Citizenship Studies: To Cite This Article: William Walters (2002) : Deportation, Expulsion, and The

This article was downloaded by: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] On: 10 April 2012, At: 07:21 Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Citizenship Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccst20
Deportation, Expulsion, and the International Police of Aliens

William Walters Available online: 01 Jul 2010
To cite this article: William Walters (2002): Deportation, Expulsion, and the International Police of Aliens, Citizenship Studies, 6:3, 265-292 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1362102022000011612
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/ terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Citizenship Studies, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2002
Deportation, Expulsion, and the International Police of Aliens1

WILLIAM WALTERS
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012
Compared with refugee or immigration policy, the historical and political analysis of deportatio n is poorly developed. This paper suggests some lines along which critical studies of deportatio n might proceed. First, it argues that we can historicize and denaturaliz e deportation by setting it within a wider eld of political and administrativ e practices. This is done by comparing modern deportatio n practice with other historical forms of expulsion. Second, the paper interrogate s the forms of governmentalit y which invest the practice of deportation, and asks what they might tell us about modern citizenship . It argues that deportatio n can be seen as one key element in the internationa l police of aliens. See the world through different eyes! Travel in exotic style with Lufthansas Deportation Class service. Dont miss outact now to take advantage of our specially priced low fares from North America or Europe to destination s all over the world. We are constantly expanding and improving our Deportation Class service, which remains the most economical way to travel the globe. With Lufthansa Deportation Class you can now reach dozens of exciting destination s worldwideTunis, Damascus, Jakarta, Alma Ata, Harare, Lima, Quito 2 This parody comes from the website of Deportation-class.com . Anti-deportatio n activism has for some time been one of the more prominent and visible aspects of political campaigns against exclusion and restrictionist immigration policies in Western Europe. Amongst the most notable of these have been the sanctuary movements, including the occupation of churches by people threatened with deportation, 3 and protests at airports around airlines that regularly transport the deportees. But recently there has been a shift of emphasis on the part of some activistsaway from a focus on individual anti-deportation actions to the targeting of major national airline companies. Just as clean clothes campaigns have engaged in image polluting campaigns against high-pro le brands like Nike and The Gap, these groups and networks subvert the typical images, colours, logos and themes of airlines and holiday imagery, revealing their
Dr. William Walters, Department of Political Science, Carleton University, Ottawa ON K1S 3A6, Canada; e-mail: wwalters@ccs.carleton.ca
ISSN 1362-102 5 Print; 1469-3593 Online/02/030265-2 8 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: 10.1080/136210202200001161 2
265
William Walters connection to deportation. The aim is to strike at the system in terms of its commercial vulnerability . One of the more imaginative of these is the Deportation Class project af liated with the German antiracist network, Kein Mensch Ist Illegal,4 from which this quote comes. What is so powerful about these tactics is how they unsettle our view of deportation. From seeing it as merely the unpleasant branch of a refugee and immigration system we apprehend it in a different light: as an industry. Instead of an administrativ e procedure we are provoked into seeing it as a system which implicates all manner of agentsnot just police and immigration of cials, but airline executives, pilots, stewards, and other passengers. Most pointedly, we are reminded that private companies make money from this form of suffering. Deportation is business. Immediately one makes connections with other moments in the history of the mass-orchestrated and forced movement of people. The history of transportation , for instance, is replete with stories of greedy shipping companies that were contracted to ship Englands criminal class to New South Wales. But we are also struck by the fact that deportation is political and open to contestation. Deportation Class displaces the practice of deportation. It enables us to recognize it in terms of other lineages of practices. In this way it unsettles our present. The aim of this paper is to contribute to this process of rethinking and expanding what we understand by deportation, not at the level of its popular representation, but by subjecting the practice of deportation to historical and genealogical analysis. Deportation has been studied in terms of internationa l law (Goodwin-Gill, 1978; Henckaerts, 1995; Pellonpaa, 1984). It is also, increas ingly, the subject of policy sciences which seek to make it more ef cient and humane (Koser, 2000). But with a couple of notable exceptions,5 it has not been studied as a political or historical practice, as a disciplinary tactic and an instrument of population regulation. Caestecker is therefore correct to observe that (w)hereas immigration and refugee policy have already been closely scrutinized, the historical analysis of expulsion policy is still in its infancy (Caestecker, 1998, p. 96). This is somewhat surprising since other forms of expulsion and forced migrationsuch as ethnic cleansing (Bell-Fialkoff , 1993; Jackson Preece, 1998; McGarry, 1998), religious expulsion (Kedar, 1996), the transportatio n of criminals (Hughes, 1986), political exile and population transfer (de Zayas, 1985, 1988; Rieber, 2000)have indeed been subjected to such critical scrutiny. Perhaps it is the case that these other forms appear so draconian. Deportation, because it remains embedded within the contemporary administrative practice of Western states, strikes us as less remarkable. The genealogical study of deportation as a practice of power is valid and timely not just as a means to enhance our understandin g of a relatively ignored, but highly pertinent aspect of public policy. More broadly, this paper will make a contributio n to the genealogical investigatio n of modern citizenship. Citizenship studies is of course now a vast eld; the area to which this study pertains is the growing sub eld of research exploring citizenship in terms of the citizen/alien relationship (Baubock, 1994a,b; Benhabib, 1999; Carens, 1995; Soysal, 1994) as well as that between the citizen and other gures of alterity (Isin, 2002). Following Benhabib (1999), we can note that these investigation s 266
Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens of the alien/citizen complex can be divided into normative, political philosoph y and sociological approaches. The latter, she suggests, view citizenship in terms of key social practices such as collective identity and social rights and bene ts. This paper is situated closer to the sociological pole. However, it will assume a different conception of social practice from this. In highlightin g deportation, I am engaging with practices that are constitutive of citizenship. Put differently, I will be treating deportation as a technology of citizenship (Cruikshank, 1999). What I have in mind here are the spatial practices that Engin Isin suggests are the central, but often ignored factors, in the formation of group identities and relations. As he puts it: groups cannot materialize themselves as real without realizing themselves in space, without creating con gurations of buildings , patterns, and arrangements, and symbolic representations of these arrangements (Isin, 2002, p. 43). To this end he reminds us that buildings like the guildhall, con gurations like the forum, and arrangements like the assembly play an irreducible role in the constitutio n of citizenship. Many of the technologies which Isin discusses involve the constitutio n of citizenship at the level of the city. In this paper I want to push the concept in a different direction, onto a more international plane. In studying deportation I will be tackling one of the constitutiv e practices by which citizenship is implicated in what Barry Hindess terms the international management of population . Western discussion s of citizenship have largely considered citizenship as an aspect of life within a state (Hindess, 2000, p. 1495). However, Hindess argues that to properly understand the modern, international culture of citizenship we have to look at the role of citizenship in the overall government of the population covered by the modern state system (Hindess, 2000, p. 1495). He suggests that we need to see citizenship not only in terms of rights, responsibilitie s and identitie s within a polity, but as a marker of identi cation, advising state and nonstate agencies of the particular state to which an individual belongs. On this view, the remarkable thing about citizenship is that it represents a regime that regulates the division of humanity into distinct national populations and operates as a dispersed regime of governance of the larger human population . We will see that while the ends and the functions of expulsion have been historically variable, the modern practice of deportation is central to the allocation of population s to states. This paper pursues a twofold strategy to historicize and problematize deportation as a political practice. In the rst section I situate it within a wider eld of historical practices. Here I develop the theme that we can understand deportation as a particular form of expulsion. We should not take for granted its location within contemporary immigration policy, nor its connection with the government of aliens. By considering some of the various ways in which people have been expelled, cast out, or banished, the reasons given and the methods chosen, we can grasp something of the particularity of deportation. In the second section I set the practice of deportation within a different analytical eldforms of power. This serves the purpose of linking it to wider questions concerning the government of population. Far from being merely an unchanging administrative routine, or a procedure subject to gradual and humane evolution, deportation might be seen in terms of certain governmental practices. Here I argue that 267
William Walters deportation has af nities to the international police of population . In the nal part of the paper I consider the detention centres and other incarceral spaces that are today a part of the deportation game, and relate them to Giorgio Agambens (1998) thematization of the camp. Though the practice of deportation might seem to imply abstract, inter-nationa l spaces, rather than the more intimate, lived spaces of the city, we will see that it can be theoretically and empirically grounded in the gure of the camp. Forms of Expulsion What is deportation and what might we learn about it by seeing it as a particular form of expulsion? Immediately we need to confront a terminological question. Goodwin-Gill begins one of the more extended treatments of the subject in international law with the following observation: The word expulsion is commonly used to describe that exercise of State power which secures the removal, either voluntarily , under threat of forcible removal, or forcibly, of an alien from the territory of a State (Goodwin-Gill, 1978, p. 201). Goodwin-Gill notes that terminologies vary from state to state. For instance, at certain times in its history the United States reserved the term deportation to refer strictly to proceedings initiated at a port of entry designed to send aliens on their way after refusal of admission. Henckaerts (1995, p. 5) notes that expulsion is more generally used in international law, whereas deportation is more common in municipal law. In what follows I shall be taking deportation to refer generally to the removal of aliens by state power from the territory of that state, either voluntarily , under threat of force, or forcibly. This is how the term is commonly used in many countries today. By utilizing deportation in this way, I am able to retain expulsion as a term to refer a much broader eld of practices. This eld will encompass the forced or mandated removal of individuals and groups from territories under the authority of political, and sometimes quasilegal and private authorities. In this way we will be able to specify deportation as one particular type of expulsion, albeit one that now occupies a central place in modern immigration policy. In the following section I compare deportation, de ned as above, with other forms of expulsion. I make no claim as to the exhaustivenes s of my list. Nor do I want to imply these are in any way watertight or mutually exclusive categories. The point is simply to capture something of the historical speci city of deportation, in terms of its subjects, its characteristic forms of reason and purpose, its social and political assumptions and methods. Exile Exile is the most ancient custom of all nations. These are the words chosen by Bernardo Tanucci, minister to the King of Naples, to justif y the expulsion of the Jesuits from the Kingdom of Naples (Delle Donne, 1970, p. 142; Kedar, 1996, p. 172). While Tanucci may have been exaggerating for effect, we can nevertheless concede that exile is indeed an ancient practice. Exile is used against the individual who is understood to be a member of the political community or 268
Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens nation. It is used as a form of punishment, but also security. Typical encyclopaedia entries reveal that in ancient Greece, exile was often the penalty for homicide while ostracism was reserved for those guilty of political crimes.6 Athenian law on ostracism gave the Popular Assembly the opportunity once a year to vote whether to banish for 10 years the citizen considered most dangerous to the establishment (Thomsen, 1972). In early Rome the citizen under sentence of death had the choice between exile and death. The Romans used the word deportatio to mean banishment to some outlying place within the empire, often an island (Kedar, 1996, p. 166). Exile was also a common form of punishment in the late Middle Ages when, again, it had a strong class component. Exile for the poor could often result in banishment from their town only to nd the gallows waiting where they sought refuge. For the rich it could be a less severe form of punishment, allowing for travel, business, and the prospect of an early and glorious return (Rusche and Kirchheimer, 1939, p. 20). Generally exile seems to have had the function of transmuting or lessening the punishment for serious crimes. The Italian jurist Beccaria recommended banishment in cases where individual s were guilty of disturbing the public peace, but also in cases where they were accused of some great crime but there was no certainty of guilt. It left the accused the sacred right of proving his (sic) innocence. Banishment was a practice that nulli es all ties between society and the delinquent citizen. In such cases, the citizen dies and the man remains. With respect to the body politic, [civil death] should produce the same effect as natural death (Beccaria, 1963, p. 53, brackets in the original). It is perhaps this type of political reason that Foucault has in mind when he equates expulsion with a form of political death.7 This idea that with banishment and exile the citizen is liquidated leaving only some kind of bare human is one that is echoed powerfully in more contemporary re ections on the practice of deportation and the experience of the refugee. For Hannah Arendt, the political condition of the stateless did not even approximate that of a prison inmate who, deprived of various freedoms, was nevertheless still within the political and legal order. The experience of the stateless was altogether more dangerous and unprecedented. They represented a new kind of human beingthe kind that are put in concentration camps by their foes and in internment camps by their friends (Arendt, 1994, p. 111). They had lost the right to have rights (Arendt, 1964, p. 296). For Arendt the fate of the refugee was to endure the abstract nakedness of being human and nothing but human (Arendt, 1964, p. 297). More recently Giorgio Agamben has developed this insight, arguing for the political signi cance of liminal experiences like banishment and the contemporary condition of statelessness . These phenomena reveal how Western politics is founded upon a particular relationship to, and politicizatio n of bare life. In Western politics, bare life has the peculiar privilege of being that whose exclusion founds the city of men (Agamben, 1998, p. 7). Whereas Foucault (1990) places the entry of biological life into politics on the threshold of modernity, for Agamben it is much more ancient. But modern declarations of the Rights of Man further inscribed bare life within the political order. However, it took the Holocaust, and in particular the terrible space of the Nazi concentration 269
William Walters camp, to reveal how bare life can become exposed. Within the camps bare life inhabits an indeterminate zone both within and beyond the political order, where it is placed at the mercy of sovereign power. According to Agamben, todays global refugee crisis, coupled with the vast numbers of people involved in clandestine work and migration, points to a growing disjunctio n between a politics organized in terms of nation-states , and bare life. As we will see in the second part of this paper, the camp is both a symptom and a response to this crisis. The Expulsion of the Poor
The second kind of expulsion I want to consider is associated with poor policy in early modern Europe. It is highly illuminatin g to consider the treatment of poverty and labour in the early modern period for the purposes of comparing different practices and logics of expulsion. In his magisterial account of the rise of a capitalist market order in England, Karl Polanyi draws our attention to the fact that land and money were liberalized and mobilized before, and therefore in contradiction with, labour. For our purposes the salient feature of Polanyis account is the Act of Settlement and Removal of 1662. This established the principles of parish serfdom, and was only loosened in 1795. This act cemented parish responsibilit y for the poor, and sought at the same time to protect the better parishes from an in ux of paupers. Only with the good will of the local magistrate could a man stay in any other but his home parish; everywhere else he was liable to expulsion even though in good standing and employed (Polanyi, 1957, p. 88). These provisions were considered harsh and later amended so that only those who constituted , or were likely to become a charge on the poor rate were subject to removal (Clark, 1931, p. 34). Since the early poor law was notoriousl y fragmented and uneven in its operation, then no doubt this act proved dif cult to enforce. Nevertheless, this determination to restrict relief to the local poor, and the denial of such rights to foreigners was a general feature of Western Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Here we nd an important source of modern deportation practice. As we will see below, the policing of the foreign poor becomes, by the late nineteenth century, a major preoccupation of deportation policy. The vital quali cation, of course, is that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the foreigner is not de ned in national terms. As Torpey notes in the context of his historical sociology of the regulation of movement: Historical evidence indicates clearly that, well into the nineteenth century, people routinely regarded as foreign those from the next province every bit as much as those who came from other countries (Torpey, 1999, p. 9). As modern aliens policy takes shape in the nineteenth century, with deportation as an important weapon within its armoury, it will reproduce this poor law logic, but increasingly in a context where the salient distinctio n is not local versus foreigner but national versus foreigner. 8 Hence we can agree with Lucassen who notes that in earlier centuries the restriction of the poor relief by the cities formed a prelude to the national aliens policy of later days (Lucassen, 1997, p. 249). 270
Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens Corporate Expulsion If expulsion on the basis of nationality and state membership is a relatively recent phenomenon, expulsion on the basis of group membership is not. This is a kind of expulsion which Kedar (1996) distinguishe s from exile on the grounds that it involves the banishment of an entire category of subjects beyond the physical boundaries of a political entitywhether principality , town, city state or absolutist state. Whereas exile is typically targeted at speci c individuals , here we encounter the expulsion of collective subjects. Without doubt, the basis that recurs most frequently for corporate expulsion is religion. From the end of the Middle Ages expulsion serves as a radical and important tool of governance (Kedar, 1996, p. 174) situated along a continuum between massacre and conversion, aiming to police the religious beliefs and practices of populations . While the religious persecution of Christians was certainly a feature of political life in Rome, or of non-Zoroastrians in Persia, during the Middle Ages such persecution will become institutionalize d for substantial periods (Bell-Fialkoff , 1993, p. 112). Jews were a frequent target for such expulsionsfor instance, from England (1290), France (1306), Spain (1492), Cracow (1494) and Portugal (1497). Similarly, in this category we should note the expulsion of Muslims from Spain (1526) and of Moriscos (converted Muslims) (1609 14). The fact that questions of religion and political loyalty are intertwined is clear by the sixteenth and seventeenth century. Corporate expulsion can be seen as a tool of state formation, occurring against the backdrop of the break-up of the universal church. Indeed, for some observers its frequency, and concentration in the western part of Europe is related to the fact that it goes hand in hand with the emergence of the modern state system there (Kedar, 1996, p. 175). The expulsion of Irish Catholics from Ulster in 1688, making land available for settlement by English and Scottish Protestants, ts this pattern. The strategic motive was to deny Catholic France and Spain a base for operations against England. Similarly, the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, which prompted the ight of thousands of Protestant Huguenots from France, reveals a certain connection between expulsion and confessiona l con ict. Transportation Rieber argues that as far as Western Europe is concerned, by the eighteenth century expulsion as an of cial policy of dealing with the other, however perceived, gave way to various forms of internal control and integration into a state system shaped by the consolidatio n of the secular power of the national monarch around a centralized bureaucracy and professiona l army (Rieber, 2000, p. 5). He gives the impression that expulsion was a sort of paroxysm or convulsion accompanying the birth of the modern state system, but that as the latter matured, political authorities soon found other means to regulate their populations . This argument is attractive in that it moves us away from seeing expulsion in singular or exceptional terms, and regards it rather as belonging to a repertoire of techniques of social regulation and, in this case, statebuilding. 271
William Walters However, the argument that expulsion waned with the consolidatio n of modern state power in Western Europe only works when con ned to the government of religious dissidents.9 The advantage of framing our inquiry in terms of forms of expulsion is that we identif y other practices of expulsion which operate in relation to different historical trajectories. There is no singular expulsion. This is clear if we take the case of the transportatio n of convicts and political exiles. If the emergence of a more or less settled system of states in Western Europe would see the withering of the corporate expulsion of religious dissidents and minorities, the external practices of colonization beyond Europe and internal practices of social repression underpinnin g these states, saw the opening of a political context for this different type of expulsion. With transportatio n we encounter a form of expulsion with certain resemblances to exile. These include its use as a form of punishment for political as well as civil crimes, its deployment to commute a death sentence, and in some cases that it held out the possibilit y of return. But it differs in several key respects. First, it has a strong utilitarian underpinning . Transportation combines the tactics of exile and forced removal with the game of colonization and economic exploitation . Spain and Portugal had attempted this as early as the fteenth century. But England was the rst country to employ the transportatio n of criminals in a systematic way. Rusche and Kirchheimer argue that the Vagrancy Act of 1597 legalized deportation for the rst time. For this act stated that such rogues as shall be thought tt not to be delivered shall be banyshed out of this Realme and all the domynions thereof and shall be conveied to such parttes beyond the seas as shall be at any tyme hereafter for that purpose assigned by the Private Counsell (Rusche and Kirchheimer, 1939, p. 59). Colonies like Virginia and Maryland were amongst the rst to receive Englands poor and undesirable . But this was not to last. With the availability of an alternative supply of forced labour in the form of slaves transported from Africa, and with the liberation of the colonies from the Monarchy following the American Revolution, the transportatio n of convicts to North America was soon brought to an end. Rather, it was Australia, and especially New South Wales, where this experiment in recycling convicts would be taken to its furthest point (Hughes, 1986). Between 1787 and 1868, when agitation by settled free labourers brought an end to the policy, over 80,000 convicts and political prisoners were shipped to Australia. Yet Britain was by no means alone in pursuing this practice, even if it did undertake it on an unparalleled scale. Until 1898 France used its colonies in New Caledonia for transportatio n purposes, including its exiles from the Paris Commune, while French transportation of convicts to Guiana was only nally abolished in 1937. Interesting also are the cases of countries like Germany which, without appreciable colonies in the nineteenth century, sought arrangements with other colonial powers for the transportatio n of their criminals, or simply sold them as slaves. For instance, Prussia had an agreement with Russia to accept Prussian convicts in Siberia (Rusche and Kirchheimer, 1939, pp. 123 5). In such internationa l relations of coerced migration we hear echoes of contemporary practices like the safe third country agreement. 272
Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens The connection with colonization , which explains aspects of the genesis but also, by the end of the nineteenth century, the increasing political impossibilit y of transportation , is not the only way in which this policy differs from the practice of exile or corporate expulsion. We should also note at this point that transportatio n is a mass phenomenon carried out on a routine, almost bureaucratic basis. Exile was less often a mass phenomenon. More typically it targets the in uential, or those with political prestige. It is perhaps a compromise between the subject and the sovereign. Transportation is a mass exercise. Spurred on by the overcrowding of gaols, and the need for forced labour, and targeting the nameless and the faceless, we might observe that it democratizes the practice of exile. Population Transfer The nal form of expulsion that I want to survey for the purposes of this genealogy of deportation is population transfer. If corporate expulsion is a form of expulsion that re ected the Treaty of Augsburgs principle of cujus regio ejus religiothat the religion of the state is that of the princethen population transfer belongs to a more recent time, an age of biopolitic s when principles of ethnic, racial and national homogeneity have displaced or reinscribed religion as the marker for political order. Population transfer is the neutral, technical name which national and international experts gave to more or less planned mass movements (voluntary and forced) of people that convulsed Europe throughout the rst half of the twentieth century. Population transfer was a policy to address what Europe understood as its problem of minorities. This problem was in turn the expression of, and the obstacle to the application of the principle of nationalitie s to the political map of Europe, especially its central and south-eastern areas (Jackson Preece, 1998). As new national states emerged with the break-up of the old Prussian Kingdom and the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires, the phenomenon of national minorities located within the territory of other national states became acute. The perception, especially under the circumstances of the World Wars, was that the separatist and irredentist practices of these groups would undermine national and international security. If the political norm was one of self-determination for national peoples, and the idea that each state should be a home for its people, and conversely, that each people should be represented by a state, then population transfer was one technique fashioned to meet this end. In this respect population transfer belongs to a series of methods for governing the problem of minorities including minority treaties, the redrawing of borders, the staging of plebiscites, and, the most dreadful measure of allgenocide. An early instance of population transfer was the exchange of thousands of minorities between Greece and Turkey, under the supervision of the League of Nations and the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne (1923). Other exchanges involved Bulgaria (de Zayas, 1988, 1989). But World War II saw increasing use of population transfer with Nazi Germany as one of its leading and most murderous practitioners. Ethnic Germans were repatriated from Romania, Esto273
William Walters nia, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, and many other states. At the same time, Nazi Germany sought to cleanse itself of Jews, Slavs, and other groups that it regarded as anti-social or sub-human through a combination of resettlement and genocide. In the Nazi state, then, population transfer understood as a programme of Germani cation, was taken to its apocalyptic extreme. Yet it would be wrong to see population transfer and other forms of forced racial adjustment as con ned to the policy of the Nazi state. While today it might be associated with ethnic cleansing, for statespersons at the middle of the century, population transfer was legitimated as an unpleasant but expedient and technical means of effecting national and international order. Hence population transfer did not end with the defeat of the Nazi regime. Under the Potsdam Protocol the Allies sanctioned a wave of transfers that would culminate in the removal of more than 14 million ethnic Germans from such countries as Poland, Hungary and Czechoslavakia . I am not alarmed by the prospect of the disentanglemen t of populations , Churchill famously commented on the Potsdam proposals, not even by these large transferences, which are more possible in modern conditions than they were ever before (De Zayas, 1989, p. 11). While an academic commentary on the policy at the time could view it as an instrument of the greatest importance in eliminating the most explosive danger spots in Europe and securing the future peace of the Continent and the welfare of its peoples (Schechtman, 1946, p. 24). To take the trajectory of population transfer further would be to follow its use in such contexts as postcolonia l nation-state formation, and Soviet communism, but also, as a number of researchers have done, to nd its contemporary application in the form of ethnic cleansing (Jackson Preece, 1998). As useful as this exercise might be, it would deviate from my concern here which is the study of the deportation of aliens. But population transfer is mentioned here to demonstrate how expulsion, by the twentieth century, has become, in Foucaults (1991) sense, governmental. I expand on the subject of governmentalit y below. But here we can note that expulsion becomes governmental with population transfer because it is now targeted at, and rationalized in terms of knowledges of population . It is perhaps worth noting that with the early modern period, expulsion was frequently used as a threat. It could be avoided if the subject agreed to accept baptism, conversion, or foreswear the practice of usury. Expulsion as population transfer operates on a biopolitica l territory where difference is marked indelibly. Expulsion is no longer aimed at the holders of particular beliefs or practices. Or rather, inasmuch as these are relevant considerations, it is now because they are markers of a deeper racial ethnic essence. There is no question of conversion or assimilation since ones race is now xed, immutable, interior. The persecution of refugees and others was, as Arendt observed, not because of what they had done or thought, but because of what they unchangeably wereborn into the wrong kind of race or the wrong kind of class (Arendt, 1964, p. 294). Preliminary Observations on Deportation Having surveyed certain key aspects of expulsion in history, at this point we can 274
Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens make several macrohistorical observations about deportation as a form of expulsion. First, there is the question of its political spatiality and scale. As long as deportation is studied in a purely contemporary setting, or within the terms of international law, we lose sight of the fact that for many centuries the expulsion of people has not been between states, but rather within empires, out of parishes and cities, from estates and commons. Modern deportation is both a product of the state system, and, as I will argue in the second section, one of a number of techniques for the ongoing management of a world population that is divided into states. Much the same can be said of population transfer. In this respect the practice of deportation is like the category of the refugee: not natural but, as recent work has argued, an effect of the division of the world into territorial states. In a postcolonia l era in which the sovereign state norm and form has been more or less globalized, expulsion cannot avoid raising the question of the destination of the expelled. International law generally recognizes the principle that states have an obligation to admit their nationals. The rise of deportation as a form of expulsion is therefore marked from the latter half of the nineteenth century onwards by the proliferation of internationa l treaties and laws, alongside diplomacy and informal agreements, which seek to institutionaliz e this norm. As Caestecker astutely observes in the case of Continenta l Europe where the fact of contiguity encouraged national cooperation in expulsion matters, if expulsion had previously been a unilateral affair, an act where the state casts out the unwanted, deportation would tend to be bilateral (Caestecker, 1998, p. 91).10 This international character of deportation means that deportation is always susceptible to politicizatio n not just on a domestic level, where protests may be mounted in the name of the rights of the expellee. It will also be contestable at an international level where states may bridle at the prospect of (re)admitting the undesirable. But in many instances deportation is more complex than repatriation to a national state. In countless instances expulsion, especially when it is preceded by denaturalizatio n or denationalization , will condemn the subject to a condition of statelessness . In the war-torn chaos of mid-twentieth century Europe Hannah Arendt clearly saw the implications of a world organized into territorial states, and its concomitant, the national organization of citizenship. Only with a completely organized humanity could the loss of home and political status become identical with expulsion from humanity altogether (Arendt, 1964, p. 297). Expulsion in the twentieth century will go hand in hand with the camps. These became the only practical substitute for a nonexistent homeland and the only country the world had to offer the stateless (Arendt, 1964, p. 284). The second point to make at this stage is that deportation concerns aliens, who, unless they are stateless, are at the same time legally citizen-national s of other countries. Again, this might seem so obvious that it does not need to be stated. Indeed, the international law treatment of the subject presents the link between deportation and aliens as axiomatic and implied. However, seen in terms of the long history of expulsion, the gradual restriction of expulsion to aliens, and its corollary, the delegitimatio n of ethnic transfer, is something that needs to be noted and explained. As we have noted, practices of exile, corporate expulsion, transportation , and population transfer took the expulsion of indige275
William Walters nous or long-settled population s to be normal (for ethnic cleansing it still is). The right to reside in a given territory, or its corollary, the removal of the threat of expulsion, is an aspect of the genealogy of modern citizenship that remains under-explored. It is beyond the scope of this paper to suggest explanations as to how citizens come to be more or less in-expulsabl e by their own governments. But when this story is told, it will no doubt reveal that this was not a linear path of progress but something prone to reversalno more so than with the mass denaturalizatio n and denationalizatio n of German Jews in Nazi Germany, but also of naturalized citizens of enemy origin in many other European countries (Arendt, 1964, p. 279). Perhaps we will nd that the gradual strengthening of the citizen territory link had less to do with any positive right of the citizen to inhabit a particular land, and more to do with the acquisition by states of a technical capacity (border controls, and so on) to refuse entry to non-citizens and undesirables. In the broader sense it is also a consequence of former colonies and dominions (for example, the United States and Australia) acquiring independence and state sovereignty, and thereafter refusing the status of dumping grounds for the undesirables of the imperial centre. The nal preliminary point to make concerns the symbolic eld which deportation borders upon. Deportation represents a legalized form of expulsion, and its legitimacy rests upon its administrativ e nature, and the observance of national and international norms and laws. However, because of its proximity to the wider eld of expulsions that I have sketched here, deportation is always susceptible to and associable with these other practices. These other forms of expulsion lurk in its shadows; their invocation always threatening to destabilize its legitimacy. They are historical memories, like slavery with regard to the contemporary politics of race, which can always be summoned by political action. Doesnt a plane full of deportees resemble transportation ? Doesnt the shackling and the chemical paci cation of deportees invoke the galley slaves? Does not the clandestine way in which immigration authorities cooperate with public and private airlines to prosecute certain deportations not resemble human-traf cking in reversetraf cking by states and big businesses? Dont politically-orchestrate d campaigns to deport Kurdish or Vietnamese refugees recall the many other groups historically to be expelled within Europe? Perhaps the contemporary deportation of aliens is invested with former practices and historical memories in such a way that it can never be merely the deportation of aliens. Deportation and Forms of Power If the rst half of this paper has situated deportation within a historical grid of forms of expulsion, the second will locate it within a different analyticsof forms of power and government (Barry et al., 1996; Burchell et al., 1991). This is a second axis on which we can enhance its intelligibility . Here we will try to see deportation in terms of wider logics of powerof sovereignty, governmentality and police. This exercise allows us to grasp something of the history of the rationalizatio n of deportation. It will enable us to avoid the position which sees in expulsion only the remorseless and monotonous persecution of the Other 276
Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens (Cohen, 1997). Expulsion has certainly been imbricated with all manner of fears of the Other. But the question posed here is: how has the conception and the treatment the Other been bound up historically with speci c forms of power? Deportation and Sovereignty Deportation is clearly implicated in the exercise of sovereignty. Its intelligibilit y with respect to sovereignty has been mostly secured through the discourse of international law. I will only touch on this discourse here since it is the dominant discourse about deportation and this paper is devoted more to examining other dimensions of deportation and expulsion. Within the discourse of international law the practice of deportation can be derived from the sovereign right of states to control their territories and the discretion they have regarding the admittance, and residence of aliens. The right of a State to expel, at will, aliens, whose presence is regarded as undesirable, is, like the right to refuse admission of aliens, considered as an attribute of sovereignty of the State The grounds for expulsion of an alien may be determined by each State by its own criteria. Yet the right of expulsion must not be abused. 11 The treatment which international law accords to deportation and expulsion revolves largely around this question. Internationa l law examines deportation as a question of right. At the risk of oversimplifying we can observe that until the middle of the twentieth century this was a discourse almost exclusively about the rights, obligation s and duties of states to one another with regard to the treatment of their subjects. It concerned the terms under which expulsion might be considered arbitrary, and the legal and administrative processes involved in enacting deportations. This legalistic discourse has been transformed in the post-war era by the rise of the human-rights agenda. As with other areas of international relations, this has meant that states no longer monopolize the space of internationa l relations in quite the same way. While states remain the agents with responsibilit y for interpreting and enforcing human rights, this shift nevertheless does mean that individuals and peoples have acquired a certain level of legal personhood and status within the international sphere. As far as deportation is concerned, this is re ected in various treaties and conventions which prohibit mass expulsion and which call for some kind of due process to be followed (Henckaerts, 1995). At the level of administrative and legal practice, therefore, we might observe there has been a certain individualization of expulsion. Deportation and Governmentality While deportation will be legitimated in terms of the right of the stateand countered often in terms of alternative principles of rightsuch a juridical perspective misses another dimension of power. This is its governmental character. Modern deportation lies at the intersection of these logics of sovereignty and government. What is governmental power in contrast to sovereign power? Here I follow Foucault (1991) and others who have advanced the notion of governmentality. Foucault uses governmentalit y in a number of overlapping 277
William Walters but distinguishabl e ways (Dean, 1999, Chapter 1). Governmentality is used generally to refer to governmental mentalities, the link between power and knowledge. However, it is a second, more historically speci c use which interests me here. Foucault uses governmentality to identify the emergence of a distinctly novel form of re ection on, and exercise of power in modern societies. It is connected with the discovery of a new reality, the economy, and a new object, the population. Foucault dates this moment to the early modern period in Western European societies. Governmentality marks the point at which political power comes to be concerned with the wealth, health, welfare and prosperity of the population . Sovereign power involves the exercise of authority over the subjects of a statethe deduction of taxes, the meting out of punishments, and the taking of life. Government, on the other hand, is marked by its concern to optimize the forces of the population . Government does not replace other forms of power, but rearticulates them. Hence taxation, law and punishment are directed not primarily towards augmenting the power and glory of the sovereign, but to promoting the ends of population . But conversely, the promotion of population will be used to advance the sovereign power of the state, where the latter is understood as inserted in a eld of perpetual geopolitical con ict. The deportation of aliens needs to be situated within this eld of governmentality, and not just sovereignty. My argument is that in the course of the nineteenth century we can speak of a governmentalization of deportation. While I can not undertake a full account of this process, I can sketch some of the signi cant ways it is evident in the latter part of that century. First, it is well illustrate d in the cases of Britain and the United States by the shift that occurs at the level of the law in terms of what kinds of subjects and problems are being identi ed as grounds for expulsion. At the end of the eighteenth century the practice of deportation is still concentrated around the pole of sovereign power. Its principal targets are political enemies of the stateagitators, subversives, revolutionaries who undermine its authority. Britains Aliens Act of 1793 was a direct response to fears of revolution unleashed by the French Revolution. For the rst time, Parliament sanctioned the expulsion of aliens. While this Act fell into disuse following the Napoleonic wars, the revolutionary wave of 1848 saw the passage of further legislation , this time the Removal of Aliens Act (Cohen, 1997, pp. 357 8). Similar in character were the United States Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 which empowered the President to remove any aliens suspected of treasonable or secret machinations against the government (Clark, 1931, p. 37). To this day deportation remains an instrument to be used against those who can be de ned as political enemies of the state. It will target foreign trade unionists and dissidents during times of crisis, and especially during wars. However, we can observe that by the end of the nineteenth century its targets expand to embrace not just political, but also social enemies in the form of various categories of socially undesirable persons. The enemies of the state henceforth include various categories of person who are deemed to pose a threat to its population , which is increasingly understood in racial and biopolitica l terms, or to its economy or system of welfare provision. Hence there is Britains Aliens act of 1903, a response to fears regarding an alien menace associated with the in ux of Russian and Eastern European Jews. While this Act sought to 278
Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens maintain a general policy of openness in immigration, it de ned as socially undesirable, expulsable and excludable the mad, the destitute, fugitive offenders and previous deportees (Cohen, 1997, p. 358). In the United States there is a gradual expansion of the classes of person who warranted exclusion and deportation. The initial targets had been Chinese immigrants under the Chinese Exclusion Act, but by 1891 the number of excludable classes had been greatly enlarged by the addition of paupers, persons suffering from loathsome or dangerous contagious diseases, polygamists and so on (Clark, 1931, p. 44). In the twentieth century the practice of expulsion is not only nationalizedas we saw with population transfer. Simultaneously, it is socialized. Another way we can trace this governmentalizatio n of deportation is around the question of foreign or alien workers. As states became involved in the regulation of labour markets and the management of economies in the twentieth century, deportation found economic uses that paralleled its social purposes. Here deportation was to function as the corollary of immigration policy and the supplement to voluntary emigration. If immigration policy was often driven by the need to recruit migrant labour from abroad, deportation was used to regulate and enforce the return of these temporary hands during times of economic downturn. This use of deportation rst became clearly evident during the interwar depression when France, a state that had traditionally relied upon immigration to meet labour shortages, and to a lesser extent Belgium, used deportation as a means of exporting their unemployment (Arendt, 1964, p. 286; Strikwerda, 1997, p. 63). In key respects, then, the practice of deportation mirrors the rise of welfarist policies and programmes. In the cases just given, it will be an instrument to defend and promote the welfare of a nationally-de ned population a fact re ected in the title of anti-immigration legislation such as Frances Law for the Protection of National Labour (1932). But it is shaped by, and re ects the rise of welfarist rationalitie s and mentalities at a more technical, administrativ e level as well. If deportation was coming to be used as a de facto employment policy in countries like France between the wars, then certain social principles pertaining to employment would be extended to it. If responsibilit y for the origins and relief of unemployment is socialized under the welfare state (Walters, 2000), and ceases to be the sole responsibilit y of the worker, then it is possible to observe something similar with deportation. Like industrial disability, unemployment, and old age, the view was that employers, and more generally society, since they utilize and bene t from foreign hands, should also be responsible for a share of the cost of repatriating such labour when it becomes surplus to requirements. Hence in France in the 1930s we nd mining companies, and later the French government, nancing the journey home of their deportees (Caestecker, 1998, pp. 93 4). But deportation and welfarism are connected in other ways. As the governmentality literature has emphasized, political programmes and projects only become governmental when they nd certain technologie s capable of making them implementable (Rose, 1999). It is fruitful to analyse citizenship at the level of its technologies . If deportation becomes a technique concentrated upon the non-citizen, as I have argued earlier, this presumes the availability or the 279
William Walters invention of means to identify who is a citizen and who is a foreigner. It also presumes the administrativ e capacity to police borders. Scholars of the history of regulation and documentation tend to con rm that World War I is a watershed in this respect, a time when borders are systematically patrolled and passports checked (Caestecker, 1998; Sassen, 1999; Strikwerda, 1997; Torpey, 1999). From 1914 onwards we see a proliferation of schemes to document and identif y the alien, including identity cards, registrations with police, employer and residence permits and passports. The non-renewal of these various permits by of cials could henceforth operate as a means to initiate deportation. Of course, in many cases the national identity of a person was unclear. In this case the act of deportation also entails a practice of identi cation, as it may with the asylum process today, a site where the identity and the proper responsibilit y for the subject must be xed. While I lack the space to trace other mutations within this trajectory of the governmentalizatio n of deportation, there is one development pertaining to the present which bears noting. In many Western countries today we see a concern with deportation less as a mechanism for shaping the substantiv e identity or pro le of a population , or for intervening directly in the labour market. Instead, there is a concern with the governmental mechanism itself. Governments are presently obsessed with the need to tighten up their deportation and repatriation policies. One of the main reasons they give is the need to maintain the integrity of their immigration and asylum systems. The problem identi ed is one where lax administratio n of deportationthe failure to execute deportation orders and actually remove the subjectmarks a particular state as a soft touch. The fear is that asylum shoppers will then ock towards that state to pro t from its generous terms of admission. Strictly enforced deportation policies send signals to asylum-seekers and illegal migrants. What is being governed is not the population in a direct manner, as it was with population transfer or the deportation of the socially undesirable, but the governmental system. The parallel is with neoliberal critiques of the welfare system where the governmental system is identi ed not as a solution, but as a contributin g factor in problems of poverty and exclusion. The call is then for welfare reform, a term that becomes synonymous with poverty policy. This seems to t the trend that Dean calls the governmentalizatio n of government whereby the mechanisms of government themselves are subject to problematization , scrutiny and reformation (Dean, 1999, p. 193). When deportation rates become targets to be met by immigration and other departments, when national and international agencies seek to compare levels and techniques of deportation across nations and exchange information for best practice, then it seems we have governmentalizatio n of government. Deportation as International Police Thus far I have argued that we can historicize deportation in terms of a process of governmentalization . The latter is a development in which states become actively involved in the protection and promotion of the welfare of their populations . But we can go beyond merely identifying deportation in terms of 280
Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens governmentality , and ask what kinds of governmentalit y invest and rationalize this practice. The literature on governmentalit y has been concerned mostly with liberal forms of government. Among the most important characteristics of liberal government is indirect rule, a reliance on the positive knowledges of the social and human sciences to delimit certain elds and objects of intervention , and an ethical concern that government should be limited. Liberal rule is haunted by the constant fear of governing too much. It does not seek to govern in totalizing ways, but with the grain of spheres of existence that are always beyond the formal institution s of power. The government of economic policy exempli es liberal government, as does much welfare and social policy with its will to empower individuals and families. However, I want to suggest that deportation does not properly belong to this regime of liberal practices of rule, but to an older lineagethat of police. Research on governmentalit y is beginning to recognize the various ways in which older forms of non-liberal and illiberal rule continue to structure the present, or are reactivated in modern settings (Dean, 2002). Deportation is consistent with this observation. What is police as a form of governmentality , and in what ways is deportation rationalized by it? While today police refers to a body of of cials charged with the prevention of crime and the maintenance of the peace, in early modern Europe, polizei refers to something broaderan art of government. Unlike liberal forms of rule, which de ne themselves in part through their political critique of police, police does not see order as spontaneous or natural, but the effect of regulation. Police sits alongside other totalizing arts of government such as cameralism and mercantilism. Security is attained through detailed administration and ordering. As Gerhard Oestreich observes, police is characterized by its regulation mania (Dean, 1999, p. 91). Its original setting is local or municipal government where police regulation extends to vast and, from a contemporary perspective, heterogeneous array of issues, including sanitation, religious practice, the treatment of the poor, sumptuary codes, civic manners and public morality. There are at least two ways in which deportation can be understood in relation to police. First, at a national level, it is a form of policing territory and population . We have already noted how deportation is anticipated by the local police of the poor in sixteenth and seventeenth century Europe. But in the latter part of the nineteenth century, as administrators come to re ect on the problem of aliens, and to rationalize the use of deportation, they will understand it in its modern sense as a form of national police. Lexpulsion nest pas une peine; cest une mesure de police (Martini, 1909, p. 3). In its review of Europes policies on aliens, Britains Royal Commission (1903) observed: on the Continent the question of the admission and still more of the expulsion of undesirable Aliens is a matter of police regulation (p. 30). Although the twentieth century will witness the juridi cation of deportation within national and international law, in its inception it is an administrativ e not a juridical measure. It is an instrument to protect and sustain public order and tranquillity , akin to the removal of a nuisance. Consider the following summary of reasons for deportation which was produced by the Institute of Internationa l Law in 1892, at a time 281
William Walters when legal experts and administrators were formulating the modern powers of deportation. Here we nd the overlay of deportation as an instrument of police, of routine administratio n with expulsion as an instrument to perpetuate sovereign power: (1) fraudulent entry into the territory, unless followed by a sojourn there during a period of six months; (2) establishment of domicile or residence in violation of a formal prohibition ; (3) illness dangerous to public health; (4) mendicancy, vagabondage, pauperism; (5) conviction in the country for offences of a certain gravity; (6) conviction or prosecution abroad for grave extraditable offences; (7) incitement to the perpetration of grave offences against public safety; (8) attacks in the press or otherwise against the institution s of a foreign State or sovereign or against the institution s of a foreign State; (9) attacks or outrages in a foreign press against the country of sojourn or its sovereign; (10) conduct in time of war or impending war threatening the countrys security. (Pelonpaa, 1984, p. 52) Here is a form of power, then, which does not envisage a spontaneous order. Unlike the classical image of immigration where actors voluntarily move in response to push and pull factors, and more broadly, various forms of liberal government, where the welfare of the population and social order is to be optimized by harnessing the freedoms and the desires of individuals , and the self-regulating mechanisms of market and population , deportation belongs to a different rationality of rule. It employs a similar tactic to the poor law, drawing a categorical distinctio n between those who should be granted the bene ts of citizenship, however meagre, and those who must be managed authoritatively , evenly despoticly. But deportation is more than just a form of police that operates on a national population . Here I want to argue for a second and potentially more signi cant dimension to the police character of deportation. It is that we should see the deportatio n of aliens as a form of the internationa l police of population.12 Seen from a national, or purely internal perspective deportation appears as the exclusion and expulsion of aliens and the uninvited; it stands as an expression of the hierarchical relationship between citizens on the one hand with full rights, and aliens or denizens on the other, or the ways in which states discriminate against non-citizens and outsiders. But seen from an international perspective, deportation represents the compulsory allocation of subjects to their proper sovereigns, or, in many instances of statelessness, to other surrogate sovereigns (for example, the current practice of returning certain asylum-seekers to safe third countries). In the face of patterns of international migration, deportation serves to sustain the image of a world divided into national population s and territories, domiciled in terms of state membership. It operates in relation to a wider regime of practices including resettlement, voluntary return, political asylum, temporary protection and so on, which together can be said to comprise a global police of population . Extradition belongs to this series as well, though extradition is in certain respects the inverse of deportationa recognition of the 282
Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens sovereigns claim to have their subjects returned for the application of justice. Following Hindess, we can see citizenship in a different light. Less the rights and responsibilitie s accruing to individuals by virtue of their membership of an appropriate polity but rather a marker of identi cation, advising state and nonstate agencies of the particular state to which an individua l belongs (Hindess, 2000, p. 1487). By discussing deportation as a practice within the international police of population , I want to highlight its af nities with poor law practice. Despite their signi cant differences, both operate with a logic of dividing and allocating population s to the territorial authorities deemed properly responsible for them. The poor law does this between localities; with deportation it is international. One consequence of this observation is that we need to further revise conventional understanding s of the welfare state and the Marshallian narrative of social citizenship. The Marshallian narrative is an account where universalism triumphs over particularism, and where the advent of social rights spells the victory of an ameliorist and social rather than a penal approach to poverty. For some time now, welfare state and citizenship theory has challenged this rather Whiggish account on a number of scores, not least for its anglocentrism and its genderblindness. But we can add a further challenge here. It is that the evolutionary account is sustainable only if one ignores the international dimension of the welfare state, and, by corollary, the national particularity of social rights. The evolutionar y account of social citizenship makes sense only if we ignore the treatment of groups like aliens who were often present alongside these social citizens, but did not enjoy the same level of social rights. From the perspective of the alien, the advent of the welfare state did not represent the full liquidatio n or transcendence of the poor law. Rather, it involves a certain reconstitutio n of its logic on regional, and today, a global scale. Seen from a global perspective, the world comprises a patchwork of welfare states. Many of them are extremely rudimentary, but the vast majority are organized in terms of norms of residency. The age of the welfare state does not fully escape the logic of the poor law. As the history of aliens policy reveals, at the same time that social policy was being nationalized, deportation was a regular instrument in the export of the foreign unemployed and other undesirable groups. Or put differently, at the same time that technologie s like social insurance and schooling were serving to constitute socially-integrate d societies, deportation, along with other legislation on mobility rights, was operating to manage the disciplinary division and distribution of social responsibilitie s across states. There have been notable and positive changes in the status of aliens, as theorists of postnationa l citizenship and membership suggest (Soysal, 1994). Foreign workers in most Western states are not generally exposed to the same level of arbitrariness of expulsion as before. In terms of social and civil rights, and to a limited extent, political rights, there has been a notable convergence between aliens, residents and citizens in the post-WWII period. This has been taken furthest with the project of European Union citizenship which, on one reading, embodies the goal of diminishing and even eliminating the disabilitie s of alienage in other States.13 But aside from the situation of EU citizens, Brubaker points out that many European countries did not dare expel guest 283
William Walters workers despite terms in their contracts that allowed them to do so, because it was actually felt that they were a part of the societies in which they lived (Brubaker, 1989, p. 19). However, as much as the social and legal situation of many categories of non-national s may have improved in many European states, it is important to recall that new projects and new subjects of expulsion and exclusion have been constitute d in the past 20 years or so, representing a counter-tendency to the process of de-alienage. Amidst public and political anxieties over bogus asylum-seekers and illegal immigrants (Huysmans, 1995), there are new targets for expulsion and deportation. What is notable here is the way that deportation is itself becoming regionalized. Multilateral arrangements under the Schengen and Dublin agreements, and now under the EUs Amsterdam Treaty, point to tendencies for deportation and exclusion to take place not just from national territories, but from the EUs emerging regional area of freedom, security and justice. One of the main aims of the Dublin Convention was to prevent multiple applications for asylum in membercountries and to put an end to asylum-shopping . In effect, member-states operate as proxy European authorities, deciding upon and in many cases deporting asylum-seekers from the European space. In sum, in the future, we might expect this international police to work not only between nations, but between regions and nations. The Camp as a Space Beyond Citizenship I have discussed deportation as a form of international police that seeks to divide and distribute population on a global basis, and which presupposes the idea of citizenship as a marker of belonging within the state system. As it stands, however, this account of deportation as internationa l police and, more generally, in terms of sovereign and governmental power, is seriously incomplete. For the most controversia l and troubling forms of deportation are not usually the return of nationals to their home states. Rather, they have involved the stateless, the refugee, the German Jew or Russian denationalize d and stripped of citizenship, the refugees who, in desperate circumstances, have destroyed their own citizenship papers, and today the rejected asylum-seeker. The fact is that when deportation has featured in these cases it goes hand in hand with the camp. Practices of deportation need to be seen in relation to a wider incarceral archipelago of detention centres, refugee camps and zones dattente. In this nal part of the paper I want to examine the camp. This is not just for reasons of consistency or out of some desire for completeness, but because it offers important insights about contemporary citizenship, sovereignty and forms of power. Foucault is well known for his observation that: A whole history remains to be written of spaceswhich would at the same time be a history of powers from the great strategies of geo-politics to the little tactics of the habitat (Foucault, 1980, p. 149). What might the study of the camp contribute to such a history? Here we can return to Arendt and Agambentwo gures who have explored the implications and consequences of the refugee for modern political thought. A key insight that I take from Arendt is her observation of the pervasiveness of the camp in twentieth century Europe. While the concentration 284
Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens camp was the speci c outcome of the Nazis genocidal dream of racial purity, its horrors should not obscure the fact that camps of one kind or another became the routine solution for the domicile of the displaced persons by the time of World War II (Arendt, 1964, p. 279) in a large number of European countries. When she notes that the internment camp became the only practical substitute for a nonexistent homeland and the only country the world had to offer the stateless (p. 284) she reminds us that, like deportation, the camp is not merely a dreadful anomaly or the expression of discriminatio n on the part of this or that government. Rather, it is a logical consequence and an almost necessary correlate of a world fully divided into territorial, nation-states . The great spaces of geopolitics and their biopolitica l assumptions crystallize, and nd their supports, in the camp. However, it is with Agamben that we encounter the attempt to thematize the camp as a diagram of power.14 For Agamben the camp holds the key to understandin g the complex place of bare life inside/outside the polity. Foucault famously proposed the panoptical prison as a (though, certainly not the only) diagram for understandin g certain critical features of the political and social logic of modernity, its deployment of power and subjectivity . Agamben attributes a similar signi cance to the gure of the camp. The camp is a frightening zone of indistinctio n where we encounter sovereignty as nomos the point of indistinctio n between violence and law, the threshold on which violence passes over into law and law passes over into violence (Agamben, 1998, p. 32). If sovereignty operates through its capacity to de ne situations as exceptional, and therefore requiring and justifying actions and procedures outside the normal juridical order, then the camp is the materialization of [this] state of exception (p. 174). But the camp is not a nite or particular institutiona l complex. Rather it is a system of relations which is actualized in diverse settings. We nd ourselves virtually in the presence of the camp every time exceptional measures are taken to institute a space in which bare life and the juridical rule enter into a threshold of indistinction (p. 174). Hence the camp is materialized with the internment and concentration camps of the 1930s and 1940s, but also, in other forms. It appears momentarily in the form of the stadium in Bari where Italian police in 1991 herded Albanian immigrants before returning them. It is also actualized with the international zone (zone dattente) of RoissyCharles-de-Gaulle airport, which has converted a hotel for the detention of asylum-seekers, and which the French authorities de ne as outside the territory of France.15 Within the international zone, the airport is con gured as the high seas from the point of view of the immigrant: French obligation s and commitments to the refugee under international treaties are suspended. Meanwhile, the camp proliferates in the form of detention centres, the frontline of the Western states response to the global refugee crisis. The more notorious examples include Camps eld in the UK and Woomera in Australia; but there are now more than 100 such centres across Europe (Hayter, 2000, p. 113). The camp is often a matter of expediencea detention area under the Palais de Justice in Paris; or the British authoritie s use of a converted ferry (with its echoes of the prison hulks) to detain mostly Sri Lankan Tamils in the port of Harwich (Hayter, 2000, p. 121). These are all spaces where the exception becomes the norm, 285
William Walters where those without the right to have rights are exposed to indeterminate waiting times, the risk of arbitrary treatment, and the threat of physical and psychologica l abuse. But in addition to de ning a space of emergency in which particular exceptional modes of treatment become normal, the camp represents a crisis of Western politics and citizenship. It signals a sort of surplus of bare life that can no longer be contained within the political order of nation-states : what we call camp is this disjunction (p. 175). In the absence of a working cosmopolitan model of citizenship, or other ways of organizing and distributin g rights, belongings , and identities, and with the menacing growth of a politics of xenophobia and racism that encourages publics to see the presence of refugees and aliens as threats to their freedom, culture, and security, we have the campswe have border zones, detention centres, holding areas, a panoply of partitions, segregations and striations. The gure of the refugee reveals that the Rights of Man that become ours naturally through birth, are in actual fact partial, provisional and inadequate. The camps stand as a sign of the rupture of the state people territory complex, but also the permanently-temporar y attempt to suture it. The dream of the perfect prison, of the school and other disciplinary spaces was the production of a docile useful body, and a self-regulating, interiorized citizen. However, the diagram of the camp does not presuppose a comparable, positive kind of subjectivity . Rather, its logic is one of expedience and exemption. It is not interested in projects of reform, so much as countering the dangerous illegal global ows of impoverished humanity. If, following Giovanna Procacci (1991, p. 161), the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were trans xed by a fear of pauperism, with its dangerous uid, elusive sociality, impossible either to control or to utilize, and if the governmental response included the great strategies of territorial sedentarization in order to produce xed concentrations of population (for example, anti-vagabondage laws, the poor law, and later, public housing), then camps and deportations represent components of a contemporary sedentarization campaign which operates in relation to a local global space. The camp delivers surplus humanity into a zone of indistinction , invoking a near permanent state of emergency to place its subjects inde nitely on hold on the edge of the juridical orderall so that the sovereign system of states and its division of citizens to states can be re-established. Here surplus humanity is caught in the cross-currents between the police and immigration authorities and their moves to extra-judicial and arbitrary treatment, and the countermovements of the human-rights and immigrants-right s groups who protest such forms of treatment. The camp is extraterritorial, in the sense that it can stand outside the legal and juridical order, but also intensely territorial to the point where the territorial regime of citizenship becomes dependent upon these exceptions if it is to sustain the principle that all the worlds population can be ascribed a country. Yet if the camp is quite different from the disciplinary spaces which Foucault and others associate with modernity, it has at least one thing in common. Like the workhouse or the prison, the camp is to be highly symbolic; its harshness stands as a semio-technique (Dean, 1991, pp. 184 5; Foucault, 1977, pp. 93 103) of deterrence, a signal that our immigration systems are not a soft touch. 286
Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens Despite the importance of Agambens contribution in linking questions of refugees, migration and expulsion to broader questions of citizenship and power, it is not without its problems. Above all, his account is rather one-sided and crushingly dismal. In this respect it might be useful to consider some of the various ways in which camps have been contested, both by antiracist activists and by potential deportees themselves. Perhaps one could develop a counterconcept alongside the campcall it the sanctuary. Just as the camp is made to materialize in airports, hotels, even in the ships that transport the refugee once these are held at sea, then the sanctuary has been made by popular struggles to materialize in a counter-movement, most particularly within churches. Take the case of the occupation of Saint Ambroise church in Paris in 1996 by 324 Africans. This is an event that is now regarded as the founding of the sans-papiers movement, a campaign that has sought to move beyond oppositio n to particular deportations to the demand for the legalization of so-called illegal immigrants. One reason for the signi cance of this movement is that through it undocumente d workers and illegals, and especially the women within these communities, have sought to become autonomous political subjects, rather than merely the causes for which external groups struggle. As its manifesto declares: We the Sans-Papiers of France, in signing this appeal, have decided to come out of the shadows. From now on, in spite of the dangers, it is not only our faces but also our names which will be known (published in Liberation, 25 February 1997; Hayter, 2000, p. 143). The sanctuary involves a strategic reinscription of the sacred space of the church as a defence against the sovereign power of the state. Like anti-deportatio n activities at airports, it dramatizes the practice of deportation. Whatever else it may or may not accomplish, the sanctuary ensures that deportation will not operate as a silent, routine administrativ e process. Rather, it guarantees that deportation will be performed as a site of sovereigntyeither the state negotiating with the subjects of deportation (and thereby recognizing them as subjects), or the state as armed bodies of men smashing down church doors, seizing, arresting, pacifying, terrifying, removing bodies in full display of the public. In short, with the sanctuarybut also the various other campaigns to close detention centres, the border-shacks and camps that demonstrate the forti cation of European and North American border controls (see http://www.noborder.org), the activities of the Collectif Anti-Expulsion and Deportation.class to mobilize passengers against deportation in airports,16 the mobile, human-rights caravansone sees a politicizatio n of the permanent-exceptiona l order of the camp. A pessimistic reading would see the sanctuary as an extension of the camp self-internment? And doubtless many occupations of churches and other spaces are little more than a last desperate bid to avoid deportation that it would be wrong to romanticize or conscript as a grand political gesture. But a more hopeful, and arguably more nuanced, reading of such events and movements is that they are inventing ways to contest the expulsion of people from humanity. In the process they are posing profound questions about our politics and practice of citizenship. The question which the very name of the antiracist network, Kein Mensch Ist Illegal, poses is precisely: within what kind of politics can a human be illegal? Arendt wrote of freedom as a practice rather than a xed value or 287
William Walters set of institutions , a practice in which participants call something into being, which did not exist before, which was not given, not even as a cognition or imagination, and which therefore, strictly speaking, could not be known (Arendt, 1977, p. 151; Tully, 1999, p. 179). As counter-intuitiv e as it seems, perhaps we can see camps and sanctuaries as spaces not just of nomos, but the invention of new practices of freedom and subjecthood . Conclusion What is the relevance of this study of deportation for our understandin g of citizenship? First, it has observed that deportation is more than an unpleasant, coercive aspect of immigration policy. Deportation is less a contingent feature and more a logical and necessary consequence of the international order. It is actually quite fundamental and immanent to the modern regime of citizenship. If citizenship, following Hindess, can be seen not just as rights and responsibil ities exercised within a polity, but a marker of identi cation, advising state and nonstate agencies of the particular state to which an individua l belongs, then deportation (along with extradition and other forms of repatriation ) represents a means by which this principle can be operationalized . Deportation is certainly legitimated and authorized by the modern regime of citizenshipthough we have seen in the course of this study that it is only one of a number of ways in which expulsion has historically been rationalized. But it is more than just a logical consequence of this regime of citizenship. To call it a constitutiv e practice, a technology of citizenshipas I did at the outsetis to say something else. It is to argue that deportation is actively involved in making this world. The modern order of citizenshipin which population is divided and distributed between territories and sovereigns, and in which rights depend mostly on national membership within territorial politiesdoes not reproduce itself naturally. In other words, we can see deportation like diplomacy, economic policy, border controls, or schooling, as a practice that is constitutive and regulative of its subjects and objects. Nothing illustrates more powerfully, and more tragically, this sense of deportation as constitutive than the practice of population transfer during the middle of the twentieth centurya point at which the state is brutally harnessed to the goal of creating ethnically homogeneous nations. If this vision of the nation authorized mid-twentieth century deportation practices (and still does with ethnic cleansing), a question I have not resolved but which begs further research is: what kind of image of political community is presupposed by deportation today? But there is also a methodologica l point to be made here about how we might study the changing content of modern citizenship. A key analytical assumption of this paper is that it is useful to select a particular practice and follow it over a relatively long historical period. In this way we are able to avoid some of the pitfalls of more presentist perspectives. By comparing different forms of expulsion it has been possible to trace signi cant shifts in the package of rights, duties and expectations that attend citizenship. For example, we have seen that a history of deportation offers certain insights regarding the relations between citizenship, population and territory. A distinguishin g feature of the 288
Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens contemporary practice of deportationat least in most Western statesis that of a form of treatment reserved for aliens. As long as we study deportation in a presentist light, we are likely to take this fact for granted. Yet it is something which actually needs to be explained rather than assumed. For we saw that exile and banishment, understood as practices which strip away a persons rights, and sunder the ties to their community, have at various times been considered appropriate forms of punishment for citizens. An answer to the question of how and why citizenship comes to imply a right to remain in ones own country, and deportation a practice suited only to non-citizens, is beyond the scope of this paper. However, I suspect that a convincing answer will require this process to be set within a framework that more fully considers the international relations of citizenship (for example, Mann, 1987). For the trend away from deporting ones own citizens is strongly conditioned by international factorsboth the pressure of international norms and conventions , but more signi cantly, the long-term process of territorial organization. It is only when the world becomes more or less fully divided up into territorial states that deportation begins to risk the fate which was consciously intended by the much older practice of banishmentnamely, expulsion from humanity. Notes
1. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at a workshop on Illiberalism, 6 July, Carleton University, a seminar at Murdoch University, Western Australia, and at the British International Studies Association Annual Meetings, University of Edinburgh, 17 19 December 2001. I am grateful to participants at these events for their helpful comments, and to Barry Hindess, Robyn Lui and Christina Gabriel for discussing the topic with me. I thank Matthew Hayes for his research assistance, and Canadas SSHRC for funding this research. 2. , www.deportation-class.com/index.html . (accessed 5 December 2001). 3. Amongst the most notable of these has been the occupation of churches in Paris by mostly African sans-papiers. See Hayter (2000). 4. See Aviation campaigns, , http://www.noborder.org/avia/index.html . (accessed 5 December 2001). 5. The most signi cant of these is without doubt Weber (1996). The originality of this work is to see expulsion as the locus of a Foucaultian dispositif, and to trace the variable ways in which this system of laws, practices and spaces has been articulated with the regulation of population. Weber concentrates on Germany, whereas I have tried to study deportation in a slightly broader, European context. See also Cohen (1997). 6. Exile, , http://www.encyclopedia.com . . 7. Foucault (1992). 8. Concomitant with the rise of the state system is therefore the nationalization of migration policy. This becomes a policy dealing with the inside and outside of states, and the crossing of state borders. It intertwines with the nationalization of the border, a subject I have followed elsewhere (Walters, forthcoming). Hence it is problematic to write that International migration has signi cantly affected international relations from time immemorial. For this view essentializes international migration and greatly underestimates its modernity. The point is that states and other political organizations have certainly worried about migration and movement, but only recently have they worried about movement between nations and states, as Torpeys (1999) genealogy of the passport exempli es. 9. I am grateful to Barry Hindess for pointing this out. 10. The contemporar y use of readmission treaties might be located within this trajectory; see King (1997). Such treaties are often between rich and poor countries and have marked power effects. One way of reading the readmission agreement is as a form of international discipline whereby poor states are coaxed into taking responsibility for their nationals. On the other hand, with safe third country agreements, states
289
William Walters
are obliged to accept persons who are not their nationals, but who have passed through their territories in the process of claiming asylum in other countries. At present EU states employ such agreements to oblige postcommunis t states to shoulder responsibilities for providing asylum. Oda (1968) The individual in international law, in: Srensen (Ed.), Manual of Public International Law, pp. 469, 482; cited in Goodwin-Gill (1978). A possible objection to my adaptation of police as an art of international government might be the following: how can there be an international police in the absence of a centralized, global policing authority? Yet as Dean and Hindess helpfully point out, although there were centralizing tendencies in seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe, the enterprise of police was not synonymous with centralized power. For police was expected to be taken up locally and by a variety of non-state agencies (Dean and Hindess, 1998, p. 3). Similarly, it seems reasonable to consider the international police of aliens and others as an activity undertaken on a dispersed, only loosely-coordinate d basisby states, but by other agencies (for example, UN agencies) as well. In an unpublishe d paper Dean has outlined the notion of a global liberal police, a concept which informs the present idea of an international police of aliens. See Preu (1998, p. 146), who explains that this principle was rst articulated in nineteenth century American constitutional debates. But compare Agamben with Gilroy (1999), who uses the concept of camp and camp mentality to problematize formations of race and nation. Gilroy advocates diasporic culture as an alternative to that of the camp, and calls for a politics situated between camps. See the critical discussion of such international zones in Council of Europe (2000). See A Practical Guide to Interventing in Airports, published by the Ile de France section of the Collectif, at , http://www.bok.net/pajol/ouv/cae/intervention.e.html . .
11. 12.
13. 14.
15. 16.
References
Agamben, G. (1998) Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press). Arendt, H. (1964) The Origins of Totalitarianism (Cleveland, World). Arendt, H. (1977) What Is Freedom? Between Past and Future (Harmondsworth , Penguin). Arendt, H. (1994) We refugees, in: M. Robinson (Ed.), Altogether Elsewhere: Writers on Exile (Boston and London, Faber & Faber). Barry, A., Osborne, T. and Rose, N. (Eds) (1996) Foucault and Political Reason (London, UCL Press). Baubock, R. (1994a) From Aliens to Citizens: Rede ning the Status of Immigrants in Europe (Aldershot and Brook eld, VT, Avebury). Baubock, R. (1994b) Transnational Citizenship: Membership and Rights in International Migration (Aldershot and Brook eld, VT, E. Elgar). Beccaria, C. (1963) On Crimes and Punishments (Indianapolis, Bobbs Merrill). Bell-Fialkoff, A. (1993) A brief history of ethnic cleansing, Foreign Affairs, Summer, pp. 110 21. Benhabib, S. (1999) Citizens, residents, and aliens in a changing world: political membership in the global era, Social Research, 66(3), pp. 709 44. Brubaker, W. (1989) Introduction, in: W. Brubaker (Ed.), Immigration and the Politics of Citizenship in Europe and North America (Lanham, MD, University Press of America). Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (Eds) (1991) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (Chicago, University of Chicago Press). Caestecker, F. (1998) The changing modalities of regulation in international migration within Continental Europe, 1870 1940, in: A. Bocker, K. Groenendijk, T. Havinga and P. Minderhoud (Eds), Regulation of Migration: International Experiences (Amsterdam, Het Spinhuis). Carens, J. (1995) Aliens and citizens: the case for open borders, in: R. Beiner (Ed.), Theorizing Citizenship (Albany, NY, SUNY Press). Clark, J.P. (1931) Deportation of Aliens from the United States to Europe (New York, Columbia University Press). Cohen, R. (1997) Shaping the nation, excluding the other: the deportation of migrants from Britain, in: L. Lucassen and J. Lucassen (Eds), Migration, Migration History, History: Old Paradigms and New Perspectives (Bern, Peter Lang). Council of Europe (2000) Report by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demograph y (2000) Arrival of Asylum Seekers at European Airports, Doc. 8761, 8 June. Cruikshank, B. (1999) The Will to Empower: Democratic Citizens and Other Subjects (Ithaca, Cornell University Press).
290
Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens

de Zayas, A. (1985) Population, expulsion and transfer, in; R. Bernhardt (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Amsterdam, North Holland). de Zayas, A. (1988) A historical survey of twentieth century expulsions, in: A. Bramwell (Ed.), Refugees in the Age of Total War (London, Unwin Hyman). de Zayas, A. (1989) Nemesis at Potsdam: The Expulsion of the Germans from the East (Lincoln, NE, University of Nebraska Press). Dean, M. (1991) The Constitution of Poverty: Toward a Genealogy of Liberal Governanc e (New York, Routledge). Dean, M. (1999) Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society (London, Sage). Dean, M. (2002) Liberal governmen t and authoritarianism, Economy and Society, 31(1): 37 61. Dean, M. and Hindess, B. (Eds) (1998) Introduction: government , liberalism, society, in: Governing Australia: Studies in Contemporar y Rationalities of Government (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Delle Donne, E. (1970) Lespulsione dei Gesuiti dal Regno di Napoli (Napoli: Libreria Scienti ca Editrice). Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (London, A. Lane). Foucault, M. (1980) The eye of power, in: C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972 1977, by Michel Foucault (New York, Pantheon). Foucault, M. (1990) The History of Sexuality, Volume One (New York, Vintage). Foucault, M. (1991) Governmentality , in: G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller (Eds), The Foucault Effect (Hemel Hempstead, Harvester Wheatsheaf). Foucault, M. (1992) Genealogia del racismo: de la guerre de las razas al racismo de Estado (Madrid, Las Ediciones de la Piqueta). Gilroy, P. (1999) Race and culture in postmodernity , Economy and Society, 28(2), pp. 183 97. Goodwin-Gill, G. (1978) International Law and the Movement of Persons between States (Oxford, Clarendon). Hayter, T. (2000) Open Borders: The Case against Immigration Controls (London, Pluto). Henckaerts, J.-M. (1995) Mass Expulsion in Modern International Law and Practice (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff). Hindess, B. (2000) Citizenship in the international managemen t of populations, American Behavioral Scientist, 43(9), pp. 1486 97. Hughes, R. (1986) The Fatal Shore: A History of the Transportation of Convicts to Australia, 1787 1868 (London, Collins Harvill). Isin, E.F. (2002) Being Political: Genealogies of Citizenship (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota). Jackson Preece, J. (1998) Ethnic cleansing as an instrument of nation-state creation: changing state practices and evolving legal norms, Human Rights Quarterly, 20, pp. 817 42. Kedar, B. (1996) Expulsion as an issue of world history, Journal of World History, 7(2), pp. 165 180. King, M. (1997) Le controle des differences en Europe: linclusion et lexclusion comme logiques securitaires et economiques , Cultures et Con its, 26/27, pp. 35 49. Koser, K. (2000) Return, readmission and reintegration: changing agendas, policy frameworks and operational programmes, in: B. Ghosh (Ed.), Return Migration: Journey of Hope or Despair (Geneva, International Organization for Migration). Lucassen, L. (1997) Eternal vagrants? State formation, migration, and travelling groups in Western Europe, 1350 1914, in: L. Lucassen and J. Lucassen (Eds), Migration, Migration History, History: Old Paradigms and New Perspectives (Bern, Peter Lang). Mann, M. (1987) Ruling class strategies and citizenship, Sociology, 21, pp. 339 54. Martini, A. (1909) LExpulsion des Etrangers (Paris, Sirey). McGarry, J. (1998) Demographic engineering : the state-directed movement of ethnic groups as a technique of con ict regulation, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 21(4), pp. 613 38. Pelonpaa, M. (1984) Expulsion in International Law: A Study in Aliens Law and Human Rights with Special Reference to Finland (Helsinki, Academia Scientiarum Fennica). Polanyi, K. (1957) The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time (Boston, Beacon Press). Preu, U. (1998) Citizenship in the European Union: a Paradigm for Transnational Democracy? in: D. Archibugi, D. Held & M. Kohler (Eds) Re-imagining Political Community (Cambridge: Polity Press). Procacci, G. (1991) Social economy and the governmen t of poverty, in: G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller (Eds), The Foucault Effect (Hemel Hempstead, Harvester Wheatsheaf). Rieber, A.J. (2000) Repressive population transfers in Central, Eastern and South-eastern Europe: a historical overview, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 16(1 2), pp. 1 27.
291
William Walters
Rose, N. (1999) Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Rusche, G. and Kirchheimer, O. (1939) Punishment and Social Structure (New York, Columbia University Press). Sassen, S. (1999) Guests and Aliens (New York, New Press). Schechtman, J. (1946) European Population Transfers, 1939 45 (New York, Russell and Russell). Soysal, Y. (1994) Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe (Chicago, University of Chicago). Strikwerda, C. (1997) Reinterpreting the history of European integration: business, labor, and social citizenship in twentieth-century Europe, in: J. Klausen and L. Tilly (Eds), European Integration in Social and Historical Perspective: 1950 to the Present (Lanham, MD, Rowman and Little eld). Thomsen, R. (1972) The Origin of Ostracism: A Synthesis (Copenhagen : Gyldendal). Torpey, J. (1999) The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship and the State (New York, Cambridge University Press). Tully, J. (1999) The agonic freedom of citizens, Economy and Society, 28(2), pp. 161 82. Walters, W. (2000) Unemployment and Government : Genealogies of the Social (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Walters, W. (2002) Mapping Schengenland : denaturalizing the border, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, vol. 20. Weber, F. (1996) Expulsion: genese et pratique dun controle en Allemagne, Cultures & Con its, 23, available on-line , http://con its.org/numeros_new.php 3 . .
292

Citizenship Studies: To Cite This Article: William Walters (2002) : Deportation, Expulsion, and The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Citizenship Studies: To Cite This Article: William Walters (2002) : Deportation, Expulsion, and The

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Citizenship Studies: To Cite This Article: William Walters (2002) : Deportation, Expulsion, and The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] On: 10 April 2012, At: 07:21 Publisher: Routledge

Deportation, Expulsion, and the International Police of Aliens

Citizenship Studies, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2002

Deportation, Expulsion, and the International Police of Aliens1

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Deportation, Expulsion and the Police of Aliens

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 07:21 10 April 2012

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.