Göçmen ve Ötekilik: Aynılığın Narsizmi mi Öteki’nin Konukseverliği mi? -Bir Göçmen Felsefesi Çağrısı-.

The immigrant problem, one of the most striking socio-pathological events of our day, is more often raised in the context of political issues. While these debates are driven by local and political interests, what is hidden behind political calculations is the tragic position of the migrant. The migrant, who comes to the agenda with political debates, takes on an extremely negative image in terms of social relations. The problem with the sameness of "We" is that the "Other" or the immigrant, as the expression of an element that is incompatible with the local culture, is pushed from the field of "I" into otherness, and is evaluated as an element of conflict that does not force the transformation of publicity on the social level. Although the interest-based determining power of politics has negative effects on the formation of sufficient human common sense regarding the problem, there is an intense debate in the philosophical literature on the basis of Immanuel Kant, Hannah Arendt, Emmanuel Lévinas. Most of the studies put forward in the context of associating the ideas put forward by the thinkers in question with immigration have kept the research deep but limited in scope. In our study, the subject was not deemed necessary in depth, it was sufficient to discuss the basic thinkers, views and the basic dynamics of the relevant views on the subject, and care was taken to outline the relevant literature. Levinas, who stands out as one of the dynamics of the basic literature on immigration and the emphasis on "Otherness", pointed to Western thought that did not prioritize ethical relations as the cause of the political crises of his time. Levinas tries to handle the problem of Otherness, which emerges as a political, ethical and legal problem of the tension that the "I"-centered way of thinking, which brings about sameness, will experience against the "Other", in a different way from the tradition of thought that prioritizes ontology. In the thought of Levinas, who considers the “Other” as an alternative field of sameness, the transcendence dimension of Otherness has the function of removing the Self from narcissism through the discovery or tension of the alterity in the "Other" rather than the sameness of the position of the "I" against the "Others". There is a belief that the "Other", embodied in transcendent Otherness, will lead to an act of unconditional hospitality in the "I". It can be seen that Arendt also discusses the problems that Levinas puts on the agenda. In the context of "Otherness", Arendt's criticisms of the concept of right, which manifests itself with a political ontological understanding rather than an ethical relationship as expressed in Levinas, are in question. Thus, while it becomes possible to question the legal structure that does not include the “Other” in the political sphere, the importance of the "Other" for political discourse is also revealed. At this point, conditional hospitality comes to the fore in the context of foreigner's right, which we encounter in Kant. However, Derrida, who would state that Levinas's unconditional hospitality had practical problems, also found Kant's conditional hospitality problematic. The immigrant, as the “Other” of our time, which is hoped to gain an ethical-political basis of thought in the context of the idea of hospitality, aims to re-discuss the idea of hospitality developed in the existing literature, while also being a call to produce thoughts on the philosophical understanding of the immigrant and the importance of creating a philosophy of immigration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]