Migration som straff?: Utvisning på grund av brott 1973-2003 med fokus på flyktingskydd

Deportation due to criminal activity is often viewed as a neutral administrative practice and has to date received little research attention. This study views the phenomenon as part of a broader field focused on regulating people’s mobility. It also looks at the balance between the state’s interest in deporting non-citizens who commit crime and the goal of protecting refugees. Deportation due to criminal activity is first discussed from five perspectives: as alien control, as punishment and the spatial separation of criminal “others”, as migratory movement and forcible repatriation, in relation to human rights and as a “second asylum hearing”, and as border practice. The study then examines deportation in district courts between 1973 and 2003, via a quantitative study of all convictions involving deportation. Deportation practice differs between persons who are and are not registered as residents. Residents are deported for more serious offences than others and increasingly often over time for crimes against the person and drug crime. The number of non-residents deported increases greatly from 1985, which cannot be explained by an increase in convictions or by legislative changes. The study finally examines the reasoning of courts on possible impediments to deportation when the person convicted had refugee or equivalent status. The court collected an opinion from the Swedish Immigration Board in 80 percent of such cases. The opinions are very brief, often identical for different individuals and seem to be based on general guidelines for different countries rather than the individual’s fear of persecution at sentencing time. In the other cases the court makes its own assessment of impediments to deportation, but the risks faced by those convicted are rarely discussed in the court judgements. In 17 cases, the individual was deported despite the Board’s opinion noting a risk of persecution.