Right-wing populism and immigration policies: Comparative analysis of Turkey, Hungary and the US cases (2014 - 2020)

While the right-wing populist governments across the world are generally examined with a deeper focus on their similarities, such as their strong emphasis on mono-culturalism, conservative nationalismgrounded with anti-elite rhetoric, and deeper focus on identity politics within the literature, it's possible to observe significant differences and deviations within the right-wing populism when it comes to the immigration policy agendas. This Master thesis aims to provide a comparative analysis of the immigration policies of three right-wing populist governments, namely the US case during the Trump administration towards the irregular migration of Latin American citizens, the Hungarian case under the leadership of Prime Minister Viktor Orban during the 2015 European migrant crisis and finally the Turkish case towards the Syrian immigrants during Syrian Civil War. Since the election of both President Erdogan in Turkey and Prime Minister Orban in Hungary took place after the presidential elections in the year 2014, the time frame of this thesis would be between the years of 2014 and 2020, which also coincides with the Syrian migrant crisis and the period of President Trump administration in the United States. Although the US and the Hungarian responses towards the imbalanced immigration problem include similarities within themselves through representing the right-wing populist-nationalist discourse on migration with more 'exclusionary' rhetoric, the Turkish response towards the Syrian immigrants since the start of Syrian Civil War in 2011 towards the migration problem deviates from these two right-wing populist leaders' approach on the issue of immigration; although several U-turns and inconsistencies within the discourse and implemented policies. After applying both quantitative research methods and qualitative text analysis to the policy speeches of three right-wing populist leaders regarding immigration during the period of 2014-2020, this thesis claims that the US case under President Donald Trump had the most exclusionary and nationalist discourse. President Trump took a tough stance towards immigrants from different ethnic and religious backgrounds, showing no willingness to consider selective humanitarianism. The Hungarian case during the rule of Prime Minister Viktor Orban represented an example of exclusionary populist-nationalist discourse with some elements of selective humanitarianism; on the condition that immigrants were Christians living under the Muslim majority authoritarian countries, as in the case of Hungary's acceptance of Coptic Christian refugees from Egypt. Whereas, the Turkish case during the rule of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan represented an example of 'inclusionary' populist- nationalist discourse towards the immigrants in the country through the acceptance of Syrian immigrants coming from various ethnic and religious backgrounds like Kurdish people, Assyrian people and Yazidis to the country; despite President Erdoğan's 'exclusionary populist' stance in the domestic politics of Turkey through his emphasis on value-based on construction of a shared identity and his negative stance towards certain groups in the Turkish society. From these aspects, this thesis argues that it is not always easy to examine the populist approach to immigration within the exclusionary-inclusionary dualism. Depending on their perspectives on their nation's collective history and their foreign policy goals, it is possible to observe that populist leaders may adopt a relatively inclusionary attitude towards international migrants. This thesis claims that President Erdoğan's right-wing populist nationalist discourse with an 'inclusionary populist' stance towards the Syrian immigrants while 'exclusionary at home' can be attributed to the Turkish claim of 'occupying moral high ground' in line with Turkey's foreign policy perspective based on the strategic autonomy discourse. The Turkish case represented an exceptional case in that depending on the foreign policy goals of the rightwing populist leaders, their perspectives on their nations' place in the world, and the place of their countries in world politics as protectors of the oppressed one; it is possible to observe that right-wing populist leaders can also adopt welcoming stance towards the international migrants through adopting an 'inclusionary populist' discourse; while continuing their 'exclusionary populist discourse in their domestic politics simultaneously. However, this thesis also points out that through instrumentalizing the issue of immigrants as a bargaining tool for achieving certain foreign policy goals, it is also possible to observe several inconsistencies and ambiguities within President Erdoğan's populist inclusionary stance towards immigrants in some cases, despite Turkish government's emphasis on the moral responsibility of hosting refugees.