F. (2022). Mülteciliğe tutulmak: Fenomenolojik bir düşünüm. In B. Başkan & M. E. Kula (Eds.), Uluslararası göç ve mültecilik içinde (pp. 165-194). Siyasal Kitabevi.
  13. Güloğlu, M. F., & Çiçek, N. (2021). Mültecilikten vatandaşlığa geçişi gerekçelendirmek: Suriyeli mültecilerin vatandaşlık talepleri. In S. Karadeniz & N. Çiçek (Eds.), Mültecilik ve vatandaşlık: Göç çağında aidiyet, haklar ve gelecek sorunu içinde (pp. 161-186). Mardin Artuklu Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  14. Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Marconi, V. C. (2017). Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research, 27(4), 591–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344
  15. İçduygu, A., & Nimer, M. (2020). The politics of return: Exploring the future of Syrian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Türkiye. Third World Quarterly, 41(3), 415–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2019.1688904
  16. Institute for Migration. (2025). Türkiye’deki Suriyelilerin geri dönüşü: Zorluklar, fırsatlar ve politika önerileri çalıştayı. Gaziantep University Institute for Migration. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.20930.49603
  17. Karadaş, H. (2022). Educational problems of immigrant students. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 10(S1-Aug), 64-78. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v10iS1-Aug.5183
  18. Kaya, A. (2018). Türkiye’de göç ve uyum tartışmaları: Geçmişe dönük bir bakış. İDEALKENT, 5(14), 11-28. https://izlik.org/JA42BY63YC
  19. Kirişci, K., & Karaca, S. (2021). Disagreeing with the consensus: Turkish public opinion and Syrian refugees. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 19(4), 27–39.
  20. Levitt, P., & Glick Schiller, N. (2004). Conceptualizing simultaneity: A transnational social field perspective on society. International Migration Review, 38(3), 1002–1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2004.tb00227.x
  21. Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How much does it depend on place and how much on people? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(3), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.12.006
  22. Low, S. M., & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In I. Altman & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 1–12). Plenum Press.
  23. Malkki, L. (1995). Refugees and exile: From “refugee studies” to the national order of things. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24(1), 495–523. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.24.100195.002431
  24. Menjívar, C. (2006). Liminal legality: Salvadoran and Guatemalan immigrants’ lives in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 111(4), 999–1037. https://doi.org/10.1086/499509
  25. Mezzadra, S., & Neilson, B. (2013). Border as method, or, the multiplication of labor. Duke University Press. Official Gazette. (2014). Geçici Koruma Yönetmeliği. 22 Ekim 2014 tarih ve 29153 sayılı Resmî Gazete.
  26. Presidency of Migration Management [GİB]. (2026). Geçici koruma kapsamındaki Suriyeli sayısı. https://www.goc.gov.tr/gecici-koruma5638
  27. Pusch, B. (2018). Bursa’da Alman olmak. İDEALKENT, 5(14), 234-251. https://izlik.org/JA57PC52ZJ
  28. Sağıroğlu, A. Z., & Yılmaz, İ. H. (2021). Yabancılarla birlikte yaşamak: Mamak örneği: göç çalışmalarında bir karma yöntem araştırması. Nobel Akademik.
  29. Skeggs, B. (2004). Class, self, culture. Routledge.
  30. Smith, M. P. (2001). Transnational urbanism: Locating globalization. Blackwell.
  31. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
  32. Şimşek, D. (2018). Integration processes of Syrian refugees in Türkiye: ‘Class-based integration’. Journal of Refugee Studies, 32(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fey057
  33. Taştan, C., & Çelik, Z. (2017). Türkiye’de Suriyeli çocukların eğitimi: Güçlükler ve öneriler. Eğitim-Bir-Sen Stratejik Araştırmalar Merkezi.
  34. Teke Lloyd, F., Aksu Kargin, I., Kurtoğlu, A., & Sirkeci, I. (2025). Return of Syrians: Myth or reality. Border Crossings, 15(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.33182/bc.v15i1.2905
  35. Tyler, I. (2013). Revolting subjects: Social abjection and resistance in neoliberal Britain. Zed Books.
  36. UNHCR. (2024). Syria emergency: Global overview. https://www.unhcr.org/syria-emergency.html
  37. UNICEF. (2022). Education under threat: Syrian refugee children in Türkiye. UNICEF Türkiye.
  38. Wacquant, L. (2008). Urban outcasts: A comparative sociology of advanced marginality. Polity Press.
  39. World Bank. (2022). Syria damage and needs assessment: Reconstruction and recovery. World Bank Group.
  40. Yıldız, A., & Uzgören, N. T. (2016). Limits to temporary protection: Non-camp Syrian refugees in İzmir, Türkiye. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 16(2), 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2016.1148416
  41. Yılmaz, İ. H. (2021). Türkiye’deki Suriyeli çocukların okula uyumu: Etnografik bir araştırma. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  42. Yilmaz, I. H., Demir, C. Ş., & Solak, Y. (2026). Negotiating belonging in digital gaming environments: Syrian youth under temporary protection in Türkiye. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2026.2650403
  43. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.