SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 15 Sayı: 29

FROM LEGAL STATUS TO SOCIAL RECOGNITION? POST-NATURALIZATION BELONGING AMONG HOLDERS OF EXCEPTIONAL CITIZENSHIP IN TÜRKİYE

YASAL STATÜDEN TOPLUMSAL TANINMAYA MI? TÜRKİYE'DE İSTİSNAİ YOLDAN VATANDAŞLIK SAHİPLERİNDE VATANDAŞLIK SONRASI AİDİYET

Duygu Altunoğlu Yıldız(KIRKLARELİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-7576-2259
Yunus Kaya(İSTANBUL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6624-2884
Pages
68–89
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️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 typology and proposed mechanisms offer an analytically grounded framework for interpreting post-status inclusion in hybrid migration regimes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines whether exceptional-route citizenship in Türkiye translates into everyday recognition and belonging, drawing on 24 semi-structured interviews analyzed through abductive reflexive thematic analysis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We propose a four-part typology and identify the key mechanisms shaping how legal status does, or does not, translate into social inclusion.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The typology and proposed mechanisms offer an analytically grounded framework for interpreting post-status inclusion in hybrid migration regimes.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:İstisnai vatandaşlık · Aidiyet · Toplumsal tanınma

Abstract

This study examines whether exceptional-route citizenship in Türkiye translates into everyday recognition and belonging, drawing on 24 semi-structured interviews analyzed through abductive reflexive thematic analysis. We propose a four-part typology and identify the key mechanisms shaping how legal status does, or does not, translate into social inclusion. Our findings show that naturalization consistently improves mobility, security, and formal rights, but social recognition remains uneven. Investor-route citizens often experience smoother formal treatment but limited local embeddedness, whereas selectively naturalized humanitarian-route citizens face more stigma and gatekeeping but may achieve deeper attachment when supported by bridging networks and language proficiency. Responding to Türkiye-specific public debates around Syrian naturalization and citizenship-by-investment, the study also shows how public contestation mediates post-status recognition. The study argues that naturalization is not an automatic endpoint, but a conditional transformation shaped by relational, institutional, and discursive mechanisms. The typology and proposed mechanisms offer an analytically grounded framework for interpreting post-status inclusion in hybrid migration regimes.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye'de istisnai yoldan kazanılan vatandaşlığın gündelik tanınma ve aidiyete dönüşüp dönüşmediğini, abdüktif refleksif tematik analiz aracılığıyla incelenen 24 yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme üzerinden ele almaktadır. Çalışmada dört kategorili bir tipoloji önerilmekte ve yasal statünün toplumsal kapsayıcılığa nasıl dönüştüğünü ya da dönüşmediğini şekillendiren temel mekanizmalar belirlenmektedir. Bulgular, vatandaşlığa kabulün hareketliliği, güvenliği ve resmi hakları tutarlı biçimde iyileştirdiğini, ancak toplumsal tanınmanın eşitsiz kaldığını göstermektedir. Yatırım yoluyla vatandaşlık edinenler genellikle daha akıcı resmi muamele görmekte; ancak yerel bağlılıkları sınırlı kalmaktadır. Buna karşılık, seçici/insani yoldan vatandaşlık kazananlar daha fazla damgalanma ve denetim ile karşılaşmakta, fakat köprüleyici ağlar ve dil yeterliliği ile desteklendiklerinde daha derin bir aidiyet geliştirebilmektedir. Türkiye'ye özgü Suriyelilerin vatandaşlığa alınması ve yatırım yoluyla vatandaşlık tartışmalarına yanıt olarak, çalışma kamuoyu tartışmalarının statü sonrası tanınmaya nasıl aracılık ettiğini de göstermektedir. Çalışma, vatandaşlığa kabulün otomatik bir son nokta değil; ilişkisel, kurumsal ve söylemsel mekanizmalarla şekillenen koşullu bir dönüşüm olduğunu ileri sürmektedir. Önerilen tipoloji ve mekanizmalar, hibrit göç rejimlerinde statü sonrası kapsayıcılığı yorumlamak için analitik temelli bir çerçeve sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yıldız, D. A., Kaya, Y. (2026). FROM LEGAL STATUS TO SOCIAL RECOGNITION? POST-NATURALIZATION BELONGING AMONG HOLDERS OF EXCEPTIONAL CITIZENSHIP IN TÜRKİYE. Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 29, 68–89. https://doi.org/10.58635/ufuksbedergi.1942892

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (63)

  1. Acquiring Property and Citizenship. (2023). Retrieved June 9, 2026, from https://www.invest.gov.tr/en/investmentguide/pages/acquiring-property-and-citizenship.aspx
  2. Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2008). Understanding integration: A conceptual framework. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(2), 166–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fen016
  3. AIDA Country Report: Naturalisation. (2025). Retrieved June 10, 2026, from https://asylumineurope.org/reports/country/turkiye/content-international-protection/status-and-residence/naturalisation/
  4. Antonsich, M. (2010). Searching for belonging – An analytical framework. Geography Compass, 4(6), 644–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00317.x
  5. 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
  6. Bauböck, R. (2007). Stakeholder citizenship and transnational political participation: A normative evaluation of external voting. Fordham Law Review, 75(5), 2393–2447.
  7. Birkvad, S. R. (2019). Immigrant meanings of citizenship: Mobility, stability, and recognition. Citizenship Studies, 23(8), 798–814. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2019.1664402
  8. Bloemraad, I., & Sheares, A. (2017). Understanding membership in a world of global migration: (How) does citizenship matter? The International Migration Review, 51(4), 823–867. https://doi.org/10.1111/imre.12354
  9. Borrelli, L. M., Johannesson, L., & Lindberg, A. (2025). Predictable patterns of unpredictability: A literature review of discretion in migration control. Political Research Exchange, 7(1), 2508374. https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2025.2508374
  10. Bosniak, L. (2006). The citizen and the alien: Dilemmas of contemporary membership. Princeton University Press.
  11. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
  12. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
  13. 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
  14. Džankić, J. (2019). The global market for investor citizenship. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17632-7
  15. Eiró, F., & Lotta, G. (2024). On the frontline of global inequalities: A decolonial approach to the study of street-level bureaucracies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 34(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muad019
  16. Erdal, M. B., Doeland, E. M., & Tellander, E. (2018). How citizenship matters (or not): The citizenship–belonging nexus explored among residents in Oslo, Norway. Citizenship Studies, 22(7), 705–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2018.1508415
  17. Erdocia, I. (2025). Language and trust: Struggles for recognition of migrant people in the political realm. Language & Communication, 101, 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2025.02.001
  18. Esen, B. K. (2025). Securitization of migration in Turkish newspapers (2015–2024): A discourse analysis post-9/11 within the framework of the Copenhagen School. Toplum ve Kültür Araştırmaları Dergisi, (16), 27–66. https://doi.org/10.48131/jscs.1756954
  19. Fraser, N. (2000). Rethinking recognition. New Left Review, 3, 107-120.
  20. Hainmueller, J., & Hangartner, D. (2013). Who gets a Swiss passport? A natural experiment in immigrant discrimination. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 159–187. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000494
  21. Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D., & Ward, D. (2019). The effect of citizenship on the long-term earnings of marginalized immigrants: Quasi-experimental evidence from Switzerland. Science Advances, 5(12), eaay1610. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay1610
  22. Holzinger, C. (2019). 'We don't worry that much about language': Street-level bureaucracy in the context of linguistic diversity. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46(9), 1792–1808. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2019.1610365
  23. Honneth, A. (1996). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts (J. Anderson, Trans.). The MIT Press.
  24. Joppke, C. (2010). Citizenship and immigration (1st ed.). Polity.
  25. Koser Akcapar, S., & Simsek, D. (2018). The politics of Syrian refugees in Turkey: A question of inclusion and exclusion through citizenship. Social Inclusion, 6(1), 176-187. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v6i1.1323
  26. Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167–195. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141107
  27. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
  28. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.
  29. Lister, M. (2008). Theories of citizenship. In Citizenship in contemporary Europe. Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9780748633418.003.0002
  30. Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2015). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444
  31. Maxwell, J. A. (2012). A realist approach for qualitative research. SAGE.
  32. McIntyre, J. (2024). Conceptualising the art of belonging for young refugees and asylum-seekers: Reflections from England and Sweden. Research Papers in Education, 40(2), 236–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2024.2368509
  33. Mencutek, Z. S., & Barthoma, S. (2025). Governance of citizenship in Turkey: Exceptional citizenship for Syrians amidst a protracted refugee crisis. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 23(3), 450-468. https://doi.org/10.1080/15562948.2025.2452906
  34. Mezzadra, S. (2022). Movements of migration within and beyond citizenship. Citizenship Studies, 26(4–5), 577–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2022.2091241
  35. Morris, J. (2019). The politics of return from Jordan to Syria. Forced Migration Review, (62), 31–34.
  36. Morris, L. (2003). Managing migration: Civic stratification and migrants' rights. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203447499
  37. Morris, L. (2009). Civic stratification and the cosmopolitan ideal: The case of welfare and asylum. European Societies, 11(4), 603–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616690902785695
  38. Nesin, A. (2019). Yaşar Ne Yaşar Ne Yaşamaz. Nesin Yayıncılık.
  39. Nordberg, C., & Simola, A. (2025). Migrants' relational experiences with the welfare state at the street level: A focus on the role of language. Social Policy and Society, 24(1), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746424000484
  40. Ong, A. (1999). Flexible citizenship: The cultural logics of transnationality. Duke University Press.
  41. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
  42. Radford, D., Tan, G., Krivokapic-Skoko, B., & Hetz, H. (2025). Intersectional precarity of Hazara Afghan refugee migrants in rural Australia. Sociologia Ruralis, 65(1), e12500. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12500
  43. Schäfer, G., & Maxwell, C. (2025). Figurations of belonging – How high-skilled migrants form relations of recognition. Geoforum, 161, 104249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2025.104249
  44. Serdar, A. (2023). An illiberal inclusion? The AKP's politics of exceptional citizenship. Turkish Studies, 24(1), 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2022.2100699
  45. Shachar, A. (2009). The birthright lottery: Citizenship and global inequality. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjhzr8r
  46. Shachar, A. (2011a). Picking winners: Olympic citizenship and the global race for talent. The Yale Law Journal, 120, 2088-2139. Retrieved June 16, 2026, from https://ssrn.com/abstract=1845671
  47. Shachar, A. (2011b). The birthright lottery: Response to interlocutors. Issues in Legal Scholarship, 9. Retrieved June 16, 2026, from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1958270
  48. Sibaya, Y. Z. (2025). The middling citizenship trap: Belonging denied through neoliberal exclusionary inclusion in South Africa. African Human Mobility Review, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.14426/ahmr.v11i3.2839
  49. Surak, K. (2023a). The golden passport: Global mobility for millionaires. Harvard University Press.
  50. Surak, K. (2023b). Turkish citizenship is a hot commodity. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved June 9, 2026, from https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/turkish-citizenship-is-a-hot-commodity-50668d4b
  51. Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. University of Chicago Press.
  52. Taylor, C. (1994). Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition. Princeton University Press.
  53. Toğral Koca, B. (2016). Syrian refugees in Turkey: From guests to enemies? New Perspectives on Turkey, 54, 55-75. https://doi.org/10.1017/npt.2016.4
  54. Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
  55. Tuominen, M., Kilpi-Jakonen, E., García Velázquez, R., Castaneda, A., & Kuusio, H. (2023). Building social capital in a new home country: A closer look into the predictors of bonding and bridging relationships of migrant populations at different education levels. Migration Studies, 11(4), 598–630. https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mnad022
  56. Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanunu, Pub. L. No. 5901 (2009). Retrieved June 9, 2026, from https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.5901.pdf
  57. Türk Vatandaşlığı Kanununun Uygulanmasına İlişkin Yönetmelikte Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Yönetmelik (Regulation No. 30540). (2018). T.C. Resmî Gazete. Retrieved June 9, 2026, from https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2018/09/20180919-15.pdf
  58. Wimmer, A. (2013). Ethnic boundary making: Institutions, power, networks. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199927371.001.0001
  59. Yücel, A. (2021). Symbolic annihilation of Syrian refugees by Turkish news media during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal for Equity in Health, 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-021-01472-9
  60. Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Belonging and the politics of belonging. Patterns of Prejudice, 40(3), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313220600769331
  61. Yuval-Davis, N. (2011). The politics of belonging: Intersectional contestations. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446251041
  62. Yuval-Davis, N., Wemyss, G., & Cassidy, K. (2018). Everyday bordering, belonging and the reorientation of British immigration legislation. Sociology, 52(2), 228–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038517702599
  63. Ziss, P. (2025). A knife with two sides: Naturalization and the ambivalent value of citizenship for Syrians in Turkey. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 51(9), 2296-2313. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2024.2405061