Under What Conditions? Migrant Experiences in Combating Discrimination and Seeking Justice in Türkiye

Under What Conditions? Migrant Experiences in Combating Discrimination and Seeking Justice in Türkiye | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Under What Conditions? Migrant Experiences in Combating Discrimination and Seeking Justice in Türkiye Ozan Selçuk, Görkem Kelebek-Küçükarslan, Hande Albayrak, Gökçe Ceylan This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8694682/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study explores migrants’ efforts to seek justice against discrimination in Türkiye and the barriers limiting access to legal mechanisms. Drawing on a phenomenological design, interviews were conducted with 33 NGO and INGO professionals across six provinces. Thematic analysis identifies three key findings: migrants are constructed as threatening “others” through public discourse, economic scapegoating, and spatial segregation; intersectional discrimination deepens vulnerabilities for women, children, elderly, disabled, and LGBTI+ migrants; and a “justice paradox” whereby strong legal frameworks coexist with limited accessibility, pushing migrants toward informal networks. Discrimination thus operates as a structural form of exclusion undermining effective legal protection. access to justice discrimination migrant Türkiye human rights INTRODUCTION Since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011, Türkiye has experienced intense migration flows due to both its geographical location and regional conflicts, becoming the country hosting the largest number of Syrian migrants 1 . As of 2025, Türkiye hosts approximately 2.70 million registered Syrians under temporary protection, alongside 350,000 Afghans, 280,000 Iraqis, 130,000 Iranians, and migrants of other nationalities, totaling 4.5 million refugees and irregular migrants (Turkish Directorate General of Migration Management, 2025 ). The state approach, initially shaped by "open door" policies and religious brotherhood discourse, has undergone significant transformation over time, particularly following the economic crisis, COVID-19 pandemic, and the 2023 Kahramanmaraş-centered earthquake (Çakın and AlMajdalawi, 2024 ). While these challenges have brought structural tests to the country's migration regime, they have also laid the groundwork for a social rupture where discriminatory practices, exclusionary discourses, and mass othering toward migrants have become increasingly normalized (Can, 2025 ; Cevik, 2025 ). Coupled with political uncertainties and polarizations, particularly Afghan and Syrian migrants are associated with crime, being "burdens," and representing "cultural threats" both in media discourse and daily life, leading to the institutionalization of anti-migrant attitudes in the social sphere (Özdüzen, et al., 2020 ; Erbay and Usta, 2025 ). Additionally, the limitation of public resources accompanying economic hardship has further complicated migrants’ access to fundamental areas such as health, housing, education, and employment in their daily lives, causing migrants to increasingly face discrimination in public spaces (Can, 2025 ; Erbay and Usta, 2025 ). Discrimination refers to situations where individuals are denied equal access to opportunities or equal treatment due to their identity characteristics (Truscan and Bourke-Martignoni, 2016 ). Discrimination manifests not only in interpersonal relationships but also at structural and institutional levels, deepening social inequalities (Krieger, 2014 ). Makkonen ( 2002 ) notes that discrimination can be direct, indirect, or institutional and can also be intentional, unintentional, or structural. Structural discrimination stems from the failure to recognize the effects of certain policies or practices, particularly concerning disadvantaged groups. Makkonen ( 2002 ) defines three forms of discrimination: multiple discrimination, compound discrimination, and intersectional discrimination. Multiple discrimination refers to a person experiencing discrimination for different reasons at different times. Compound discrimination occurs when multiple types of discrimination simultaneously overlap to create a burden (Makkonen, 2002 ). Intersectional discrimination refers to individuals experiencing discrimination simultaneously and interactively due to multiple identity characteristics such as race, gender, class, ethnicity, and disability (Crenshaw, 1989 ). Groups like migrants are frequently exposed simultaneously to multiple grounds of discrimination including migrant status, ethnicity, gender, poverty, language barriers, and health conditions (Truscan and Bourke-Martignoni, 2016 ). While international human rights law provides a comprehensive framework for protecting these individuals, the actual implementation and realization of these rights show significant differences among countries. Key legal texts include the Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, the 1951 Refugee Convention, and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ensari et al., 2023 ). Türkiye has made significant arrangements in national legislation in recent years to control increasing mass migration and guarantee the protection of migrant rights (Üstübici, 2019 ). Türkiye has ratified numerous agreements and protocols related to migrant rights and formally adopted the principle of non-refoulement, ensuring that migrants are not forcibly returned against their will. However, the provision of temporary protection status to non-European refugees under the geographical limitation clause of the 1951 Refugee Convention has led to a series of discriminatory practices among migrants (Üstübici, 2019 ; Kocaoğlu, 2025 ). This situation restricts refugees' access to livelihood sources and exposes them to vulnerable living conditions where their access to social and economic support is limited (Ensari et al., 2023 ). Although Türkiye offers a legal framework like EU asylum acquis, temporary protection status creates an insecure situation for refugees due to both the ambiguity of rights and uncertainties in implementation (Baban et al., 2016 ). In Türkiye, legal and social frameworks remain inadequate in effectively addressing discrimination against migrants. The limited scope of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection (LFIP) focuses primarily on basic rights, while leaving critical areas such as employment, housing, and the protection of undocumented or temporary migrants insufficiently regulated (Doğan, 2023 ; Ensari et al., 2023 ). Nevertheless, Türkiye has demonstrated a commitment to combating discrimination through the ratification of international human rights instruments. The Constitutional Court plays a key oversight role by keeping judicial remedies open against all administrative acts and actions that amount to rights violations or negligence, and by protecting migrants’ human rights through the individual application mechanism. Alongside judicial remedies, non-judicial institutional mechanisms also contribute to preventing discrimination and rights violations. In this context, the Turkish Human Rights and Equality Institution (THREI) and the Ombudsman Institution (OI) function as core bodies ensuring non-discriminatory access to rights (Kayaoğlu and Gülel, 2023 ). Under Law No. 6701, THREI (2024) highlights structural inequalities and ill-treatment through monitoring reports based on regular visits to removal centres and migrant accommodation facilities. The OI facilitates individual applications and develops recommendations, including the correction of discriminatory administrative practices, legislative amendments, and compensation for damages (Şahin Taşğın, 2021 ). In addition, YIMER and CIMER support migrants’ access to public services, while within the framework of the Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan (3RP), UNHCR-supported bar associations and law clinics enhance migrants’ access to justice (Şimşek, 2021; AIDA, 2022). Migrant’s access to justice is limited in practice by various structural and administrative barriers despite normative regulations; language barriers, lack of information, economic inadequacies, and specific problems such as province-based budgets for legal aid services and lawyer shortages further complicate this process (Aras, 2021 ). Migrants experience serious information and document procurement problems in accessing these rights, particularly when under administrative supervision, despite legal regulations regarding legal aid rights. Access to legal aid becomes difficult due to comprehensive documents required by bar associations, language barriers, and lack of identity documents, making the process of benefiting from legal support nearly impossible. Furthermore, restrictions on fundamental rights such as granting power of attorney to lawyers, accessing interpreter support, and meeting with lawyers seriously damage migrants’ right to effective application and access to justice (Aras, 2021 ; AIDA, 2022). In this process, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) play a critical role in legal support and advocacy in defending migrants' rights and combating discrimination (Boşnak, 2021 ). This study aims to conduct an in-depth contextual analysis of the discrimination faced by migrants in Türkiye and to examine how access to justice processes is shaped under these conditions. Accordingly, it seeks to address the following research questions: What are the discrimination experiences that migrants are subjected to and what contextual conditions do they include? How do migrants cope with discrimination and access justice? METHODOLOGY This study employed a phenomenological research approach within the framework of qualitative research methods. As Creswell ( 2015 ) explains, phenomenological research aims to characterize and synthesize the common meanings of people's lived experiences in relation to a particular phenomenon or concept. This study aimed to examine the contextual conditions shaping discrimination against migrants in Türkiye and to analyse how these conditions influence migrants’ access to justice and rights-seeking processes. It focuses on the forms and drivers of discrimination, migrants’ coping strategies, their engagement with legal remedies, and the rationales underlying their decisions. Key informants were contacted through purposive sampling based on the research team's NGO experience in migration work, with relevant institutions evaluated according to their case management and advocacy activities. Within this purposive sampling framework, criterion sampling was applied by selecting participants with direct experience or academic research expertise in migrant discrimination issues. To highlight the experiences of various migrant groups and ensure participant diversity, interviews were arranged in locations with high migrant concentrations, including Ankara, Gaziantep, and Istanbul. Due to restricted service availability in certain locations, researchers also conducted interviews during fieldwork in urban areas including Yalova, Eskişehir, and Kırıkkale. These locations were selected due to their concentration of mobile professionals and significant migrant populations receiving assistance. Snowball sampling was additionally employed to facilitate participant recommendations of other relevant individuals. The research team developed a semi-structured interview form based on existing literature and conducted in-depth interviews with representatives from NGOs, local authorities, legal experts, activists, and academics. A pilot study involving three participants was conducted to test the usability and clarity of interview questions. Participants Thirty-three individuals from diverse geographical locations and professional backgrounds participated in semi-structured interviews. The interview process continued until data saturation was achieved, at which point the phenomenon under investigation began manifesting in recurrent narratives. Due to participants' considerable workloads, 15 interviews were conducted online at participant request, while 18 interviews were conducted in person in Gaziantep, Istanbul, and Ankara. Interviews averaged 94 minutes in duration, with in-person interviews conducted in participants' workplaces or public venues such as cafes. The 33 participants included 20 individuals working in different national NGOs and 13 in international NGOs. Their occupational backgrounds encompassed social workers, psychologists, sociologists, physiotherapists, dieticians, lawyers, and activists. Professional experience in migration work ranged from 2 to 25 years, with an average of 8.5 years. Regarding educational background, twelve participants held bachelor's degrees, seven held master's degrees, nine were pursuing master's degrees, three were doctoral students, and two held PhDs. The majority of participants worked in Ankara (13) or Gaziantep (10), while the remaining participants were based in Kırıkkale (2), Yalova (1), Istanbul (6), and Eskişehir (1). The gender distribution comprised 22 women and 11 men. Participants worked with diverse migrant populations, including children (13), women (8), disabled and elderly individuals (5), internally displaced persons (4), and LGBTIQ+ individuals (3). Additionally, participants engaged with migrant communities across various provinces, providing insights into intersectional experiences. The professionals contributed to the research by discussing practices in different provinces based on their previous work experiences. Analysis The study analyzed 507 pages of interview transcripts using thematic analysis supported by Atlas.ti software. The analysis followed a six-phase process, beginning with initial coding through repeated readings to capture participants’ experiences comprehensively and reduce data loss. Relationships among codes were then examined, generating 43 categories, which were subsequently clustered into three overarching themes. The themes were reviewed and refined to ensure coherence, validity, and conceptual clarity, with careful attention given to theme naming. The findings were illustrated through selected quotations drawn from 50 pages of participant narratives. Throughout the analytical process, a rights-based perspective guided the interpretation of data, ensuring consistency with the research objectives and relevant literature. RESULTS The Construction of 'the Other' and the Conditions that Fuel Discrimination Migrants are often constructed as “the Other,” portrayed as threats or burdens, which legitimizes exclusion and violence. Media representations reduce them to objects defined by origin rather than subjects of events, while public discourse frames them as disruptors of order, resource consumers, or threats to national structure, fueling scapegoating and social anger. Regional dynamics further shape othering, and anti-migrant rhetoric gains traction during crises and elections, normalizing discrimination. The “us versus them” dichotomy drives spatial segregation, criminalization of migrant areas, and exclusion from public spaces. Misbeliefs about state support, amplified by economic crises, intensify resentment and generate calls for return. Media and political narratives attribute individual crimes to entire groups, especially targeting male migrants, while even ordinary social activities may provoke backlash, rendering migrants invisible and reluctant to claim rights. When any incident breaks out in Türkiye, if there is a migrant involved, it is reported as a migrant. This is discriminatory language because it emphasizes their migrant status rather than the incident itself…They attribute all social problems and issues to the migrant group. Scapegoat. (P33, psychologist, INGO) There is a perception as if abuse cases in this country increased with migrants. Or just with them, we were a very good country before, but migrants came and abuse, violence against women, violence against animals all reached a peak. Why? There's something full of clichés like this is being done in these people's country, that is being done. These discourses, attributing individual crimes to a group, holding the entire group responsible, or there's a lot of speculative information. (P23, sociologist, NGO) Another dimension of discrimination against migrants is shaped in the context of economic concerns and limited resources. Social perceptions that resources are not distributed fairly cause migrants to be seen as "unjust beneficiaries." This situation also finds expression in daily life through discourses such as "they receive aid," "they live better than us," or "they took our jobs." As if Syrians receive regular salaries, like ‘the state is taking care of you.’ Even if they don't receive any salary, or these people are doing this in this country, they became a nuisance. If they're rich and have settled down, people say ‘they live better than us.’ If they're poor, these poor people just came to our country, they filled it up. If they're educated, these people are taking jobs instead of our children. If they're uneducated, these ignorant people filled our country. So, there's this dead-end situation. Yes, we don't like them in any way. (P26, social worker, NGO) The physical and spatial segregation that migrants are subjected to deepens exclusion and discrimination. While cultural differences isolate migrants from society, restrictions in registration systems prevent access to services and freedom of settlement. This situation pushes migrants to ghettoized areas in cities; combined with high rents and discriminatory attitudes of landlords, it also limits the right to housing. Thus, spatial exclusion becomes a structural inequality that directly affects the right to identity acquisition and safe living. This situation leads to the emergence of ghettoized areas where individuals from the same origin live together and where businesses serving in their own language are located. They are already very segregated. Unfortunately, there is ghettoization, at least in Gaziantep… The first major problem is that they don't know the language. Secondly, their appearance makes it clear that they are foreign. Maybe not so much for men, but obvious for women. The way they cover their heads, and the clothes they wear is very decisive. They are generally not accepted into Turkish groups. (P29, psychologist, INGO) During and after the disaster process, priority was given to Turkish Republic citizens, while for migrants there were more bureaucratic obstacles, inadequate infrastructure, and discriminatory practices in many cases. To avoid increasing social tension, container cities were established separately, and migrant settlements were placed in more remote and disadvantaged areas. In areas such as housing and medical needs (such as prosthetics), priority was always given to Turkish citizens, and migrants were mostly supported through NGOs. Migrants face multi-layered obstacles in daily life and especially in urban transportation. Fear of getting lost, being unable to express themselves due to language barriers, and encountering law enforcement (such as police stops, identity checks, GÖKSEM) leads them to travel with people they know or through unsafe but communicable means such as unlicensed taxis. This situation seriously restricts their urban mobility. I observe that even when going by bus, these people are seen as individuals who should give up their sits and not sit down. In schools they are thought of as people who should receive education not in certain good schools but in more back-street, lower-quality schools. I think they think these people should not have access to anything good. (P5, sociologist, INGO) Migrants are constructed with the "other" identity through structural inequalities, spatial exclusion, language and cultural barriers, and negative media representations; this othering is fueled by reasons such as economic crises, disasters, nationalist political discourses, and the political atmosphere during election periods. Constructing Layered Otherness: Insights from Intersectional Discrimination In Türkiye, variables such as sect, ethnicity, nomadic/settled status, and war-induced mass displacement led to widespread discrimination, particularly among minority migrant groups (Roma, Dom, Armenians, Christians, etc.). Hierarchical approach is observed among Syrian, Afghan, Iranian, and Iraqi migrants. For example, while Afghans are in the most disadvantaged position, Iraqis are in a relatively better situation. Syrians are subjected to intense discrimination both legally and socially. This situation reveals the mutual othering dynamics between different migrant groups and shows multi-layered forms of discrimination where "the other others the other." It varies according to geographical regions in Türkiye, but I think the most disadvantaged group is still Afghans... Of course, there are still different profiles among them in terms of discrimination because Afghans came from Iran in the past, so they previously faced discrimination in Iran. Then when they came here, they continue to face discrimination by other migrants, especially by Iranians. As if you are more valuable again. (P6, lawyer, INGO) Migrant women are subjected to compound and intersectional discrimination due to both gender-based inequalities and exclusion brought by migrant status. In general, the obstacles migrants face in accessing employment, combined with working conditions in low-paid, insecure, and informal jobs, lay the groundwork for deepening poverty. Women, in addition to this, face systematic abuses ranging from care burden, wage theft under unregistered and insecure employment conditions, irregular and excessive working hours, verbal and physical harassment to rape. These forms of discrimination deepen migrant women's vulnerabilities in working life while also limiting their opportunities to benefit from social and legal protections. LGBTI+ migrants are subjected to intersectional discrimination both because they are migrants and because of their gender identities and sexual orientations; they are excluded from employment opportunities and in some cases forced into sex work. Single women or mothers are harassed by their employers their wages aren’t paid. Even if they are working some employers have sexual expectations or make some demands. 98% of single women or mothers would report this. The patriarchal culture that already treats its own citizen women this way, that treats them with so much harassment, can do this more violently when you appear foreign and unprotected. (P11, sociologist, NGO) Migrant children encounter direct and/or indirect forms of discrimination in accessing education, health, and social services, including forced early marriage, social exclusion, peer bullying, system neglect, abuse, and working in inappropriate jobs at an early age. Disabled migrant children are subjected to discrimination in accessing special services. Children face significant challenges at school, including peer bullying. Their understanding of such behavior is often influenced by media, family discussions, or educational teachings. As a result, many children either become perpetrators or victims of bullying, remaining entangled in these dynamics. (P1, social worker, INGO) Disabled migrants encounter structural obstacles such as making appointments, process follow-up, and lack of information in accessing health services; especially children with mental problems remain invisible in the system. Accessing disability reports becomes difficult due to language barriers and institutional inadequacies, while it is also very difficult for caregivers to follow the process. The deprivation of disabled children and adults from support and care services also deepens the xenophobia that migrants are subjected to. A Turkish disabled child can get a disability report much easier and faster. Why is this? Because they don't have difficulty making appointments, there's no language barrier. But when a disabled child is Syrian, they may have difficulty making appointments, there are parents who don't even know where to make appointments. (P27, social worker, NGO) Elderly migrants face intersectional and compound discrimination; their access to medical devices and health services remains limited. Most elderly live dependent on their children, while due to poverty they are forced to work in jobs unsuitable for their physical capacities. They do not have sufficient information about institutions and the areas where they live are disadvantaged in terms of spatial access. When elderly want to do something, their family react, ‘you are old, you can’t do that’ with an overly protective attitude. When they need to take care of grandchildren or someone else at home, they are expected do it. These are issues that significantly impact their physical health and are rarely reported through official complaint channels, as they are highly tolerated and cultural norms come into play. (P2, political scientist, INGO) The elderly group is a group that has more difficulty in access. If there is no serious health problem or legal obligation that they must fulfill, they continue without moving away from their environment much... They are invisible. (P24, social worker, NGO) Vulnerable groups including women, LGBTI+ individuals, children, disabled and elderly migrants not only face discrimination but also experience othering due to their identity, and their vulnerabilities become even more intense. Therefore, discrimination against these groups should be considered as a multi-dimensional and layered phenomenon intertwined with the vulnerability brought by being a migrant. The findings clearly reveal the structure where "the other others" by addressing the migrants experience through these multi-dimensional vulnerability and discrimination axes. Barriers and Strategies in Combating Discrimination: Justice Paradox and Coping Migrants’ access to justice suffers serious disruptions due to obstacles in field implementation despite the existence of legal regulations. Court fees and litigation costs, slow processing, exclusionary attitudes of law enforcement especially toward women and children, ineffective complaint mechanisms, and lack of information are among important problems; discriminatory and prejudiced attitudes of public officials (judges-prosecutors, law enforcement, etc.) deepen structural discrimination. When you take a woman who has experienced violence, the police might approach the woman with a very lax attitude as if to say, ‘I will make peace with him.’ Or when you see an 11-year-old girl with a baby in her arms, they might approach it as if nothing is wrong, even if it's not legal in that area—and we're talking about the police, which is even worse. When you bring a child, the police can very seriously say to you ‘Did you bring the child again?’ (P6, lawyer, INGO) Even when migrants apply to institutional mechanisms such as Turkish Constitutional Court (TCC), European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Ombudsman, YIMER, THREI, prosecutor's office, NGOs, they encounter problems in getting responses. While technical malfunctions, address identification difficulties, and financial burdens make legal processes difficult, many migrants do not know their rights or avoid seeking rights due to system complexity, fear of deportation, and distrust. They apply to the ECtHR or TCC where there is a finalized deportation decision about them. They generally apply in relation to the specific deportation order. There are cases that result in a positive outcome, but they don't hesitate to pursue it because it's a necessary process for their stay here. Because the file at the Migration Administration is already negative and there's nothing that can be done about it. Therefore, there's no file that could be negatively affected. At that point, they are very eager. (P7, lawyer, NGO) Deficiencies in providing interpreter support in processes of seeking rights, declaration, and expression against discrimination, individuals not knowing what path to follow, and the need for personal efforts to speed up the process show that justice is moving away from being equal and accessible. These multi-layered obstacles show that legal mechanisms exist only on paper, while in practice migrants’ access to their rights largely depends on coincidences, individual effort, and sometimes the arbitrary attitudes of public officials. Although various mechanisms related to legal aid services exist, the functionality of these services in practice is seen to be limited. They hesitate to file lawsuits and make complaints. They hesitate to go to the police. When they go to the police, there are already heavy symptoms they are subjected to. We can talk about a group that doesn't use that right even if they want to in this regard. (P13, sociologist, INGO) Since UNHCR's project ended, the bar no longer provides lawyer appointments, creating a serious financial burden. Some NGOs take on representation, with our legal advisors preparing petitions, guiding clients, and accompanying them to court. However, these processes are time-consuming, and language barriers can lead to missed notifications and deadlines, resulting in serious consequences. (P22, lawyer, INGO) In the process of coping with discrimination, they generally resort to social networks based on their own communities. They develop information sharing and solidarity patterns especially through family circles and digital platforms (WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook groups). While migrants evaluate alternative solutions such as returning or settling in third countries, they generally participate in employment and socialization activities within their own ethnic or cultural groups. Their psychosocial support seeking is also mostly shaped in this context and/or through migrant NGOs. For example, a child is subjected to violence in the neighborhood. But perhaps by other children living in the building. The parent knows this. But they cannot go and complain about their neighbor to the police. They may not report it to the police, as moving is expensive and neighborhoods are closed off… They think it will remain unresolved. (P24, social worker, NGO) In this process, educational activities play a particularly decisive role. Educating both migrants and host populations with an anti-discrimination and rights-based perspective is seen as critical for replacing widespread misperceptions with accurate and reliable information. Additionally, both service providers and migrants gaining comprehensive and understandable information about implementation processes and rights is a basic requirement for effective service delivery and access. Strengthening NGOs, providing rights-based education to public personnel, and establishing comprehensive, accessible information mechanisms regarding migrants’ rights are necessary. Although migrants apply to legal mechanisms to seek their rights, access to justice is effectively restricted due to factors such as high costs, slow processes, discriminatory attitudes of public officials, lack of information, and fear, which reduces the effectiveness of rights-seeking efforts. Therefore, justice, with both its existence and inaccessibility, shapes migrants’ rights-seeking strategies as a paradox and often causes them to turn to social networks and alternative forms of solidarity. DISCUSSION This study's exploration of migrants' experiences in seeking justice against discrimination in Türkiye reveals a complex and troubling landscape that extends far beyond individual prejudice to encompass systematic, institutionalized exclusion operating at multiple levels of society. The findings illuminate how discrimination functions as a sophisticated system of social control that not only marginalizes migrant communities but actively prevents them from accessing the very mechanisms designed to protect their rights. What emerges from the voices of NGO professionals is a portrait of a society grappling with the tension between its humanitarian commitments and its growing anxieties about cultural change, economic security, and national identity. The framing of migrants as threatening “others” represents a prominent aspect of contemporary discrimination in Türkiye, operating through systematic narratives that simplify complex individuals, portraying them as potential threats or burdens. This process, as our participants vividly describe, unfolds through discourses that consistently frame migrants through the lens of criminality, economic drain, or cultural incompatibility. The finding that migrants' nationality becomes their primary identifier in crime reporting reflects what Bulgurcuoğlu and Aykutalp ( 2021 ) identify as discriminatory media discourse that systematically associates migrant identity with criminal behavior. This discourse creates what might be termed “inescapable otherness,” where migrants cannot achieve social acceptance regardless of their individual characteristics, contributions, or integration efforts. Whether they are wealthy or poor, educated or uneducated, employed or unemployed, they remain fundamentally defined by their foreignness and perceived threat to social order. This othering process is particularly pronounced in how economic anxieties are projected onto migrant communities, creating a paradoxical situation where migrants are simultaneously criticized for being economic burdens and for taking jobs from Turkish citizens. As Bolgün and Uçan (2020) demonstrate in their analysis of societal discriminatory attitudes, this contradictory framing serves the function of rationalizing exclusion regardless of migrants' actual economic impact or circumstances. Recent research further confirms how “class-based integration” processes create systematic hierarchies that exclude migrants from meaningful economic participation, reinforcing their position as perpetual outsiders regardless of their skills or contributions (Şimşek, 2020 ). The participants' accounts reveal how these economic narratives become deeply embedded in everyday interactions, shaping everything from housing discrimination to workplace exploitation to social service delivery. The belief that migrants receive special government support, despite evidence to the contrary, exemplifies how misinformation becomes central to maintaining discriminatory attitudes and practices. The spatial dimensions of discrimination documented in this study represent a particularly significant contribution to understanding how exclusion operates in practice. The emergence of ghettoized neighborhoods, while providing migrants with linguistic and cultural support networks, simultaneously reinforces social boundaries and limits opportunities for meaningful interaction with the broader Turkish society. This spatial segregation operates not merely because of economic constraints but as an active process of social sorting that reflects and reinforces broader patterns of exclusion. Research on Syrian migrants in urban spaces confirms how migrants are “confronted with a series of constraints once in the host country,” revealing how urban contexts shape and amplify discrimination through systematic exclusion from quality neighborhoods and services (de Andrade, 2020 ). The finding that migrants are systematically excluded from “good” schools, neighborhoods, and public spaces reveals how discrimination becomes embedded in the physical landscape of Turkish cities, creating parallel societies that rarely intersect except in contexts of conflict or exploitation. Comparative analysis of housing experiences across different national contexts further demonstrates how spatial exclusion represents a systematic pattern rather than incidental outcome of individual prejudice (Kurfalı, 2023 ). The role of political discourse in legitimizing and amplifying discrimination cannot be understated, particularly given how electoral cycles transform migrants from humanitarian subjects deserving protection into political problems requiring solution. The participants' observations about how anti-migrant rhetoric intensifies during election periods reflects broader patterns of what scholars have termed “selective humanitarianism,” where political expedience ultimately trumps humanitarian commitment (Korkut, 2016 ). This political dimension of discrimination has profound implications for migrants' willingness to engage with formal institutions, as they correctly perceive that their presence has become a matter of political contention rather than human rights protection. Research on local attitudes toward integration policies demonstrates how public support becomes contingent on political framing rather than humanitarian need, with discriminatory attitudes becoming normalized through repeated exposure to exclusionary rhetoric (Duman and Coşkan, 2023 ). The impact of this politicization extends to migrants' long-term planning and settlement decisions, with research on return aspirations revealing how discrimination and exclusion fundamentally shape migrants' perceptions of their prospects and belonging in Turkish society (Kayaoğlu et al., 2022). What makes the discrimination documented in this study particularly complex is its intersectional character, where multiple forms of disadvantage compound and reinforce each other in ways that create unique vulnerabilities for different groups within migrant communities. The hierarchical nature of discrimination among different migrant nationalities reveals how processes of othering operate selectively, with Afghans facing the most severe exclusion while Iraqis experience relatively better treatment based on complex calculations involving religious affinity, geopolitical relationships, and perceived cultural compatibility. Taşdemir et al. ( 2025 ) reflect broader patterns of hierarchical exclusion that extend across multiple social institutions. This hierarchy demonstrates that discrimination is not simply about foreign versus domestic but involves sophisticated processes of categorization that rank different forms of foreignness according to their perceived threat or compatibility with Turkish society. Research on urban constraints faced by Syrian migrants confirms how these hierarchical processes operate through systematic differentiation, where specific migrant groups encounter distinct combinations of structural barriers that reflect their position within Türkiye’s implicit hierarchy of deserving and undeserving foreigners (de Andrade, 2020 ). Migrant women’s experiences highlight how gender and migration status intersect to create unique vulnerabilities. They face sexual exploitation, wage theft, and workplace harassment, exacerbated by limited legal protection, lack of social support, and dismissal when seeking help. These challenges hinder access to both formal services and informal networks, reflecting broader patterns of discrimination, stereotyping, and inadequate integration policies, while normalizing gender-based violence in employment contexts. Together, these findings underscore the urgent need for institutional reforms and targeted policies to protect migrant women and address intersecting vulnerabilities (Şafak-Ayvazoğlu et al., 2021 ). The situation of LGBTI+ migrants represents severe form of intersectional discrimination observed in this study. They experience a “double exile,” facing exclusion from mainstream Turkish society and from their own ethnic communities, which increases their vulnerability to violence and institutional discrimination (Gümüş and Kjaran, 2025 ). The experiences of children, elderly, and disabled migrants reveal how age and ability intersect with migration status to produce systematic exclusion from services and support systems. Those migrants are seen as dependent individuals and face inadequate healthcare, social isolation and bureaucratic barriers that limit their access to essential services. Gokalp Aras et al.’s ( 2021 ) institutional analysis of healthcare access barriers provides compelling evidence of how regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive pillars of institutions systematically exclude migrants from services, while Özvarış et al.'s ( 2020 ) documentation of COVID-19 response strategies reveals how crisis situations amplify existing discriminatory practices and create additional barriers for already marginalized populations. Consistent with the findings of our study, research in the literature portrays disabled and elderly refugees as passive recipients of aid rather than as active subjects. This finding suggests that they are not regarded as valuable sources in terms of their access to services and involvement in society (Kelebek-Küçükarslan and Albayrak, 2023 ). Peer bullying in schools further marginalizes migrant children, depriving them of both quality education and social integration. These patterns illustrate how institutional practices embed discrimination across age and ability, disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable members of migrant communities (Kardeş and Akman, 2022 ). These findings are particularly troubling because they reveal how discrimination affects the most vulnerable members of migrant communities, those least able to advocate for themselves or access alternative support systems. Perhaps the most paradoxical aspect of migrants' experiences in Türkiye is the coexistence of comprehensive legal protections with systematic barriers to accessing these protections. This “justice paradox” reflects deeper tensions within Türkiye’s approach to migration governance, where humanitarian rhetoric coexists with increasingly restrictive practices and where legal rights exist primarily on paper rather than in lived experience. Ertorer's (2021) analysis of migrant’s experiences of precarity provides crucial context for understanding how restrictive policies generate conditions that allow “multidimensional precarities to flourish,” creating systematic vulnerability even within ostensibly protective legal frameworks. Detailed analysis of Türkiye’s reception policies reveals how state and non-state responses often create additional barriers rather than facilitating access to protection, demonstrating the gap between policy intentions and implementation realities (Kaya, 2020 ). The finding that migrants avoid formal complaint mechanisms due to fears of deportation or negative consequences for future citizenship applications reveals how legal status insecurity fundamentally shapes justice seeking behavior in ways that undermine the effectiveness of existing protections. The discriminatory attitudes and practices documented within law enforcement and judicial systems represent particularly serious violations of the rule of law, as they demonstrate how discrimination has penetrated the very institutions responsible for protecting vulnerable populations. The normalization of violence against migrant women and children within police responses, the dismissive attitudes toward migrant complaints, and the systematic exclusion of migrants from legal aid services all point to institutional cultures that view migrants as less deserving of protection than Turkish citizens. While highlighting the limitations of formal protection mechanisms, this attitude fosters reliance on informal social networks and community-based support systems. It highlights the resilience and agency of migrants and the ways in which discrimination compels migrants to establish parallel systems of support and advocacy. These informal networks typically organized around ethnic, linguistic, or religious affiliations, provide crucial support for navigating bureaucratic systems, finding employment, and addressing immediate crises. Saygı's (2024) analysis of self-settlement dynamics reveals how Syrian migrants actively exercise agency in creating support networks and developing survival strategies despite systemic exclusion, demonstrating that informal systems often compensate for formal institutional failures. However, they also reflect the failure of mainstream institutions to provide adequate support and the ways in which discrimination forces migrants into ethnic enclaves that may limit their broader integration opportunities. Comparative research on asylum seeker coping strategies confirms how migrants develop sophisticated informal mechanisms to address legal precarity and institutional abandonment, yet these strategies often require significant personal resources and social capital that are unequally distributed within migrant communities (Tunaboylu and van Liempt, 2021 ). The constrained role of NGO emerges as both a crucial lifeline for migrant communities and a reflection of broader limitations in Türkiye’s approach to migration governance. While NGOs provide essential services in navigating legal systems, advocating for individual cases, and filling gaps in state provision, their focus on meeting immediate humanitarian needs rather than addressing structural inequalities limits their effectiveness in promoting systemic change. These findings align with recent research documenting how political pressure and organizational constraints limit NGO effectiveness in addressing structural discrimination (Özçetin and Emre, 2024 ) but extend this analysis to show how these limitations affect not only NGO responses but also state institutions responsible for justice delivery. In the context of economic integration and social inclusion, rights-based approaches that take local conditions into account can enhance the effectiveness of integration processes. However, political sensitivities often hinder the implementation of such comprehensive and holistic approaches. The finding that political pressure and resource constraints push NGOs toward narrow, service-oriented approaches rather than broader advocacy reflects the challenging environment in which NGO operates and the ways in which political context shapes organizational strategies and priorities. Strengths and Limitations This study's phenomenological approach and diverse participant base represent significant methodological strengths that enhance the credibility and depth of findings. The inclusion of 33 professionals from both national and international organizations across multiple provinces provides comprehensive insights into systematic discrimination patterns while avoiding the limitations of single-location studies. The theoretical framework combining intersectionality theory with phenomenological analysis proved particularly effective in revealing how multiple forms of discrimination interact and compound each other, while the focus on justice seeking processes rather than just discrimination experiences provide crucial insights into how legal and informal mechanisms function in practice. The geographic diversity of data collection and the range of professional backgrounds represented among participants enhances the transferability of findings within the Turkish context and provides a robust foundation for understanding discrimination as a systematic rather than isolated phenomenon. However, the study's reliance on NGO professionals' perspectives, while providing systematic insights across multiple contexts, means that migrant voices are mediated through service providers rather than directly captured, potentially limiting the depth of understanding of migrants' own interpretations of their experiences. The timing of data collection during 2024 reflects conditions during a particular political and economic moment that may not capture longer-term trends or recent policy changes, while the phenomenological approach, though providing rich qualitative insights, limited opportunities to quantify the prevalence or severity of different forms of discrimination across populations. Additionally, the focus on discrimination experiences may have emphasized negative aspects while potentially overlooking successful integration stories or effective justice seeking outcomes, suggesting that future research could benefit from mixed methods approaches that combine qualitative depth with quantitative breadth and include direct migrant perspectives alongside professional observations. CONCLUSION This study demonstrates the conditions under which migrants experience discrimination in Türkiye and highlights their compounded vulnerabilities through an intersectional lens. It reveals structural tensions within migration governance that create gaps between formally guaranteed protections and migrants’ lived realities. The justice paradox identified is not merely a problem of weak implementation but reflects deeper conflicts surrounding national identity, citizenship, and belonging in a context of large-scale displacement. The findings show that discrimination functions as a systematic mechanism of social control, positioning migrants as perpetual outsiders and producing differentiated rights regimes based on origin rather than universal human rights. The analysis further illustrates that host–migrant relations are shaped by hierarchical and categorical distinctions among migrant groups, resulting in differentiated experiences according to legal status and perceived legitimacy. These dynamics suggest that integration policies often overlook the diverse needs and experiences of migrant communities. A central contribution of the study is the concept of “manufactured invisibility,” whereby migrants’ avoidance of formal institutions—driven by fear, mistrust, and previous experiences of exclusion—reinforces the very discrimination they seek to escape. This mutual disengagement between migrants and institutions sustains cycles of exclusion that become increasingly entrenched over time. Discrimination is shown to operate not only through individual prejudice but also through institutional practices, media narratives, spatial segregation, and political discourse, collectively reframing migrants as objects of charity or security threats rather than rights holders. The intersectional nature of these processes produces heightened vulnerabilities for women, children, older persons, persons with disabilities, and LGBTI+ migrants, whose needs remain insufficiently addressed by existing protection mechanisms. While non-governmental organizations play a vital supportive role, their constrained position reflects the broader limitations of humanitarian approaches that prioritize short-term assistance over structural transformation. Overall, the study underscores the need to rethink migration governance in Türkiye by addressing discrimination embedded in discourse, institutions, and social structures. It argues that meaningful change requires recognizing migrants as rights-bearing subjects and confronting the systemic exclusion that shapes their everyday experiences, with implications extending beyond migration policy to broader understandings of citizenship and human rights. Declarations Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Social and Human Sciences at X University in February 2024, and all participants were informed about ethical considerations prior to interviews. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed with participant consent. Author Contribution All authors contributed equally to the conception, design, analysis, and writing of this study. Data Availability This study draws on 33 qualitative interviews. Due to ethical considerations and the need to protect the anonymity of participants, the underlying data cannot be made publicly available. However, the data may be accessed upon reasonable request, subject to the discretion of the corresponding author. References Aras, A. (2021). Access to justice for refugees and asylum seekers: Legal aid. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi , 23 (4), 43–54. Asylum Information Database (AIDA) (2022). Country Report: Turkey. European Council on Refugees and Exiles. Accessed 31 August 2025. https://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/turkiye Baban, F., Ilcan, S., & Rygiel, K. (2016). Syrian refugees in Turkey: pathways to precarity, differential inclusion and negotiated citizenship rights. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 43 (1), 41–57. Bolgun, C., & Uçan, G. (2020). Birlikte yaşamak mümkün mü? Okur yorumlarında Suriyeli sığınmacı söyleminin inşası. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi , 18 (1), 250–269. Boşnak, B. (2021). Politics of subsidiarity in refugee reception: The case of civil society in Turkey. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies , 19 (3), 301–315. Bulgurcuoğlu, S. E., & Aykutalp, A. (2021). Medyada öteki olmak: sığınmacılara yönelik söylemin inşası ve yeniden üretimi. Toplum ve Sosyal Hizmet , 32 (2), 483–504. Can, Ş. (2025). Refugees as ‘projects’: humanitarian responses to displacement and refugee-led organisations in Southern Turkey. Journal of Humanitarian Affairs , 6 (1). https://doi.org/10.7227/JHA.120 Cevik, H. (2025). From open doors to closed minds: The transformation of perceptions toward Syrian refugees in Turkey. The Journal of Race Ethnicity and Politics , 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2024.35 Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex (pp. 139–167). University of Chicago Legal Forum. Creswell, J. W. (2015). Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (M. Bütün ve S. B. Demir, Çev. Ed) . Siyasal. Çakın, B., & Almajdalawi, R. (2024). Unsettled ground, unsettled lives: The ontological (in)securities of Syrian refugees in the shadow of Turkey’s 2023 earthquake. Journal on Migration and Human Security , 13 (2), 257–275. de Andrade, G. S. (2020). Beyond vulnerability: Syrian refugees in urban spaces in Turkey. International Journal for Crime Justice and Social Democracy , 9 (3), 34–46. Doğan, B. (2023). İnsan hakları açısından göç ve mültecilik: anayasa mahkemesi ile avrupa insan hakları mahkemesi kararları bağlamında inceleme. Ankara Sosyal Bilimler Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi , 5 (2), 709–746. Duman, Y., & Coşkan, C. (2023). Locals’ support for integration policies and asylum seekers’ rights: Exploring a normative model of support for Syrians in Turkey. Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism , 23 (3), 407–429. Ensari, P., Üstübici, A., Kavur, N., & Ekhtiari, M. (2023). Migration-relevant policies in Turkey. MIGNEX Background Paper (v2) . Peace Research Institute Oslo. Erbay, E., & Usta, E. K. (2025). Prolonged guesthood: How Syrian refugees shaped Turkish politics? Economics & Politics , 37 (3), 638–652. Ertorer, S. E. (2021). Asylum regimes and refugee experiences of precarity: The case of Syrian refugees in Turkey. Journal of Refugee Studies , 34 (3), 2568–2592. Gokalp Aras, N. E., Kabadayi, S., Ozeren, E., & Aydin, E. (2021). Right to health and access to health-care services for refugees in Turkey. Journal of Services Marketing , 35 (7), 962–976. Gümüş, B., & Kjaran, J. I. (2025). Intersecting marginalisations: violence against LGBTQ+ refugees and ethnic minorities in Turkey. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 1–18. Kardeş, S., & Akman, B. (2022). Problems encountered in the education of refugees in Turkey. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies , 9 (1), 153–164. Kaya, A. (2020). Reception? Turkey Country Report . Kayaoglu, A., Şahin-Mencütek, Z., & Erdoğan, M. M. (2022). Return aspirations of Syrian refugees in Turkey. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies , 20 (4), 561–583. Kayaoğlu, T., & Gülel, D. (2023). National human rights institutions and the appropriation of human rights: the case of the human rights and equality institution of Turkey. Australian Journal of Human Rights , 29 (2), 354–374. Kelebek-Küçükarslan, G., & Albayrak, H. (2023). Göç ve Dezavantajlı Gruplar. Göç ve Sosyal Hizmet (Ed. M. Zubaroğlu Yanardağ ve B. Erkoç), Ankara: Akademisyen Yayınevi, pp.251–270. Kocaoğlu, M. (2025). Rethinking Turkey’s refugee and asylum policy. İnönü Üniversitesi Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi , 14 (1), 242–256. 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), 2. Krieger, N. (2014). Discrimination and health inequities. International Journal of Health Services , 44 (4), 643–710. Kurfalı, M. A. (2023). Housing Experience of Forced Migrants: A Comparison of Sweden and Turkey (Order No. 31874781). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (3168633479). Makkonen, T. (2002). Multiple, compound and intersectional discrimination: Bringing the experiences of the most marginalized to the fore (pp. 17–19). Institute for Human Rights, Åbo Akademi University. Özçetin, B., & Emre, P. Ö. (2024). International migration and the NGOs working in the field of migration in Turkey. International Migration , 62 (1), 269–284. Özdüzen, R., Korkut, U., & Özdüzen, D. (2020). Digital racism and the changing categorisation of Syrians in Turkey. Patterns of Prejudice , 54 (2), 155–176. Özvarış, Ş. B., Kayı, İ., Mardin, D., Sakarya, S., Ekzayez, A., Meagher, K., & Patel, P. (2020). COVID-19 barriers and response strategies for refugees and undocumented migrants in Turkey. Journal of Migration and Health , 1 , 100012. Saygı, F. N. G. (2024). The Self-Settlement of Syrian Refugees in Türkiye: Dynamics, Challenges, and Refugee Agency. Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs , 29 (1), 110–133. Şafak-Ayvazoğlu, A., Kunuroglu, F., & Yağmur, K. (2021). Psychological and socio-cultural adaptation of Syrian refugees in Turkey. International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 80 , 99–111. Şahin Taşğın, N. (2021). Irkçılık ve ayrımcılığın önlenmesi: Türkiye’deki mevcut durum ve sosyal hizmet için öneriler. Toplum ve Sosyal Hizmet , 32 (1), 293–315. Şimşek, D. (2020). Integration processes of Syrian refugees in Turkey: ‘Class-based integration’. Journal of Refugee Studies , 33 (3), 537–554. Şi̇mşek, A. (2021). Stratejik davalama ve insan hakları savunuculuğu için bir model olarak hukuk kliniği eğitimi. Ankara Barosu Dergisi , 79 , 111–141. Taşdemir, I., Boylu, M. E., Aslıyüksek, H., Saygılı, S., & Karamustafalıoğlu, K. O. (2025). Criminological and psychiatric profiles of immigrant and refugee offenders: a retrospective analysis of cases in a forensic setting. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology , 69 (9), 1296–1315. Turkish Directorate General of Migration Management (2025). Geçici koruma altındaki Suriyeliler . Available at https://www.goc.gov.tr/gecici-koruma5638 Turkish Human Rights and Equality Institution [THREI]. (2024). İnsan Haklarının Korunması ve Geliştirilmesi 2024 Yılı Raporu . TİHEK Yayınları. Truscan, I., & Bourke-Martignoni, J. (2016). International human rights law and intersectional discrimination. The Equal Rights Review , 16 , 104–130. Tunaboylu, M. S., & van Liempt, I. (2021). A lack of legal protection and limited ways out: how asylum seekers cope with liminality on Greek Islands: Lesbos and Chios. Journal of Refugee Studies , 34 (2), 1560–1576. Üstübici, A. (2019). The impact of externalized migration governance on Turkey: technocratic migration governance and the production of differentiated legal status. CMS, 7 (46). Footnotes In this study, individuals with different legal statuses in Türkiye (temporary protection, international protection, irregular migrants) are referred to collectively as “migrants.” While national legislation (LFIP, 2014 Temporary Protection Regulation) recognizes only nationals of Council of Europe countries as “refugees,” under the 1951 Geneva Convention many of these groups meet the criteria for refugee status, and participants commonly referred to them as such. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8694682","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":585187982,"identity":"6292b57c-c1fd-4033-ab56-6f6a62093b18","order_by":0,"name":"Ozan Selçuk","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ozan","middleName":"","lastName":"Selçuk","suffix":""},{"id":585187983,"identity":"87ef598f-5bd2-4c7c-8b6c-afacbfa88cc9","order_by":1,"name":"Görkem Kelebek-Küçükarslan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sivas Cumhuriyet University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Görkem","middleName":"","lastName":"Kelebek-Küçükarslan","suffix":""},{"id":585187992,"identity":"265b2a2d-07c2-4a82-a9a3-58d4c0b74760","order_by":2,"name":"Hande Albayrak","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kocaeli University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hande","middleName":"","lastName":"Albayrak","suffix":""},{"id":585187993,"identity":"84dde238-2876-4a6b-bc5c-7fd393733f07","order_by":3,"name":"Gökçe Ceylan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Maltepe University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Gökçe","middleName":"","lastName":"Ceylan","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-25 20:08:23","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8694682/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8694682/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":108491662,"identity":"2632c75c-2eaf-4e84-84d1-7631cdc72e1e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-05 09:55:06","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":285491,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8694682/v1/24f033b7-ef36-41cc-ba4d-f616f897db68.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eUnder What Conditions? Migrant Experiences in Combating Discrimination and Seeking Justice in Türkiye\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eSince the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011, T\u0026uuml;rkiye has experienced intense migration flows due to both its geographical location and regional conflicts, becoming the country hosting the largest number of Syrian migrants\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e. As of 2025, T\u0026uuml;rkiye hosts approximately 2.70\u0026nbsp;million registered Syrians under temporary protection, alongside 350,000 Afghans, 280,000 Iraqis, 130,000 Iranians, and migrants of other nationalities, totaling 4.5\u0026nbsp;million refugees and irregular migrants (Turkish Directorate General of Migration Management, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The state approach, initially shaped by \"open door\" policies and religious brotherhood discourse, has undergone significant transformation over time, particularly following the economic crisis, COVID-19 pandemic, and the 2023 Kahramanmaraş-centered earthquake (\u0026Ccedil;akın and AlMajdalawi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). While these challenges have brought structural tests to the country's migration regime, they have also laid the groundwork for a social rupture where discriminatory practices, exclusionary discourses, and mass othering toward migrants have become increasingly normalized (Can, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Cevik, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Coupled with political uncertainties and polarizations, particularly Afghan and Syrian migrants are associated with crime, being \"burdens,\" and representing \"cultural threats\" both in media discourse and daily life, leading to the institutionalization of anti-migrant attitudes in the social sphere (\u0026Ouml;zd\u0026uuml;zen, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Erbay and Usta, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, the limitation of public resources accompanying economic hardship has further complicated migrants\u0026rsquo; access to fundamental areas such as health, housing, education, and employment in their daily lives, causing migrants to increasingly face discrimination in public spaces (Can, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Erbay and Usta, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscrimination refers to situations where individuals are denied equal access to opportunities or equal treatment due to their identity characteristics (Truscan and Bourke-Martignoni, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Discrimination manifests not only in interpersonal relationships but also at structural and institutional levels, deepening social inequalities (Krieger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Makkonen (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) notes that discrimination can be direct, indirect, or institutional and can also be intentional, unintentional, or structural. Structural discrimination stems from the failure to recognize the effects of certain policies or practices, particularly concerning disadvantaged groups. Makkonen (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) defines three forms of discrimination: multiple discrimination, compound discrimination, and intersectional discrimination. Multiple discrimination refers to a person experiencing discrimination for different reasons at different times. Compound discrimination occurs when multiple types of discrimination simultaneously overlap to create a burden (Makkonen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Intersectional discrimination refers to individuals experiencing discrimination simultaneously and interactively due to multiple identity characteristics such as race, gender, class, ethnicity, and disability (Crenshaw, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). Groups like migrants are frequently exposed simultaneously to multiple grounds of discrimination including migrant status, ethnicity, gender, poverty, language barriers, and health conditions (Truscan and Bourke-Martignoni, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). While international human rights law provides a comprehensive framework for protecting these individuals, the actual implementation and realization of these rights show significant differences among countries. Key legal texts include the Constitution of the Republic of T\u0026uuml;rkiye, the 1951 Refugee Convention, and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ensari et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eT\u0026uuml;rkiye has made significant arrangements in national legislation in recent years to control increasing mass migration and guarantee the protection of migrant rights (\u0026Uuml;st\u0026uuml;bici, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). T\u0026uuml;rkiye has ratified numerous agreements and protocols related to migrant rights and formally adopted the principle of non-refoulement, ensuring that migrants are not forcibly returned against their will. However, the provision of temporary protection status to non-European refugees under the geographical limitation clause of the 1951 Refugee Convention has led to a series of discriminatory practices among migrants (\u0026Uuml;st\u0026uuml;bici, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Kocaoğlu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). This situation restricts refugees' access to livelihood sources and exposes them to vulnerable living conditions where their access to social and economic support is limited (Ensari et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Although T\u0026uuml;rkiye offers a legal framework like EU asylum acquis, temporary protection status creates an insecure situation for refugees due to both the ambiguity of rights and uncertainties in implementation (Baban et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn T\u0026uuml;rkiye, legal and social frameworks remain inadequate in effectively addressing discrimination against migrants. The limited scope of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection (LFIP) focuses primarily on basic rights, while leaving critical areas such as employment, housing, and the protection of undocumented or temporary migrants insufficiently regulated (Doğan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Ensari et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Nevertheless, T\u0026uuml;rkiye has demonstrated a commitment to combating discrimination through the ratification of international human rights instruments. The Constitutional Court plays a key oversight role by keeping judicial remedies open against all administrative acts and actions that amount to rights violations or negligence, and by protecting migrants\u0026rsquo; human rights through the individual application mechanism. Alongside judicial remedies, non-judicial institutional mechanisms also contribute to preventing discrimination and rights violations. In this context, the Turkish Human Rights and Equality Institution (THREI) and the Ombudsman Institution (OI) function as core bodies ensuring non-discriminatory access to rights (Kayaoğlu and G\u0026uuml;lel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Under Law No. 6701, THREI (2024) highlights structural inequalities and ill-treatment through monitoring reports based on regular visits to removal centres and migrant accommodation facilities. The OI facilitates individual applications and develops recommendations, including the correction of discriminatory administrative practices, legislative amendments, and compensation for damages (Şahin Taşğın, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, YIMER and CIMER support migrants\u0026rsquo; access to public services, while within the framework of the Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan (3RP), UNHCR-supported bar associations and law clinics enhance migrants\u0026rsquo; access to justice (Şimşek, 2021; AIDA, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMigrant\u0026rsquo;s access to justice is limited in practice by various structural and administrative barriers despite normative regulations; language barriers, lack of information, economic inadequacies, and specific problems such as province-based budgets for legal aid services and lawyer shortages further complicate this process (Aras, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Migrants experience serious information and document procurement problems in accessing these rights, particularly when under administrative supervision, despite legal regulations regarding legal aid rights. Access to legal aid becomes difficult due to comprehensive documents required by bar associations, language barriers, and lack of identity documents, making the process of benefiting from legal support nearly impossible. Furthermore, restrictions on fundamental rights such as granting power of attorney to lawyers, accessing interpreter support, and meeting with lawyers seriously damage migrants\u0026rsquo; right to effective application and access to justice (Aras, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; AIDA, 2022). In this process, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) play a critical role in legal support and advocacy in defending migrants' rights and combating discrimination (Boşnak, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study aims to conduct an in-depth contextual analysis of the discrimination faced by migrants in T\u0026uuml;rkiye and to examine how access to justice processes is shaped under these conditions. Accordingly, it seeks to address the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat are the discrimination experiences that migrants are subjected to and what contextual conditions do they include?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow do migrants cope with discrimination and access justice?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"METHODOLOGY","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a phenomenological research approach within the framework of qualitative research methods. As Creswell (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) explains, phenomenological research aims to characterize and synthesize the common meanings of people's lived experiences in relation to a particular phenomenon or concept. This study aimed to examine the contextual conditions shaping discrimination against migrants in T\u0026uuml;rkiye and to analyse how these conditions influence migrants\u0026rsquo; access to justice and rights-seeking processes. It focuses on the forms and drivers of discrimination, migrants\u0026rsquo; coping strategies, their engagement with legal remedies, and the rationales underlying their decisions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey informants were contacted through purposive sampling based on the research team's NGO experience in migration work, with relevant institutions evaluated according to their case management and advocacy activities. Within this purposive sampling framework, criterion sampling was applied by selecting participants with direct experience or academic research expertise in migrant discrimination issues. To highlight the experiences of various migrant groups and ensure participant diversity, interviews were arranged in locations with high migrant concentrations, including Ankara, Gaziantep, and Istanbul. Due to restricted service availability in certain locations, researchers also conducted interviews during fieldwork in urban areas including Yalova, Eskişehir, and Kırıkkale. These locations were selected due to their concentration of mobile professionals and significant migrant populations receiving assistance. Snowball sampling was additionally employed to facilitate participant recommendations of other relevant individuals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research team developed a semi-structured interview form based on existing literature and conducted in-depth interviews with representatives from NGOs, local authorities, legal experts, activists, and academics. A pilot study involving three participants was conducted to test the usability and clarity of interview questions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThirty-three individuals from diverse geographical locations and professional backgrounds participated in semi-structured interviews. The interview process continued until data saturation was achieved, at which point the phenomenon under investigation began manifesting in recurrent narratives. Due to participants' considerable workloads, 15 interviews were conducted online at participant request, while 18 interviews were conducted in person in Gaziantep, Istanbul, and Ankara. Interviews averaged 94 minutes in duration, with in-person interviews conducted in participants' workplaces or public venues such as cafes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe 33 participants included 20 individuals working in different national NGOs and 13 in international NGOs. Their occupational backgrounds encompassed social workers, psychologists, sociologists, physiotherapists, dieticians, lawyers, and activists. Professional experience in migration work ranged from 2 to 25 years, with an average of 8.5 years.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding educational background, twelve participants held bachelor's degrees, seven held master's degrees, nine were pursuing master's degrees, three were doctoral students, and two held PhDs. The majority of participants worked in Ankara (13) or Gaziantep (10), while the remaining participants were based in Kırıkkale (2), Yalova (1), Istanbul (6), and Eskişehir (1). The gender distribution comprised 22 women and 11 men. Participants worked with diverse migrant populations, including children (13), women (8), disabled and elderly individuals (5), internally displaced persons (4), and LGBTIQ+ individuals (3). Additionally, participants engaged with migrant communities across various provinces, providing insights into intersectional experiences. The professionals contributed to the research by discussing practices in different provinces based on their previous work experiences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAnalysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study analyzed 507 pages of interview transcripts using thematic analysis supported by Atlas.ti software. The analysis followed a six-phase process, beginning with initial coding through repeated readings to capture participants\u0026rsquo; experiences comprehensively and reduce data loss. Relationships among codes were then examined, generating 43 categories, which were subsequently clustered into three overarching themes. The themes were reviewed and refined to ensure coherence, validity, and conceptual clarity, with careful attention given to theme naming. The findings were illustrated through selected quotations drawn from 50 pages of participant narratives. Throughout the analytical process, a rights-based perspective guided the interpretation of data, ensuring consistency with the research objectives and relevant literature.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Construction of 'the Other' and the Conditions that Fuel Discrimination\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMigrants are often constructed as \u0026ldquo;the Other,\u0026rdquo; portrayed as threats or burdens, which legitimizes exclusion and violence. Media representations reduce them to objects defined by origin rather than subjects of events, while public discourse frames them as disruptors of order, resource consumers, or threats to national structure, fueling scapegoating and social anger. Regional dynamics further shape othering, and anti-migrant rhetoric gains traction during crises and elections, normalizing discrimination. The \u0026ldquo;us versus them\u0026rdquo; dichotomy drives spatial segregation, criminalization of migrant areas, and exclusion from public spaces. Misbeliefs about state support, amplified by economic crises, intensify resentment and generate calls for return. Media and political narratives attribute individual crimes to entire groups, especially targeting male migrants, while even ordinary social activities may provoke backlash, rendering migrants invisible and reluctant to claim rights.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eWhen any incident breaks out in T\u0026uuml;rkiye, if there is a migrant involved, it is reported as a migrant. This is discriminatory language because it emphasizes their migrant status rather than the incident itself\u0026hellip;They attribute all social problems and issues to the migrant group. Scapegoat. (P33, psychologist, INGO)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eThere is a perception as if abuse cases in this country increased with migrants. Or just with them, we were a very good country before, but migrants came and abuse, violence against women, violence against animals all reached a peak. Why? There's something full of clich\u0026eacute;s like this is being done in these people's country, that is being done. These discourses, attributing individual crimes to a group, holding the entire group responsible, or there's a lot of speculative information. (P23, sociologist, NGO)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother dimension of discrimination against migrants is shaped in the context of economic concerns and limited resources. Social perceptions that resources are not distributed fairly cause migrants to be seen as \"unjust beneficiaries.\" This situation also finds expression in daily life through discourses such as \"they receive aid,\" \"they live better than us,\" or \"they took our jobs.\"\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eAs if Syrians receive regular salaries, like \u0026lsquo;the state is taking care of you.\u0026rsquo; Even if they don't receive any salary, or these people are doing this in this country, they became a nuisance. If they're rich and have settled down, people say \u0026lsquo;they live better than us.\u0026rsquo; If they're poor, these poor people just came to our country, they filled it up. If they're educated, these people are taking jobs instead of our children. If they're uneducated, these ignorant people filled our country. So, there's this dead-end situation. Yes, we don't like them in any way. (P26, social worker, NGO)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe physical and spatial segregation that migrants are subjected to deepens exclusion and discrimination. While cultural differences isolate migrants from society, restrictions in registration systems prevent access to services and freedom of settlement. This situation pushes migrants to ghettoized areas in cities; combined with high rents and discriminatory attitudes of landlords, it also limits the right to housing. Thus, spatial exclusion becomes a structural inequality that directly affects the right to identity acquisition and safe living. This situation leads to the emergence of ghettoized areas where individuals from the same origin live together and where businesses serving in their own language are located.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eThey are already very segregated. Unfortunately, there is ghettoization, at least in Gaziantep\u0026hellip; The first major problem is that they don't know the language. Secondly, their appearance makes it clear that they are foreign. Maybe not so much for men, but obvious for women. The way they cover their heads, and the clothes they wear is very decisive. They are generally not accepted into Turkish groups. (P29, psychologist, INGO)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring and after the disaster process, priority was given to Turkish Republic citizens, while for migrants there were more bureaucratic obstacles, inadequate infrastructure, and discriminatory practices in many cases. To avoid increasing social tension, container cities were established separately, and migrant settlements were placed in more remote and disadvantaged areas. In areas such as housing and medical needs (such as prosthetics), priority was always given to Turkish citizens, and migrants were mostly supported through NGOs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMigrants face multi-layered obstacles in daily life and especially in urban transportation. Fear of getting lost, being unable to express themselves due to language barriers, and encountering law enforcement (such as police stops, identity checks, G\u0026Ouml;KSEM) leads them to travel with people they know or through unsafe but communicable means such as unlicensed taxis. This situation seriously restricts their urban mobility.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eI observe that even when going by bus, these people are seen as individuals who should give up their sits and not sit down. In schools they are thought of as people who should receive education not in certain good schools but in more back-street, lower-quality schools. I think they think these people should not have access to anything good. (P5, sociologist, INGO)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMigrants are constructed with the \"other\" identity through structural inequalities, spatial exclusion, language and cultural barriers, and negative media representations; this othering is fueled by reasons such as economic crises, disasters, nationalist political discourses, and the political atmosphere during election periods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eConstructing Layered Otherness: Insights from Intersectional Discrimination\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn T\u0026uuml;rkiye, variables such as sect, ethnicity, nomadic/settled status, and war-induced mass displacement led to widespread discrimination, particularly among minority migrant groups (Roma, Dom, Armenians, Christians, etc.). Hierarchical approach is observed among Syrian, Afghan, Iranian, and Iraqi migrants. For example, while Afghans are in the most disadvantaged position, Iraqis are in a relatively better situation. Syrians are subjected to intense discrimination both legally and socially. This situation reveals the mutual othering dynamics between different migrant groups and shows multi-layered forms of discrimination where \"the other others the other.\"\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eIt varies according to geographical regions in T\u0026uuml;rkiye, but I think the most disadvantaged group is still Afghans... Of course, there are still different profiles among them in terms of discrimination because Afghans came from Iran in the past, so they previously faced discrimination in Iran. Then when they came here, they continue to face discrimination by other migrants, especially by Iranians. As if you are more valuable again. (P6, lawyer, INGO)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMigrant women are subjected to compound and intersectional discrimination due to both gender-based inequalities and exclusion brought by migrant status. In general, the obstacles migrants face in accessing employment, combined with working conditions in low-paid, insecure, and informal jobs, lay the groundwork for deepening poverty. Women, in addition to this, face systematic abuses ranging from care burden, wage theft under unregistered and insecure employment conditions, irregular and excessive working hours, verbal and physical harassment to rape. These forms of discrimination deepen migrant women's vulnerabilities in working life while also limiting their opportunities to benefit from social and legal protections. LGBTI+ migrants are subjected to intersectional discrimination both because they are migrants and because of their gender identities and sexual orientations; they are excluded from employment opportunities and in some cases forced into sex work.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eSingle women or mothers are harassed by their employers their wages aren\u0026rsquo;t paid. Even if they are working some employers have sexual expectations or make some demands. 98% of single women or mothers would report this. The patriarchal culture that already treats its own citizen women this way, that treats them with so much harassment, can do this more violently when you appear foreign and unprotected. (P11, sociologist, NGO)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMigrant children encounter direct and/or indirect forms of discrimination in accessing education, health, and social services, including forced early marriage, social exclusion, peer bullying, system neglect, abuse, and working in inappropriate jobs at an early age. Disabled migrant children are subjected to discrimination in accessing special services.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eChildren face significant challenges at school, including peer bullying. Their understanding of such behavior is often influenced by media, family discussions, or educational teachings. As a result, many children either become perpetrators or victims of bullying, remaining entangled in these dynamics. (P1, social worker, INGO)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDisabled migrants encounter structural obstacles such as making appointments, process follow-up, and lack of information in accessing health services; especially children with mental problems remain invisible in the system. Accessing disability reports becomes difficult due to language barriers and institutional inadequacies, while it is also very difficult for caregivers to follow the process. The deprivation of disabled children and adults from support and care services also deepens the xenophobia that migrants are subjected to.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eA Turkish disabled child can get a disability report much easier and faster. Why is this? Because they don't have difficulty making appointments, there's no language barrier. But when a disabled child is Syrian, they may have difficulty making appointments, there are parents who don't even know where to make appointments. (P27, social worker, NGO)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eElderly migrants face intersectional and compound discrimination; their access to medical devices and health services remains limited. Most elderly live dependent on their children, while due to poverty they are forced to work in jobs unsuitable for their physical capacities. They do not have sufficient information about institutions and the areas where they live are disadvantaged in terms of spatial access.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eWhen elderly want to do something, their family react, \u0026lsquo;you are old, you can\u0026rsquo;t do that\u0026rsquo; with an overly protective attitude. When they need to take care of grandchildren or someone else at home, they are expected do it. These are issues that significantly impact their physical health and are rarely reported through official complaint channels, as they are highly tolerated and cultural norms come into play. (P2, political scientist, INGO)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eThe elderly group is a group that has more difficulty in access. If there is no serious health problem or legal obligation that they must fulfill, they continue without moving away from their environment much... They are invisible. (P24, social worker, NGO)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eVulnerable groups including women, LGBTI+ individuals, children, disabled and elderly migrants not only face discrimination but also experience othering due to their identity, and their vulnerabilities become even more intense. Therefore, discrimination against these groups should be considered as a multi-dimensional and layered phenomenon intertwined with the vulnerability brought by being a migrant. The findings clearly reveal the structure where \"the other others\" by addressing the migrants experience through these multi-dimensional vulnerability and discrimination axes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBarriers and Strategies in Combating Discrimination: Justice Paradox and Coping\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMigrants\u0026rsquo; access to justice suffers serious disruptions due to obstacles in field implementation despite the existence of legal regulations. Court fees and litigation costs, slow processing, exclusionary attitudes of law enforcement especially toward women and children, ineffective complaint mechanisms, and lack of information are among important problems; discriminatory and prejudiced attitudes of public officials (judges-prosecutors, law enforcement, etc.) deepen structural discrimination.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eWhen you take a woman who has experienced violence, the police might approach the woman with a very lax attitude as if to say, \u0026lsquo;I will make peace with him.\u0026rsquo; Or when you see an 11-year-old girl with a baby in her arms, they might approach it as if nothing is wrong, even if it's not legal in that area\u0026mdash;and we're talking about the police, which is even worse. When you bring a child, the police can very seriously say to you \u0026lsquo;Did you bring the child again?\u0026rsquo; (P6, lawyer, INGO)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEven when migrants apply to institutional mechanisms such as Turkish Constitutional Court (TCC), European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Ombudsman, YIMER, THREI, prosecutor's office, NGOs, they encounter problems in getting responses. While technical malfunctions, address identification difficulties, and financial burdens make legal processes difficult, many migrants do not know their rights or avoid seeking rights due to system complexity, fear of deportation, and distrust.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eThey apply to the ECtHR or TCC where there is a finalized deportation decision about them. They generally apply in relation to the specific deportation order. There are cases that result in a positive outcome, but they don't hesitate to pursue it because it's a necessary process for their stay here. Because the file at the Migration Administration is already negative and there's nothing that can be done about it. Therefore, there's no file that could be negatively affected. At that point, they are very eager. (P7, lawyer, NGO)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDeficiencies in providing interpreter support in processes of seeking rights, declaration, and expression against discrimination, individuals not knowing what path to follow, and the need for personal efforts to speed up the process show that justice is moving away from being equal and accessible. These multi-layered obstacles show that legal mechanisms exist only on paper, while in practice migrants\u0026rsquo; access to their rights largely depends on coincidences, individual effort, and sometimes the arbitrary attitudes of public officials. Although various mechanisms related to legal aid services exist, the functionality of these services in practice is seen to be limited.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eThey hesitate to file lawsuits and make complaints. They hesitate to go to the police. When they go to the police, there are already heavy symptoms they are subjected to. We can talk about a group that doesn't use that right even if they want to in this regard. (P13, sociologist, INGO)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eSince UNHCR's project ended, the bar no longer provides lawyer appointments, creating a serious financial burden. Some NGOs take on representation, with our legal advisors preparing petitions, guiding clients, and accompanying them to court. However, these processes are time-consuming, and language barriers can lead to missed notifications and deadlines, resulting in serious consequences. (P22, lawyer, INGO)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the process of coping with discrimination, they generally resort to social networks based on their own communities. They develop information sharing and solidarity patterns especially through family circles and digital platforms (WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook groups). While migrants evaluate alternative solutions such as returning or settling in third countries, they generally participate in employment and socialization activities within their own ethnic or cultural groups. Their psychosocial support seeking is also mostly shaped in this context and/or through migrant NGOs.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eFor example, a child is subjected to violence in the neighborhood. But perhaps by other children living in the building. The parent knows this. But they cannot go and complain about their neighbor to the police. They may not report it to the police, as moving is expensive and neighborhoods are closed off\u0026hellip; They think it will remain unresolved. (P24, social worker, NGO)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this process, educational activities play a particularly decisive role. Educating both migrants and host populations with an anti-discrimination and rights-based perspective is seen as critical for replacing widespread misperceptions with accurate and reliable information. Additionally, both service providers and migrants gaining comprehensive and understandable information about implementation processes and rights is a basic requirement for effective service delivery and access. Strengthening NGOs, providing rights-based education to public personnel, and establishing comprehensive, accessible information mechanisms regarding migrants\u0026rsquo; rights are necessary.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough migrants apply to legal mechanisms to seek their rights, access to justice is effectively restricted due to factors such as high costs, slow processes, discriminatory attitudes of public officials, lack of information, and fear, which reduces the effectiveness of rights-seeking efforts. Therefore, justice, with both its existence and inaccessibility, shapes migrants\u0026rsquo; rights-seeking strategies as a paradox and often causes them to turn to social networks and alternative forms of solidarity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study's exploration of migrants' experiences in seeking justice against discrimination in T\u0026uuml;rkiye reveals a complex and troubling landscape that extends far beyond individual prejudice to encompass systematic, institutionalized exclusion operating at multiple levels of society. The findings illuminate how discrimination functions as a sophisticated system of social control that not only marginalizes migrant communities but actively prevents them from accessing the very mechanisms designed to protect their rights. What emerges from the voices of NGO professionals is a portrait of a society grappling with the tension between its humanitarian commitments and its growing anxieties about cultural change, economic security, and national identity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe framing of migrants as threatening \u0026ldquo;others\u0026rdquo; represents a prominent aspect of contemporary discrimination in T\u0026uuml;rkiye, operating through systematic narratives that simplify complex individuals, portraying them as potential threats or burdens. This process, as our participants vividly describe, unfolds through discourses that consistently frame migrants through the lens of criminality, economic drain, or cultural incompatibility. The finding that migrants' nationality becomes their primary identifier in crime reporting reflects what Bulgurcuoğlu and Aykutalp (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) identify as discriminatory media discourse that systematically associates migrant identity with criminal behavior. This discourse creates what might be termed \u0026ldquo;inescapable otherness,\u0026rdquo; where migrants cannot achieve social acceptance regardless of their individual characteristics, contributions, or integration efforts. Whether they are wealthy or poor, educated or uneducated, employed or unemployed, they remain fundamentally defined by their foreignness and perceived threat to social order.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis othering process is particularly pronounced in how economic anxieties are projected onto migrant communities, creating a paradoxical situation where migrants are simultaneously criticized for being economic burdens and for taking jobs from Turkish citizens. As Bolg\u0026uuml;n and U\u0026ccedil;an (2020) demonstrate in their analysis of societal discriminatory attitudes, this contradictory framing serves the function of rationalizing exclusion regardless of migrants' actual economic impact or circumstances. Recent research further confirms how \u0026ldquo;class-based integration\u0026rdquo; processes create systematic hierarchies that exclude migrants from meaningful economic participation, reinforcing their position as perpetual outsiders regardless of their skills or contributions (Şimşek, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The participants' accounts reveal how these economic narratives become deeply embedded in everyday interactions, shaping everything from housing discrimination to workplace exploitation to social service delivery. The belief that migrants receive special government support, despite evidence to the contrary, exemplifies how misinformation becomes central to maintaining discriminatory attitudes and practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe spatial dimensions of discrimination documented in this study represent a particularly significant contribution to understanding how exclusion operates in practice. The emergence of ghettoized neighborhoods, while providing migrants with linguistic and cultural support networks, simultaneously reinforces social boundaries and limits opportunities for meaningful interaction with the broader Turkish society. This spatial segregation operates not merely because of economic constraints but as an active process of social sorting that reflects and reinforces broader patterns of exclusion. Research on Syrian migrants in urban spaces confirms how migrants are \u0026ldquo;confronted with a series of constraints once in the host country,\u0026rdquo; revealing how urban contexts shape and amplify discrimination through systematic exclusion from quality neighborhoods and services (de Andrade, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The finding that migrants are systematically excluded from \u0026ldquo;good\u0026rdquo; schools, neighborhoods, and public spaces reveals how discrimination becomes embedded in the physical landscape of Turkish cities, creating parallel societies that rarely intersect except in contexts of conflict or exploitation. Comparative analysis of housing experiences across different national contexts further demonstrates how spatial exclusion represents a systematic pattern rather than incidental outcome of individual prejudice (Kurfalı, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe role of political discourse in legitimizing and amplifying discrimination cannot be understated, particularly given how electoral cycles transform migrants from humanitarian subjects deserving protection into political problems requiring solution. The participants' observations about how anti-migrant rhetoric intensifies during election periods reflects broader patterns of what scholars have termed \u0026ldquo;selective humanitarianism,\u0026rdquo; where political expedience ultimately trumps humanitarian commitment (Korkut, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This political dimension of discrimination has profound implications for migrants' willingness to engage with formal institutions, as they correctly perceive that their presence has become a matter of political contention rather than human rights protection. Research on local attitudes toward integration policies demonstrates how public support becomes contingent on political framing rather than humanitarian need, with discriminatory attitudes becoming normalized through repeated exposure to exclusionary rhetoric (Duman and Coşkan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The impact of this politicization extends to migrants' long-term planning and settlement decisions, with research on return aspirations revealing how discrimination and exclusion fundamentally shape migrants' perceptions of their prospects and belonging in Turkish society (Kayaoğlu et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat makes the discrimination documented in this study particularly complex is its intersectional character, where multiple forms of disadvantage compound and reinforce each other in ways that create unique vulnerabilities for different groups within migrant communities. The hierarchical nature of discrimination among different migrant nationalities reveals how processes of othering operate selectively, with Afghans facing the most severe exclusion while Iraqis experience relatively better treatment based on complex calculations involving religious affinity, geopolitical relationships, and perceived cultural compatibility. Taşdemir et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) reflect broader patterns of hierarchical exclusion that extend across multiple social institutions. This hierarchy demonstrates that discrimination is not simply about foreign versus domestic but involves sophisticated processes of categorization that rank different forms of foreignness according to their perceived threat or compatibility with Turkish society. Research on urban constraints faced by Syrian migrants confirms how these hierarchical processes operate through systematic differentiation, where specific migrant groups encounter distinct combinations of structural barriers that reflect their position within T\u0026uuml;rkiye\u0026rsquo;s implicit hierarchy of deserving and undeserving foreigners (de Andrade, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMigrant women\u0026rsquo;s experiences highlight how gender and migration status intersect to create unique vulnerabilities. They face sexual exploitation, wage theft, and workplace harassment, exacerbated by limited legal protection, lack of social support, and dismissal when seeking help. These challenges hinder access to both formal services and informal networks, reflecting broader patterns of discrimination, stereotyping, and inadequate integration policies, while normalizing gender-based violence in employment contexts. Together, these findings underscore the urgent need for institutional reforms and targeted policies to protect migrant women and address intersecting vulnerabilities (Şafak-Ayvazoğlu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The situation of LGBTI+ migrants represents severe form of intersectional discrimination observed in this study. They experience a \u0026ldquo;double exile,\u0026rdquo; facing exclusion from mainstream Turkish society and from their own ethnic communities, which increases their vulnerability to violence and institutional discrimination (G\u0026uuml;m\u0026uuml;ş and Kjaran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe experiences of children, elderly, and disabled migrants reveal how age and ability intersect with migration status to produce systematic exclusion from services and support systems. Those migrants are seen as dependent individuals and face inadequate healthcare, social isolation and bureaucratic barriers that limit their access to essential services. Gokalp Aras et al.\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) institutional analysis of healthcare access barriers provides compelling evidence of how regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive pillars of institutions systematically exclude migrants from services, while \u0026Ouml;zvarış et al.'s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) documentation of COVID-19 response strategies reveals how crisis situations amplify existing discriminatory practices and create additional barriers for already marginalized populations. Consistent with the findings of our study, research in the literature portrays disabled and elderly refugees as passive recipients of aid rather than as active subjects. This finding suggests that they are not regarded as valuable sources in terms of their access to services and involvement in society (Kelebek-K\u0026uuml;\u0026ccedil;\u0026uuml;karslan and Albayrak, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Peer bullying in schools further marginalizes migrant children, depriving them of both quality education and social integration. These patterns illustrate how institutional practices embed discrimination across age and ability, disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable members of migrant communities (Kardeş and Akman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). These findings are particularly troubling because they reveal how discrimination affects the most vulnerable members of migrant communities, those least able to advocate for themselves or access alternative support systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerhaps the most paradoxical aspect of migrants' experiences in T\u0026uuml;rkiye is the coexistence of comprehensive legal protections with systematic barriers to accessing these protections. This \u0026ldquo;justice paradox\u0026rdquo; reflects deeper tensions within T\u0026uuml;rkiye\u0026rsquo;s approach to migration governance, where humanitarian rhetoric coexists with increasingly restrictive practices and where legal rights exist primarily on paper rather than in lived experience. Ertorer's (2021) analysis of migrant\u0026rsquo;s experiences of precarity provides crucial context for understanding how restrictive policies generate conditions that allow \u0026ldquo;multidimensional precarities to flourish,\u0026rdquo; creating systematic vulnerability even within ostensibly protective legal frameworks. Detailed analysis of T\u0026uuml;rkiye\u0026rsquo;s reception policies reveals how state and non-state responses often create additional barriers rather than facilitating access to protection, demonstrating the gap between policy intentions and implementation realities (Kaya, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The finding that migrants avoid formal complaint mechanisms due to fears of deportation or negative consequences for future citizenship applications reveals how legal status insecurity fundamentally shapes justice seeking behavior in ways that undermine the effectiveness of existing protections.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe discriminatory attitudes and practices documented within law enforcement and judicial systems represent particularly serious violations of the rule of law, as they demonstrate how discrimination has penetrated the very institutions responsible for protecting vulnerable populations. The normalization of violence against migrant women and children within police responses, the dismissive attitudes toward migrant complaints, and the systematic exclusion of migrants from legal aid services all point to institutional cultures that view migrants as less deserving of protection than Turkish citizens. While highlighting the limitations of formal protection mechanisms, this attitude fosters reliance on informal social networks and community-based support systems. It highlights the resilience and agency of migrants and the ways in which discrimination compels migrants to establish parallel systems of support and advocacy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese informal networks typically organized around ethnic, linguistic, or religious affiliations, provide crucial support for navigating bureaucratic systems, finding employment, and addressing immediate crises. Saygı's (2024) analysis of self-settlement dynamics reveals how Syrian migrants actively exercise agency in creating support networks and developing survival strategies despite systemic exclusion, demonstrating that informal systems often compensate for formal institutional failures. However, they also reflect the failure of mainstream institutions to provide adequate support and the ways in which discrimination forces migrants into ethnic enclaves that may limit their broader integration opportunities. Comparative research on asylum seeker coping strategies confirms how migrants develop sophisticated informal mechanisms to address legal precarity and institutional abandonment, yet these strategies often require significant personal resources and social capital that are unequally distributed within migrant communities (Tunaboylu and van Liempt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe constrained role of NGO emerges as both a crucial lifeline for migrant communities and a reflection of broader limitations in T\u0026uuml;rkiye\u0026rsquo;s approach to migration governance. While NGOs provide essential services in navigating legal systems, advocating for individual cases, and filling gaps in state provision, their focus on meeting immediate humanitarian needs rather than addressing structural inequalities limits their effectiveness in promoting systemic change. These findings align with recent research documenting how political pressure and organizational constraints limit NGO effectiveness in addressing structural discrimination (\u0026Ouml;z\u0026ccedil;etin and Emre, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) but extend this analysis to show how these limitations affect not only NGO responses but also state institutions responsible for justice delivery. In the context of economic integration and social inclusion, rights-based approaches that take local conditions into account can enhance the effectiveness of integration processes. However, political sensitivities often hinder the implementation of such comprehensive and holistic approaches. The finding that political pressure and resource constraints push NGOs toward narrow, service-oriented approaches rather than broader advocacy reflects the challenging environment in which NGO operates and the ways in which political context shapes organizational strategies and priorities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStrengths and Limitations\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study's phenomenological approach and diverse participant base represent significant methodological strengths that enhance the credibility and depth of findings. The inclusion of 33 professionals from both national and international organizations across multiple provinces provides comprehensive insights into systematic discrimination patterns while avoiding the limitations of single-location studies. The theoretical framework combining intersectionality theory with phenomenological analysis proved particularly effective in revealing how multiple forms of discrimination interact and compound each other, while the focus on justice seeking processes rather than just discrimination experiences provide crucial insights into how legal and informal mechanisms function in practice. The geographic diversity of data collection and the range of professional backgrounds represented among participants enhances the transferability of findings within the Turkish context and provides a robust foundation for understanding discrimination as a systematic rather than isolated phenomenon.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the study's reliance on NGO professionals' perspectives, while providing systematic insights across multiple contexts, means that migrant voices are mediated through service providers rather than directly captured, potentially limiting the depth of understanding of migrants' own interpretations of their experiences. The timing of data collection during 2024 reflects conditions during a particular political and economic moment that may not capture longer-term trends or recent policy changes, while the phenomenological approach, though providing rich qualitative insights, limited opportunities to quantify the prevalence or severity of different forms of discrimination across populations. Additionally, the focus on discrimination experiences may have emphasized negative aspects while potentially overlooking successful integration stories or effective justice seeking outcomes, suggesting that future research could benefit from mixed methods approaches that combine qualitative depth with quantitative breadth and include direct migrant perspectives alongside professional observations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study demonstrates the conditions under which migrants experience discrimination in T\u0026uuml;rkiye and highlights their compounded vulnerabilities through an intersectional lens. It reveals structural tensions within migration governance that create gaps between formally guaranteed protections and migrants\u0026rsquo; lived realities. The justice paradox identified is not merely a problem of weak implementation but reflects deeper conflicts surrounding national identity, citizenship, and belonging in a context of large-scale displacement. The findings show that discrimination functions as a systematic mechanism of social control, positioning migrants as perpetual outsiders and producing differentiated rights regimes based on origin rather than universal human rights.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis further illustrates that host\u0026ndash;migrant relations are shaped by hierarchical and categorical distinctions among migrant groups, resulting in differentiated experiences according to legal status and perceived legitimacy. These dynamics suggest that integration policies often overlook the diverse needs and experiences of migrant communities. A central contribution of the study is the concept of \u0026ldquo;manufactured invisibility,\u0026rdquo; whereby migrants\u0026rsquo; avoidance of formal institutions\u0026mdash;driven by fear, mistrust, and previous experiences of exclusion\u0026mdash;reinforces the very discrimination they seek to escape. This mutual disengagement between migrants and institutions sustains cycles of exclusion that become increasingly entrenched over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscrimination is shown to operate not only through individual prejudice but also through institutional practices, media narratives, spatial segregation, and political discourse, collectively reframing migrants as objects of charity or security threats rather than rights holders. The intersectional nature of these processes produces heightened vulnerabilities for women, children, older persons, persons with disabilities, and LGBTI+ migrants, whose needs remain insufficiently addressed by existing protection mechanisms. While non-governmental organizations play a vital supportive role, their constrained position reflects the broader limitations of humanitarian approaches that prioritize short-term assistance over structural transformation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the study underscores the need to rethink migration governance in T\u0026uuml;rkiye by addressing discrimination embedded in discourse, institutions, and social structures. It argues that meaningful change requires recognizing migrants as rights-bearing subjects and confronting the systemic exclusion that shapes their everyday experiences, with implications extending beyond migration policy to broader understandings of citizenship and human rights.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEthical approval\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e was granted by the Ethics Committee of Social and Human Sciences at X University in February 2024, and all participants were informed about ethical considerations prior to interviews. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed with participant consent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll authors contributed equally to the conception, design, analysis, and writing of this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study draws on 33 qualitative interviews. Due to ethical considerations and the need to protect the anonymity of participants, the underlying data cannot be made publicly available. However, the data may be accessed upon reasonable request, subject to the discretion of the corresponding author.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAras, A. (2021). Access to justice for refugees and asylum seekers: Legal aid. \u003cem\u003eDokuz Eyl\u0026uuml;l \u0026Uuml;niversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstit\u0026uuml;s\u0026uuml; Dergisi\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(4), 43\u0026ndash;54.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAsylum Information Database (AIDA) (2022). \u003cem\u003eCountry Report: Turkey. European Council on Refugees and Exiles.\u003c/em\u003e Accessed 31 August 2025. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/turkiye\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/turkiye\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaban, F., Ilcan, S., \u0026amp; Rygiel, K. (2016). Syrian refugees in Turkey: pathways to precarity, differential inclusion and negotiated citizenship rights. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Ethnic and Migration Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(1), 41\u0026ndash;57.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBolgun, C., \u0026amp; U\u0026ccedil;an, G. (2020). Birlikte yaşamak m\u0026uuml;mk\u0026uuml;n m\u0026uuml;? Okur yorumlarında Suriyeli sığınmacı s\u0026ouml;yleminin inşası. \u003cem\u003eManisa Celal Bayar \u0026Uuml;niversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(1), 250\u0026ndash;269.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoşnak, B. (2021). Politics of subsidiarity in refugee reception: The case of civil society in Turkey. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Immigrant \u0026amp; Refugee Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(3), 301\u0026ndash;315.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBulgurcuoğlu, S. E., \u0026amp; Aykutalp, A. (2021). Medyada \u0026ouml;teki olmak: sığınmacılara y\u0026ouml;nelik s\u0026ouml;ylemin inşası ve yeniden \u0026uuml;retimi. \u003cem\u003eToplum ve Sosyal Hizmet\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(2), 483\u0026ndash;504.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCan, Ş. (2025). Refugees as \u0026lsquo;projects\u0026rsquo;: humanitarian responses to displacement and refugee-led organisations in Southern Turkey. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Humanitarian Affairs\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.7227/JHA.120\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.7227/JHA.120\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCevik, H. (2025). From open doors to closed minds: The transformation of perceptions toward Syrian refugees in Turkey. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Race Ethnicity and Politics\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;27. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/rep.2024.35\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/rep.2024.35\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCrenshaw, K. (1989). \u003cem\u003eDemarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 139\u0026ndash;167). University of Chicago Legal Forum.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCreswell, J. W. (2015). \u003cem\u003eNitel Araştırma Y\u0026ouml;ntemleri (M. B\u0026uuml;t\u0026uuml;n ve S. B. Demir, \u0026Ccedil;ev. Ed)\u003c/em\u003e. Siyasal.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Ccedil;akın, B., \u0026amp; Almajdalawi, R. (2024). Unsettled ground, unsettled lives: The ontological (in)securities of Syrian refugees in the shadow of Turkey\u0026rsquo;s 2023 earthquake. \u003cem\u003eJournal on Migration and Human Security\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(2), 257\u0026ndash;275.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ede Andrade, G. S. (2020). Beyond vulnerability: Syrian refugees in urban spaces in Turkey. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal for Crime Justice and Social Democracy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(3), 34\u0026ndash;46.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDoğan, B. (2023). İnsan hakları a\u0026ccedil;ısından g\u0026ouml;\u0026ccedil; ve m\u0026uuml;ltecilik: anayasa mahkemesi ile avrupa insan hakları mahkemesi kararları bağlamında inceleme. \u003cem\u003eAnkara Sosyal Bilimler \u0026Uuml;niversitesi Hukuk Fak\u0026uuml;ltesi Dergisi\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(2), 709\u0026ndash;746.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDuman, Y., \u0026amp; Coşkan, C. (2023). Locals\u0026rsquo; support for integration policies and asylum seekers\u0026rsquo; rights: Exploring a normative model of support for Syrians in Turkey. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Ethnicity and Nationalism\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(3), 407\u0026ndash;429.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEnsari, P., \u0026Uuml;st\u0026uuml;bici, A., Kavur, N., \u0026amp; Ekhtiari, M. (2023). \u003cem\u003eMigration-relevant policies in Turkey. MIGNEX Background Paper (v2)\u003c/em\u003e. Peace Research Institute Oslo.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErbay, E., \u0026amp; Usta, E. K. (2025). Prolonged guesthood: How Syrian refugees shaped Turkish politics? \u003cem\u003eEconomics \u0026amp; Politics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(3), 638\u0026ndash;652.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErtorer, S. E. (2021). Asylum regimes and refugee experiences of precarity: The case of Syrian refugees in Turkey. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Refugee Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(3), 2568\u0026ndash;2592.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGokalp Aras, N. E., Kabadayi, S., Ozeren, E., \u0026amp; Aydin, E. (2021). Right to health and access to health-care services for refugees in Turkey. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Services Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(7), 962\u0026ndash;976.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eG\u0026uuml;m\u0026uuml;ş, B., \u0026amp; Kjaran, J. I. (2025). Intersecting marginalisations: violence against LGBTQ+ refugees and ethnic minorities in Turkey. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Ethnic and Migration Studies\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKardeş, S., \u0026amp; Akman, B. (2022). Problems encountered in the education of refugees in Turkey. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(1), 153\u0026ndash;164.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaya, A. (2020). \u003cem\u003eReception? Turkey Country Report\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKayaoglu, A., Şahin-Menc\u0026uuml;tek, Z., \u0026amp; Erdoğan, M. M. (2022). Return aspirations of Syrian refugees in Turkey. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Immigrant \u0026amp; Refugee Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(4), 561\u0026ndash;583.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKayaoğlu, T., \u0026amp; G\u0026uuml;lel, D. (2023). National human rights institutions and the appropriation of human rights: the case of the human rights and equality institution of Turkey. \u003cem\u003eAustralian Journal of Human Rights\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(2), 354\u0026ndash;374.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKelebek-K\u0026uuml;\u0026ccedil;\u0026uuml;karslan, G., \u0026amp; Albayrak, H. (2023). G\u0026ouml;\u0026ccedil; ve Dezavantajlı Gruplar. G\u0026ouml;\u0026ccedil; ve Sosyal Hizmet (Ed. M. Zubaroğlu Yanardağ ve B. Erko\u0026ccedil;), Ankara: Akademisyen Yayınevi, pp.251\u0026ndash;270.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKocaoğlu, M. (2025). Rethinking Turkey\u0026rsquo;s refugee and asylum policy. \u003cem\u003eİn\u0026ouml;n\u0026uuml; \u0026Uuml;niversitesi Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(1), 242\u0026ndash;256.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKorkut, U. (2016). Pragmatism, moral responsibility or policy change: the Syrian refugee crisis and selective humanitarianism in the Turkish refugee regime. \u003cem\u003eComparative Migration Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 2.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKrieger, N. (2014). Discrimination and health inequities. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Health Services\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(4), 643\u0026ndash;710.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKurfalı, M. A. (2023). \u003cem\u003eHousing Experience of Forced Migrants: A Comparison of Sweden and Turkey\u003c/em\u003e (Order No. 31874781). Available from ProQuest Dissertations \u0026amp; Theses Global. (3168633479).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMakkonen, T. (2002). \u003cem\u003eMultiple, compound and intersectional discrimination: Bringing the experiences of the most marginalized to the fore\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 17\u0026ndash;19). Institute for Human Rights, \u0026Aring;bo Akademi University.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Ouml;z\u0026ccedil;etin, B., \u0026amp; Emre, P. \u0026Ouml;. (2024). International migration and the NGOs working in the field of migration in Turkey. \u003cem\u003eInternational Migration\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e62\u003c/em\u003e(1), 269\u0026ndash;284.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Ouml;zd\u0026uuml;zen, R., Korkut, U., \u0026amp; \u0026Ouml;zd\u0026uuml;zen, D. (2020). Digital racism and the changing categorisation of Syrians in Turkey. \u003cem\u003ePatterns of Prejudice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e(2), 155\u0026ndash;176.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Ouml;zvarış, Ş. B., Kayı, İ., Mardin, D., Sakarya, S., Ekzayez, A., Meagher, K., \u0026amp; Patel, P. (2020). COVID-19 barriers and response strategies for refugees and undocumented migrants in Turkey. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Migration and Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e, 100012.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaygı, F. N. G. (2024). The Self-Settlement of Syrian Refugees in T\u0026uuml;rkiye: Dynamics, Challenges, and Refugee Agency. \u003cem\u003ePerceptions: Journal of International Affairs\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(1), 110\u0026ndash;133.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eŞafak-Ayvazoğlu, A., Kunuroglu, F., \u0026amp; Yağmur, K. (2021). Psychological and socio-cultural adaptation of Syrian refugees in Turkey. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Intercultural Relations\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e80\u003c/em\u003e, 99\u0026ndash;111.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eŞahin Taşğın, N. (2021). Irk\u0026ccedil;ılık ve ayrımcılığın \u0026ouml;nlenmesi: T\u0026uuml;rkiye\u0026rsquo;deki mevcut durum ve sosyal hizmet i\u0026ccedil;in \u0026ouml;neriler. \u003cem\u003eToplum ve Sosyal Hizmet\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(1), 293\u0026ndash;315.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eŞimşek, D. (2020). Integration processes of Syrian refugees in Turkey: \u0026lsquo;Class-based integration\u0026rsquo;. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Refugee Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(3), 537\u0026ndash;554.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eŞi̇mşek, A. (2021). Stratejik davalama ve insan hakları savunuculuğu i\u0026ccedil;in bir model olarak hukuk kliniği eğitimi. \u003cem\u003eAnkara Barosu Dergisi\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e79\u003c/em\u003e, 111\u0026ndash;141.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTaşdemir, I., Boylu, M. E., Aslıy\u0026uuml;ksek, H., Saygılı, S., \u0026amp; Karamustafalıoğlu, K. O. (2025). Criminological and psychiatric profiles of immigrant and refugee offenders: a retrospective analysis of cases in a forensic setting. \u003cem\u003eInternational journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e69\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1296\u0026ndash;1315.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTurkish Directorate General of Migration Management (2025). \u003cem\u003eGe\u0026ccedil;ici koruma altındaki Suriyeliler\u003c/em\u003e. Available at \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.goc.gov.tr/gecici-koruma5638\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.goc.gov.tr/gecici-koruma5638\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTurkish Human Rights and Equality Institution [THREI]. (2024). \u003cem\u003eİnsan Haklarının Korunması ve Geliştirilmesi 2024 Yılı Raporu\u003c/em\u003e. TİHEK Yayınları.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTruscan, I., \u0026amp; Bourke-Martignoni, J. (2016). International human rights law and intersectional discrimination. \u003cem\u003eThe Equal Rights Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e, 104\u0026ndash;130.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTunaboylu, M. S., \u0026amp; van Liempt, I. (2021). A lack of legal protection and limited ways out: how asylum seekers cope with liminality on Greek Islands: Lesbos and Chios. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Refugee Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1560\u0026ndash;1576.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Uuml;st\u0026uuml;bici, A. (2019). The impact of externalized migration governance on Turkey: technocratic migration governance and the production of differentiated legal status. \u003cem\u003eCMS, 7\u003c/em\u003e(46).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e In this study, individuals with different legal statuses in T\u0026uuml;rkiye (temporary protection, international protection, irregular migrants) are referred to collectively as \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;migrants.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e While national legislation (LFIP, 2014 Temporary Protection Regulation) recognizes only nationals of Council of Europe countries as \u0026ldquo;refugees,\u0026rdquo; under the 1951 Geneva Convention many of these groups meet the criteria for refugee status, and participants commonly referred to them as such.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"access to justice, discrimination, migrant, Türkiye, human rights","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8694682/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8694682/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study explores migrants\u0026rsquo; efforts to seek justice against discrimination in T\u0026uuml;rkiye and the barriers limiting access to legal mechanisms. Drawing on a phenomenological design, interviews were conducted with 33 NGO and INGO professionals across six provinces. Thematic analysis identifies three key findings: migrants are constructed as threatening \u0026ldquo;others\u0026rdquo; through public discourse, economic scapegoating, and spatial segregation; intersectional discrimination deepens vulnerabilities for women, children, elderly, disabled, and LGBTI+ migrants; and a \u0026ldquo;justice paradox\u0026rdquo; whereby strong legal frameworks coexist with limited accessibility, pushing migrants toward informal networks. Discrimination thus operates as a structural form of exclusion undermining effective legal protection.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Under What Conditions? Migrant Experiences in Combating Discrimination and Seeking Justice in Türkiye","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-05 11:46:59","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8694682/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"aaec90f1-63e7-4eb6-9a43-bc56da29f25f","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 5th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"decision","content":"Rejected","date":"2026-04-30T15:12:53+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-30T14:32:09+00:00","index":31,"fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-30T15:26:26+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-05 11:46:59","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8694682","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8694682","identity":"rs-8694682","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}