Renouncing criminal citizens: Patterns of denationalization and citizenship theory
| Author | Milena Tripkovic |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/14624745221080705 |
| Published date | 01 April 2023 |
| Date | 01 April 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Renouncing criminal
citizens: Patterns of
denationalization and
citizenship theory
Milena Tripkovic
Edinburgh Law School, University of Edinburgh, UK
Abstract
This article examines the underlying aims of denationalization of criminal offenders by
framing the discussion within citizenship theory. It argues that such citizenship revoca-
tion policies exclude individuals who are perceived as non-ideal citizens under a complex
vision of citizenship that combines communitarian and liberal undertones, which has sig-
nificant consequences for detecting those with weak claims to membership. To develop
this argument, the article advances in the following way. I first argue that the ‘protective’
function of citizenship, which has so far shielded domestic offenders from expulsion, has
been eroding due to increasing reliance on denationalization. I then show, by employing
an original study of European policies, that the ‘protective’function of citizenship is
eroding not only in general terms, but that it furthermore targets citizens of a particular
profile that is continuously changing. Finally, I argue that recent revocation policies that
are premised on security concerns, promote a complex vision of citizenship that com-
bines elements of communitarian and liberal conceptions of belonging and works to
exclude citizens of foreign descent who, at the same time, repudiate liberal values.
Consequently, the status of the criminal rather than non-citizen, gains prominence in
determining those at risk of exclusion from the polity.
Keywords
Citizenship deprivation, denationalization, citizenship, crime, punishment, citizenship
theory
Corresponding author:
Milena Tripkovic,Lecturer in Criminology, Edinburgh Law School, University of Edinburgh, Old College, South
Bridge, Edinburgh EH8 9YL, United Kingdom.
Email: milena.tripkovic@ed.ac.uk
Article
Punishment & Society
2023, Vol. 25(2) 363–385
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14624745221080705
journals.sagepub.com/home/pun
Introduction
Protection from expulsion was for a long time a vital prerogative of criminally convicted
citizens. The ‘ever-present threat of deportation’(Walzer, 1984: 58) hovered exclusively
over diverse categories of foreigners. In recent times, the mere ‘threat’has become a
‘default position’and ‘standard response’(Kanstroom, 2000; Bosworth, 2011, 2012;
Stumpf, 2013) to both immigration offenses –so-called ‘crimes of mobility’(Aliverti,
2012, 2013) –and ‘regular’crimes. The citizenship status of domestic criminals in con-
temporary democracies, however, traditionally provided a bastion of security: although
the conviction temporarily limited access to rights and entitlements, it did not perman-
ently break citizenship bonds and would leave the formal status of membership in a pol-
itical community intact.
This long-standing ‘protective’function of citizenship has, however, recently been
eroding as democracies around the world come to embrace citizenship deprivation
prompted by criminal or other harmful conduct (for a recent summary of European pol-
icies, see Tripkovic, 2021). By renouncing their citizens, states no longer guarantee
‘absolute protection from expulsion’(Joppke, 2010: 84). Consequently, divisive proper-
ties of citizenship that separate members from non-members begin to collapse, and the
non-criminal status emerges as the relevant indicator of ‘belonging’(of non-criminal citi-
zens and non-criminal residents alike). To develop this original argument, the article
traces the prevalence, substance, and purpose of denationalization rules in various
European democracies. The study aims to discern the profile of those citizens who,
due to their criminal or harmful conduct, no longer qualify for unconditional member-
ship. Given its complexity, the sanction of denationalization could be examined from
various perspectives, either within a single jurisdiction or as a topic of comparative ana-
lysis. The analysis could explore legal foundations, policies and practices, factors that
contribute and shape policy choices, outcomes of the application of legal rules, effects
on denationalized individuals and other important issues. Given that the key question
that motivates the article is to determine the extent to which revocation laws undermine
the protective function of citizenship in Europe, as well as to uncover the motivations that
stand behind these policies, the article opted to collect and analyze current and previous
citizenship laws to determine the prevalence of particular approaches, examine their basic
traits, and trace legal change. Ideally, the analysis of legislation would be complemented
by assessing the context, number, and content of individual denationalization decisions.
However, comprehensive information required for this type of analysis was, regretfully,
mostly unavailable when the research was carried out. Future research could usefully
bring the two approaches together to assess how the norms are applied in practice,
make substantively more grounded proposals about their purpose, and make sense of
the differences in revocation practices that appear between European countries.
After establishing dominant trends in Europe, the article subsequently undertakes a
more general assessment of the link between crime and citizenship, arguing that denation-
alization promotes a vision of citizenship under which the definition of a ‘bad’citizen
hinges on, but also significantly diverges from that of a criminal offender. Ultimately,
although citizens of foreign descent are the most common targets of denationalization,
364 Punishment & Society 25(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial