Removals of ‘dangerous’ mobile EU citizens: Public order and security as a police paradigm
By: Könönen, Jukka
.
Material type: 
BookPublisher: Social &Legal Studies Description: 33(4), Aug, 2024: p.601-619.Subject(s): Crime control, Deportation, EU citizens, Police order. , Law, Public Order, Security, EU Citizens, Citizens’ Rights Directive, Immigration Enforcement, Police Practices, Removal Orders, Estonian Citizens, Romanian Citizens, Finland, Criminal Convictions, Administrative Penal Orders, Mobility, Social Order, Human Rights
In:
Social &Legal StudiesSummary: This paper critically examines the ambiguous legal concept of public order and security, frequently invoked in police work and immigration enforcement to justify coercive measures. Under the Citizens’ Rights Directive, EU citizens are afforded a higher threshold against removal than criminal convictions alone. However, analysis of 100 removal orders for Estonian and Romanian citizens in Finland reveals that removals were often based on less than criminal convictions, relying instead on assumptions of future crimes and conceptions of “dangerous individuals” with criminal tendencies. Even minor offences and administrative penal orders were used to justify removals. The study argues that public order and security grounds, in practice, corresponded to police conceptions of mobile populations as potential sources of criminality and threats to social order, raising critical questions about legal interpretation, rights protection, and the policing of mobility within the EU. Despite being frequently invoked in everyday police work and immigration enforcement to justify coercive measures, public order and security remains an ambiguous legal concept. For EU citizens, the Citizens’ Rights Directive stipulates public order and security grounds to provide a higher threshold against removals than criminal convictions alone. However, the removal grounds for EU citizens were founded on even less than criminal convictions in analysis of 100 removal orders for mobile Estonian and Romanian citizens in Finland. Ultimately, the removal orders relied on the assumption of future crimes and invoked a conception of ‘dangerous individuals’ with criminal tendencies, even based on single minor offences and administrative penal orders without criminal convictions. Notwithstanding various legal meanings, I argue that the required public order and security grounds for the removal of EU citizens corresponded to police conceptions of mobile populations as a potential source of criminality and a threat to social order.- Reproduced
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09646639231207353
| Item type | Current location | Call number | Vol info | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Articles
|
Indian Institute of Public Administration | 33(4), Aug, 2024: p.601-619 | Available | AR133204 |
This paper critically examines the ambiguous legal concept of public order and security, frequently invoked in police work and immigration enforcement to justify coercive measures. Under the Citizens’ Rights Directive, EU citizens are afforded a higher threshold against removal than criminal convictions alone. However, analysis of 100 removal orders for Estonian and Romanian citizens in Finland reveals that removals were often based on less than criminal convictions, relying instead on assumptions of future crimes and conceptions of “dangerous individuals” with criminal tendencies. Even minor offences and administrative penal orders were used to justify removals. The study argues that public order and security grounds, in practice, corresponded to police conceptions of mobile populations as potential sources of criminality and threats to social order, raising critical questions about legal interpretation, rights protection, and the policing of mobility within the EU. Despite being frequently invoked in everyday police work and immigration enforcement to justify coercive measures, public order and security remains an ambiguous legal concept. For EU citizens, the Citizens’ Rights Directive stipulates public order and security grounds to provide a higher threshold against removals than criminal convictions alone. However, the removal grounds for EU citizens were founded on even less than criminal convictions in analysis of 100 removal orders for mobile Estonian and Romanian citizens in Finland. Ultimately, the removal orders relied on the assumption of future crimes and invoked a conception of ‘dangerous individuals’ with criminal tendencies, even based on single minor offences and administrative penal orders without criminal convictions. Notwithstanding various legal meanings, I argue that the required public order and security grounds for the removal of EU citizens corresponded to police conceptions of mobile populations as a potential source of criminality and a threat to social order.- Reproduced
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09646639231207353
There are no comments for this item.