State of Origin: Turkish Migration and Multiculturalism in Australia Banu Senay Centre for Research on Social Inclusion Macquarie

University Turkish immigration to Australia began after the signing of a bilateral migration agreement between the governments of the two countries in 1967. In this essay, I will somewhat arbitrarily select this date as a fulcrum moment in the histories of the two nations, a moment that distinguishes a clear before and after in Australian and Turkish emigration histories. The chapter will, first, present a historical background of the migratory movement from Turkey to Australia. This will be followed by an analysis of the transition from assimilation policy to the programme of multiculturalism in Australia. In comparison with European countries to which the bulk of Turkish immigration was directed, Australia has a very different citizenship regime and method of managing cultural differences. Through its policy of multiculturalism the State facilitates the flourishing of migrants associations, the maintenance of community languages other than English, and migrant groups production of cultural activities. Thus with its distinctive immigration and citizenship policies Australian multiculturalism provides a space for the emergence of forms of transnationalism1 that might be very different to those in Europe. Finally, I will conclude by presenting some narratives of Turkish migrants themselves to illustrate their own taken on Australian multiculturalism.2 While large-scale emigration from Turkey to abroad prior to 1960s was mostly limited to the emigration of non-Muslim Turkish citizens, the countrys position in the international migratory regime changed significantly in the 1960s and 1970s. The dramatic socioeconomic transformation of Turkey during the late 1950s and early 1960s in terms of rapid
Transnationalism here is defined as a process by which immigrants forge and sustain simultaneous multi-stranded social relations that link together their societies of origin and settlement (Glick-Schiller 1995: 1). I base my discussion on two years of fieldwork I conducted during 2007 and 2008 for my PhD research project, which explores the practices of self-nationalization among the Turkish migrants in Sydney. My fieldwork was extensively based on participant observation and in-depth interviews.
2 1

changes in the traditional agricultural production, high population growth, and an intense population shift from rural to urban areas resulted in a surplus of labor and workers who made their way to a number of different geographies (Kele 1976). Turkish government negotiated agreements with European countries including West Germany, Austria, France, Sweden, Holland, and Belgium. These migratory movements however experienced a slowdown in late 1960s when the European labor market no longer demanded guestworkers. In the context of lack of European demand, the Turkish State began to search for new markets to sell its surplus labor to. Yet it was not only Turkey whose migration regime was substantially influenced by the changing dynamics in Europe. On the other side of the world, Australia, too, was reformulating its migration policy, albeit for different reasons. In the post-war period, the supply of British and European settlers in Australia began to drastically decline. Having reached a level of economic growth, most Western European countries themselves became countries of destination for millions of guest workers. Australia was no longer seen as a main destination for the Europeans. These changing dynamics in the international migratory system revealed the necessity for Australia to recruit migrants from new potential sources in order to fill its labor shortages. The decision to negotiate a migration agreement with the Turkish government came at this fulcrum point. Indeed, the governments decision to recruit migrants from Turkey was controversial due to the continuing reluctance within the Department of Immigration to accept migrants from ethnic groups too different from the mainstream Australians (Anglo-Celtics), and also due to the absence of a consensus over the civilizational status of Turks. The public view about Turks associated Turkey with Asia rather than Europe and expressed fears that the entry of Turks would open the flood-gates to Asian immigration (Manderson 1988: 819). The absence of an established Turkish community in Australia, as well as an established Muslim community, further complicated the question of Turks assimilability into the Australian society (Jupp 1966: 21). In fact, there were Turkey-born persons in Australia prior to the large-scale migration from Anatolia, however most of these migrants were of

diverse ethnic backgrounds including Bulgarian refugees, Greeks born in Turkey and Turkish Cypriots who came on British passports in the late 1950s and early 1960s. According to the 1961 Census, they numbered 1544 persons. Despite Turkey being a predominantly Muslim country, only a minority of these early migrants identified themselves as Muslim (Babacan 2001: 709). Despite the prolonged debates over the cultural compatibility of Turks, the government justified its intention to sign a migration agreement with Turkey by making reference to Turkeys reputation as one of the main labor force suppliers to the Western European countries. This pragmatic discourse underlining the valuable contribution that the Turkish workers made to the European market successfully identified Turks as acceptable migrants. Despite the non-consensus over whether Turks were really European enough or not, Turkey was promoted as a European country and Turkish people were represented as being close to Europeans: Turkey was now for all intents and purposes an entirely European country (Martin 1978: 30). In October 1967, the agreement on the Residence and Employment of Turkish Citizens in Australia was signed between the governments of Turkey and Australia. This was officially the beginning of the organized inter-governmental migration of people from Turkey to Australia. The migratory movement took the form of an impersonally organized flow of persons until the termination of the bilateral agreement in 1974. This meant that the arrangements concerning the selection, transportation and reception of migrants were negotiated between the governments of the two countries (MacDonald and MacDonald 1964: 83). According to the agreement, the Australian Immigration Office in Ankara would work in collaboration with the Turkish Employment Service to select appropriate migrants who would meet general requirements regarding age, marital status and skills. The Australian government would sponsor the transportation of the migrants and provide hostel accommodation upon arrival. To be eligible for this financial assistance, migrants would pay the equivalent of 25 Australian dollars before departure for themselves and for any household members of 19 years of age or over who might travel with them and would stay in Australia for two years (Iduygu 1991). The migrant was legally bound to repay the cost of the journey in case he or she left Australia before the two years expired.

The agreement would guarantee the rights of the Turkish migrants to enjoy the same rights as other migrants in Australia with respect to learning English, employment and social services. There were also provisions for the maintenance of the Turkish culture and language (Baarn and Baarn 1993: 3). Two controversial issues emerged during the negotiation of the agreement. The first concern was the wording of the agreement that was a direct result of the opposing perceptions of the two governments regarding the nature of the migratory flow. The Australian government had the intention of recruiting Turkish migrants as permanent settlers, whereas the Turkish government had the expectation that Turks would migrate to Australia on a temporary basis as in the case of the Turkish guest-workers in Europe. Turkey accordingly did not want the word migrant to be included in the agreement, insisting on the term worker. Likewise, the title of the agreement did not make any reference to words such as migration or settlement, and involved the terms residence and employment instead. The agreement, therefore, gave the impression to many potential migrants that this was another guest-worker scheme whereby they would sell their labor in Australia for a couple of years only and, once enough savings had been made, would return back to their home country. The second controversial issue was about the ratio of skilled and unskilled migrants to be recruited. Australias immigration policy at the time was aiming for an intake of relatively larger numbers of skilled migrants; however Turkey wanted its unskilled workers to emigrate. In the end, the compromise reached was a ratio of 30 per cent skilled and 70 per cent unskilled workers. In the early years of the assisted scheme, however, it was mainly unskilled laborers who had their names on the Employment Services list for Australia, waiting for their turn to come to embark on this fascinating journey. In terms of its magnitude this migratory flow might appear as less significant alongside Turkish migration to Europe. It was not of course in terms of its impact upon migrants. It was important further for maintaining the continuity of Turkish migration abroad (Iduygu 1994: 75). Yet what was most distinct about this movement of people was the fact that it

was made to a traditionally migrant receiving country with a policy that promoted settler migration. This presented an exception within the general framework of Turkish emigration (Paine 1974: 56). Unlike the Western European countries, the Australian government intended that Turkish migration would be permanent. Ironically, however, many Turkish migrants especially those who migrated in the early periods conceived Australia as a temporary destination in their minds. The Turkish community in Australia is now well-established. The latest Australian census in 2006 recorded that there are 30 490 people born in Turkey residing in Australia. This number, however, doubles to 59 402 when the size of the community is estimated according to ancestry. Half of the community (15 290 Turkey-born persons) has settled in Victoria with a slightly smaller percentage (12 470) in New South Wales followed by Queensland (1120) and Western Australia (760) (DIAC 2007: 1) (See Figure 1). Turkish migrants in Australia are almost equally divided between the first and second generation: 55 per cent of the Turkish-speaking people is composed of first generation while 42.3 per cent consists of the second generation (ABS 2001: 20).

Figure 1. Turkey-born population by state and territory, 2006 (DIAC 2007: 1).

Year: 2006 Birthplace Ancestry

NSW 12 470 20 273

Australia 30 490 59 402

Table 1. Number of Turks according to birthplace and ancestry, NSW and Australia, 2006 Census of Population and Housing.

The Politics of Australian Multiculturalism The history of this particular flow of people has strong similarities with the histories of the non-Turkish migratory movements to Australia in the post-war period, as well as with the histories of the migration of Turkish citizens to other parts of the world since the 1960s. Yet this is also a unique moment in the wider history of both Turkish emigration and Australian immigration. Looked at from the perspective of the former country, this was the first time that Turks migrated to such a faraway continent. More importantly, the journey offered them the possibility of becoming citizens and not only factory-fodder as was the case in Europe. On the other hand, viewed from Australias position, the beginning of the influx of Turks coincided with a period of intense political debate over the policies of immigration and settlement. This was a period when integration became the main mode of policy in the realm of settlement and when the White Australia Policy was under great scrutiny given the changing political, economic and social circumstances in Australia. More importantly, however, the late 1960s were crucial in providing the grounds for a bigger shift in policy-making: these were the formative years of multiculturalism, a policy that officially took over in the early 1970s. The settlement policy pursued in the period following the Second World War was marked by the principle of assimilationism. The aim of this policy was to ensure an essentially homogenous society in which alien immigrants would have shed their original cultural identity and become indistinguishable in speech, manner, appearance, taste and thinking from the Anglo-Saxon Australians (Jayasuriya 1985: 26). By the mid 1960s, the assimilationist policy was unsustainable due to both domestic and international factors and the policy was changed to integration. The integration model acknowledged that migrants did not have to abandon their distinctive cultural traits to become Australians. This

milder form of assimilationist policy also prefigured multiculturalism in that it was the first state/bureaucratic recognition that Australia was no longer a homogenous White European society; it did now contain non-English speaking communities whose needs required special government policies (Hage 2003: 58). A second shift in policy came in 1973 when the White Australia Policy was denounced and multiculturalism became accepted as the official government policy by the Labor government of Gough Whitlam (1972-1975). Labors (and the then Immigration Minister Grassbys) vision of Australia as a multicultural society was based on the concept of the family of the nation. This was a vaguer and less sociologically grounded term than multiculturalism (Lopez 2000: 202). Grassby argued that the value of each migrant culture and their contribution to enriching Australian society should be recognised and that integration could be achieved if both migrants and the host community were involved (Jordens 1995: 163). It was not only with the culture of migrants, but also with their rights and participation on an equal basis in the Australian society that Labors multiculturalism was concerned. As Vasta (2005: 13) notes: The aim of the Australian Labor Party government was to redress class and ethnic minority disadvantages by improving educational facilities and social services, and ensure that migrants could gain access to these. Recognition of cultural difference and working with ethnic community associations was vital to the reform of social policy. For the first time, migrants were involved in planning and implementation of relevant policies. Multiculturalism was further developed during the Liberal-Country Coalition government under Malcolm Fraser (1975-1983), albeit in the form of the ethnic group model. One key aspect of this policy was its emphasis on welfare services as institutionalized in the socalled Galbally Report (1978). The Report, writes Jupp: urged the creation of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, the use of ethnic-specific welfare workers, and the creation of Migrant Resource Centres. It also recommended the introduction of broadcasting in various languages. This led to the creation of the Special Broadcasting Service in 1978. The report emphasized English language learning, including the introduction of full-time on-arrival courses for adult migrants (1996: 8).

The ethnic group model gave prime importance to ethnic organizations in the provision of welfare services, which became the intermediary force between the state and migrant groups (Jakubowicz et al. 1984). This institutional arrangement has been criticized by many scholars for its creation of a dependency relationship and a hierarchical system of patronage between the leaders of migrant organizations and state officials (See Castles 1999). Additionally, a feminist critique has drawn attention to the masculinity entrenched in this institutional setting in which it is most often men who purported to speak for their communities, often ignoring the needs of women, children, youth and other minorities (Vasta 2005: 13). A second problematic aspect of the policy and ideology of multiculturalism institutionalized during the Fraser years was its conception of the migrant culture. Citing Edward Tylors (1871) early anthropological approach, the Galbally Report defined culture as a: a way of life, that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, customs, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man [sic] as a member of Society (Castles et al. 1985: 69). In this formulation culture was conceived as a bounded and fixed entity contained and practiced by each homogenous ethnic group, and was most significantly understood to include language, tradition and folklore. This model of multiculturalism namely, cultural multiculturalism or cultural pluralism has been widely criticized in the academic literature for its essentializing of migrant culture. The 1980s saw a shift away from the ethnic group approach to the citizenship model of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism no longer concerned immigrants and their settlement problems only, but all Australians. The major reference for this form of multiculturalism is seen in the National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia (1989). Here the three planks of multiculturalism were specified as cultural identity, social justice and economic efficiency3 (Jupp 1996: 9). The National Agenda defined multiculturalism as a panoply of cultural, social and economic rights, accompanied with a set of duties: commitment to the nation, a duty to accept the Constitution and the rule of law, and the acceptance of basic principles
3

In the early 1990s, productive diversity was incorporated into this formula.

such as tolerance and equality, English as the national language and equality of the sexes (Castles 1999: 35). These variants of multiculturalism have influenced policy of the Whitlam Government and that of succeeding governments as well, albeit in changing forms and different levels of efficacy. This is seen most clearly in the case of welfare multiculturalism that has been substantially scaled down, especially with the election of the conservative Liberal-National Party Coalition under John Howard in 1996. Castles notes that from the mid-1990s, Federal agencies such as the Office of Multicultural Affairs and Bureau of Immigration, Multicultural and Population Research were quickly axed, that ethnic affairs commissions so important in the development of multiculturalism in the 1980s have been abolished or down-sized to insignificance everywhere except in NSW and South Australia and that many of the services which were vital for the social justice component of multiculturalism have been severely cut (1999: 32). During the Howard years (1996-2007) a hostile environment was created targeting three main groups of migrants. First, worries about the Asianisation of Australia were voiced as a result of the increased Asian immigration since the 1980s.4 Secondly, a nationalist discourse, shifted its attention to Muslims (in particular to Arab Muslims), who were often associated with crime (i. e. ethnic gangs, terrorism, honor killings) and illegal entry to Australia (Hage 2003: 67). Thirdly a growing antagonism towards undocumented entrants also marked the Howard period. As Vasta (2005: 17) notes, the Howard government attempted to modify Australias refugee and asylum policy to such an extent that it has been accused of contravening the 1951 Geneva Convention and of damaging Australias nondiscriminatory policy.

Turkish Migrants Reflections on Multiculturalism The multiculturalism of liberal states comes in nationally distinct versions (Joppke 1999: 646). Yet as we have seen in the previous section, contained in those national versions are various sub-versions of multiculturalism. Since the early days of its inception, the

The boldest statement came from Pauline Hanson in March 1996 who was a Liberal Party candidate in a Queensland seat. Hanson made her way to the Parliament despite her racist attacks on Asian immigrants and Aboriginal people and despite voicing her desire for the abolition of the policy of multiculturalism. In 1997 she formed the One Nation Party in Australia.

policy and ideology of Australian multiculturalism has evolved in different modes. In this section, I will bring in the voices of my research participants to sketch out their own take on multiculturalism. How do they perceive the policy of the country of settlement? One view that was most commonly shared by my research participants was the generousness of the Australian state in providing many facilities and services to them that made their adaptation to Australian society considerably easier while, at the same time, helped them preserve their Turkishness and practice their own culture. The state officials of Turkey also expressed this view in every opportunity, praising the policy of multiculturalism, in particular, for enabling Turkish children to learn Turkish language in Australia and for supporting the cultural production of Turkish migrants. My findings from archival research and interviews confirm that similar discourses about Australian multiculturalism were prevalent among Turkish migrants in the 1970s and 1980s, in particular when welfare multiculturalism was concerned. Fehmi, who arrived in Sydney in 1968 and worked in different low-skilled jobs for nineteen years, said to me: This country has always endeavored to make us live in good conditions. I remember when Whitlam was the prime minister, he gave us social rights, he enhanced our social security. They provided Turks their own radio channel. They provided us translators if we went to a government institution and couldnt explain what we wanted. They even changed telephone directories not long after I came. We could read governments announcements in our own language. They would be translated into Turkish too. If we have ever felt homesickness here, it was not because we were made to feel alien. It was because of the distance. (Fehmi, late 50s) Narratives carrying feelings of contentment about various facilities of multiculturalism were sometimes accompanied by discourses of internal criticisms. As the following quotes illustrate: We, Turks, have always been ignorant about our rights, about what this country has provided to us. Not that we wanted, but these men thought themselves what we needed to become part of this society. Ethnic newspapers, community organizations, associations... they supported all of these. And same with the ethnic radio and television. What I am saying is that we have havent made enough use of our rights. (Mehmet)

10

In my initial years here [1970s] a lot of Turks used to think This Australian government is so fool and they would defraud this country. Back then this countrys system was based on trust. For example, if you went to Centrelink5, they would ask your name and address, and then they would send your unemployment compensation to that address. I know lots of people who went to different Centrelink offices and claimed unemployment benefits under different names. And all those compensation claims. These things happened a lot. We are so lucky to be living in Australia. Look at those Turks in Germany who dont have even half of the rights we have here. Unfortunately we are not as wellintentioned as Australians. (mer, late 50s, arrived in 1972). In addition to his criticizing of some Turkish migrants, mer draws our attention to another important point, that is, how the situation of Turkish guest-workers in Germany has been a source for comparative knowledge for Turkish people in Australia regarding their own life conditions in Australia. Differently from Australia, Germany has refused to see migrant workers as immigrants and has to date pursued an exclusive immigrant incorporation regime. Not only the issue of citizenship rights, but also the discrimination and xenophobia directed at Turkish migrants in Germany made their adaptation into living in a new country considerably difficult. These issues, along with some others (like mother tongue teaching and religious education) have become the subjects of transnational dialogue between Turkish citizens and German and Turkish authorities (stergaardNielsen 2003: 3). The Turkish media in Australia also closely followed the debates around Turkish migrants in Germany. For example, in 1984, Yorum newspaper, a widely circulated Turkish newspapers in Sydney, published a long series of supplementary volumes under the title Workers from Turkey in Germany. These volumes covered a range of issues including xenophobia, work conditions, housing and education problems that Turkish migrants in Germany were struggling with. The close interest of the Turkish media in Australia in the lives of Turkish migrants in Germany continued in the 1990s. The media coverage reached its peak when the tragic incidents of violence against Turks erupted in Mlln and Solingen in 1992 and 1993, respectively. In both incidents a Turkish family was burned to death after firebombs were thrown into their homes. The importance of these Germany-based developments for the
5

The government institution that administers social security payments.

11

analysis here is that, they constituted a constant point of reference among Turkish people in Sydney in their negotiations of their own relationship with the host society and host country state. This element of relativity kept coming in my interviews and conversations with Turks in Sydney as they often discussed the range of rights and opportunities that were available to them in comparison to German Turks. Their feelings of contentment towards Australian multiculturalism were, in a sense, an outcome of this comparison. Indeed a similar comparison was also made in relation to the transnationalism of the Turkish state. There is a consensus among Turkish people in Sydney that the Turkish state directed more care and resources to the service of Turkish migrants in Europe. Although the terms of the critique varied considerably, the resentment felt towards the State was often expressed through the employment of one particular metaphor: We are the step children ( vey evlat) of the Turkish State. Implicit in this discourse was a conviction that the State directed all its efforts and resources to the service of Turkish migrants in Europe. Turks in Europe were its privileged or real children (z evlat). The narratives below give us an idea about the contexts in which this discourse is used: We are like the step children [of the Turkish State] here. I think this is so because Australia is so far from Turkey. It is out of the States sight anyway. They always send useless personnel to work here. Take the education attach for example. The only thing he does is to distribute the books sent from Turkey to be used at the Turkish Saturday Schools. From time to time you see people moving back to live in Turkey. The Consulate helps them with their transfer. They do roll calls for military service. There is nothing they do other than these. We have seen no support from the Consulate so far. (Hatice, late 40s) The only visible thing that the [Turkish] State has done so far was to extend the TRT-INT6 broadcast to Australia. Apart from that they have done nothing for us. They just signed a migration agreement with this country [Australia] and said to us: You go now. But nobody comes here and asks How are you? Are you all right, are you happy? We are like their step children. Now, what makes our case different from those in Germany is that we are Australian citizens also. Turks in Germany, in Europe are not citizens of those countries. Do all of those two million Turks living in Germany carry German citizenship? But in Australia
TRT-INT is the Turkish State-owned TV channel set up in 1990 to reach the Turkish populations outside Turkey. Its broadcast was expended to Australia in 1999.
6

12

eighty-ninety per cent of Turks carry Australian citizenship. Thats maybe why the [Turkish] State provides us with less assistance. And the other thing is, we are far away and smaller in number compared to those in Europe. (Fikret, early 50s) Both narratives take up a critical position in relation to Turkish State-engineered transnationalism. The State appears to be insufficiently involved in the lives of these informants. While agreeing with Hatices point about Australian Turks being out of the States sight, Fikret gives us some other explanation as to why this might be the case. He underlines an important difference between the legal status of Turkish migrants in Europe and those in Australia and reminds us how it is relatively harder, and in some countries almost impossible, for migrants to acquire the citizenship of the receiving country in the European case. Although in the first place both informants articulate the relative absence of the Turkish State in this transnational context, a closer reading of these narratives gives us some other hints about what the informants think about the transnational-ness of the State. Indeed, ingrained in the critical tone of the narratives is an awareness that at least some State institutions do make themselves visible in the lives of Turkish migrants in Sydney: the Turkish Ministry of Educations catering of its own school textbooks to be used at Turkish language classes, the distribution of these books to schools via the office of the education attach, the militarys recruitment of Turkish men for military service, and the Turkish State Televisions setting up of a special TV-channel targeting Turkish nationals living abroad. All these examples demonstrate that the State is not actually neglecting its diaspora. What is at stake then is not whether the State does less in Australia compared to its activities in Europe, but how various practices of the State are taken for granted and normalized by the informants, to the extent that they are not even read as signs of the States seeing for the Turks in the diaspora. What are some of the theoretical implications of all of these? My answer is that transnational social space emerging in other Turkish migratory contexts, in particular in Germany, also has a considerable influence on the perceptions of Turkish migrants in Sydney. This is not to argue that the Turkish diasporic context in Germany is involved in the constitution of Turkish transnationalism in Australia; but to argue that the political

13

discussions taking place in the former has an indirect influence on how Turkish migrants within the latter position themselves vis--vis their sending and receiving societies and their states. There is a dynamic relationship between different diasporic contexts that shapes the complex social processes involved in migrants lives. Here we should not forget that there is a much larger number of Turkish-speaking people living in Germany than in Australia. The size of the migrant group is a key factor here in determining the direction of the interaction between the two transnational contexts. The analysis so far has given a positive impression about Turkish migrants perception of state sponsored multiculturalism. Although this was generally the case with their experiences of the welfare services and the naturalization policies of the Australian state, they were occasionally critical about multiculturalism too. These criticisms were aired especially in two occasions: one, when a supposedly anti-Turkish programme was broadcast in the media, and secondly, when other ethnic groups (like Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians) lobbied Australian state officials for their own political agendas. Responses to such incidents, which often took the form of petitions, protest letters and online blogs, were framed around the issue of multiculturalism, accusing multiculturalism for reinforcing divisiveness between ethnic groups and for encouraging anti-Turkish propaganda in Australia. Australia is a multicultural country. I like this aspect of it. No culture has any harm to another culture. And you can always find out new things about other cultures. You taste other cultures food, you see their dances, their traditional outfits. This is very nice. On a different note, sometimes this country utilizes multiculturalism to instigate divisiveness between different groups. They pursue the politics of divide and rule. For example, when it comes to Turks, they divide us as Turks, Kurds, Alevis. They do this deliberately. (Ayfer) The Australian media does not foster multiculturalism. For example, every year, on 24 April, they broadcast a programme on Armenians. They never ask Turks what they think about what had happened in the history. In particular, SBS and ABC always do this. They say that there is multiculturalism in this country. No, there is not. They set people against each other. (Erdal)

14

What these narratives, along with the former ones quoted in this section, reveal to us is that Turkish migrants perceptions of multiculturalism stand on a knife-edge between feelings of gratitude and mistrust. On the one hand, there is a widely shared consensus that being an immigrant in Australia is not same as being an immigrant in Germany; it comes with certain rights and privileges (and obligations), some of which are not available to immigrants in some other host countries. Yet, on the other hand, there is a deep-seated feeling of mistrust and skepticism toward the state policy and politicians in Australia, accentuated when they perceive an attack on Turkish national interests. It is this notion of national strictly defined on the basis of the premises of Kemalism that determines the parameters of their take on multiculturalism. The actors whose voices we have heard in this essay have more or less strong views about how the Turkish State ought to address Turkish people living in Australia. Most of them consider the transnational politics of the State as insufficient or even undesirable.

References
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). "Australians' Ancestries." edited by Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001. BABACAN, H. "Turks." In The Australian People: An Encyclopaedia of the Nation, Its People and Their Origins, edited by J. Jupp, 709-16. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 2001. BAARIN, H. H. and V. Baarn. The Turks in Australia: Celebrating Twenty-Five Years Down Under. Hampton, Victoria: Turquoise Publications, 1993. CASTLES, S. "Globalisation, Multicultural Citizenship and Transnational Democracy." In The Future of Australian Multiculturalism, edited by G. Hage and R. Couch, 31-41. Sydney: Research Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Sydney, 1999. CASTLES, S. and G. Kosack. Immigrant Workers and Class Structure in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. DIAC (Department of Immigration and Citizenship). Community Information Summary, TurkeyBorn. Canberra: Australian Government, 2007. GLICK-SCHILLER, N. "Long-Distance Nationalism." In Encyclopedia of Diasporas. Immigrant and Refugee Cultures around the World, edited by M. Ember, C. R. Ember and I. Skoggard, 57080. New York: Kluwer/Plenum, 2005. HAGE, G. Against Paranoid Nationalism: Searching for Hope in a Shrinking Society. Annandale: Pluto Press, 2003.

15

IDUYGU, A. "Migrant as a Transitional Category: Turkish Migrants in Melbourne, Australia." PhD Dissertation, Australian National University, 1991. IDUYGU, A. "Facing Changes and Making Choices: Unintended Turkish Immigrant Settlement in Australia." International Migration 32, no. 1 (1994): 71-93. JAKUBOWICZ, A., M. Morrissey, and J. Palser. "Ethnicity, Class and Social Policy in Australia." Kensington: SWRC Reports and Proceedings, 1984. JAYASURIYA, L. "Multiculturalism: Fact, Policy and Rhetoric." In Australia in Transition: Culture and Life Possibilities, edited by M. E. Poole, P. R. Lacey and B. S. Srandhawa, 23-34. Sydney: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1985. JOPPKE, C. "How Immigration Is Changing Citizenship: A Comparative View." Ethnic and Racial Studies 22, no. 4 (1999): 629-52. JORDENS, A. Redefining Australians. Immigration, Citizenship and National Identity. Sydney: Hale&Iremonger, 1995. JUPP, J. Arrivals and Departures. Melbourne: Cheshire-Lansdowne, 1966. KELE, R. Investment by Turkish migrants in real estate. Turkish Workers in Europe 19601975: A Socio-Economic Reappraisal. Ed. Nermin Abadan-Unat. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976. 169180. LOPEZ, M. The Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics 1945-1975. Victoria: Melbourne University Press, 2000. MACDONALD, J. S. and L. D. Macdonald. "Chain Migration, Ethnic Neighbourhood Formation and Social Networks." The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 42, no. 1 (1964): 82-97. MANDERSON, L. "Turks." In The Australian People. An Encyclopaedia of the Nation, Its People and Their Origin, edited by J. Jupp, 818-25. Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1988. MARTIN, J. The Migrant Presence: Australian Responses 1947-1977. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1978. STERGAARD-NIELSEN, E. Transnational Politics: Turks and Kurds in Germany. London and New York: Routledge, 2003. PAINE, S. Exporting Workers: The Turkish Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. VASTA, E. "Theoretical Fashions in Australian Immigration Research." ESCR Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, University of Oxford, 2005.

16