A decision of expulsion is one of the most comprehensive measures the Immigration authorities can make.
Expulsion is a measure used as a reaction towards foreign nationals who have violated the general civil penal code or have violated the Immigration Act. Examples of such violations are illegal entry, illegal residency or giving false identity. An expulsion order means not only that you have a duty to leave the country, it also prohibits you from returning to Norway, either for a set amount of time or permanently.
Being expelled does however affect people in different ways. Ryens thesis both address what kind of reaction expulsion is, and how the reaction is put into practise, through interviews with people who have been expelled.
The main focus is the experiences of the expelled, how they understand and perceive this exclusionary measure.
Expulsion is not labelled a penal reaction, but instead as an administrative reaction that lead to loss of rights. The similarities between expulsion and penalty are yet evident. Expulsion is a reaction based on a violation of law and has several punitive aspects or aspects of deterrence similar to punishment.
Some of Ryens informants clearly experience expulsion as a penalty.
Those who have children in Norway emphasized that the expulsion was not only a punishment for them, but also their family. They question the expulsions proportionality to the act committed and see it as unjust.
At the same time, several of Ryens informants acknowledge a sovereign state's right to expel those not wanted in a country. Some reflected on the state's need to protect itself and its citizens, and regarded expulsion as a legitimate measure.
Several also understood their situation as an exclusionary process, where the expulsion is only one part of it. As such, they where more concerned with other exclusionary aspects of the process, than its practical consequences.
Ryen argue that expulsion can be seen as a hybrid form of control, where administrative measures are blended with more punitive aspects. The authorities use of expulsion as a measure of crime prevention blur the lines between immigration control and crime control - raising questions of whether a persons legal status is equally protected in both spheres.
At the same time, there are distinctive differences between the two. The exclusionary measures directed by the penal code are different to those faced with expulsion. The former, with its visions of discipline and normalisation, can be said to operate through a panoptic logic whereas the latter, the Immigration Act, with its exclusionary measures, can be understood as having a banoptic logic, where total exclusion is the goal.
Ryens informants also understand the different treatment they receive in light of their lack of citizenship. They talk about shortcomings, or faults, with Norway as a democracy. Ultimately, the thesis raise important questions about justice in a global world. Is it possible to imagine an alternative model of justice that is more fruitful when discussing or regulating global problems? One that can maintain rights across citizenship?
