Do modern nations use exile as a punishment?
May 1, 2012 10:30 PM Subscribe
Do any nations use exile as a regular punishment?
I'm familiar with tax exiles, or various political leaders fleeing a country after a coup or revolution, as well as the ancient Athenian practice of ostracism, but does this happen regularly in modern times? Is exile an accepted practice in the international community? Could an exile be said to lose citizenship of their former home nation, and what happens to someone who is not a citizen of any nations?
I'm familiar with tax exiles, or various political leaders fleeing a country after a coup or revolution, as well as the ancient Athenian practice of ostracism, but does this happen regularly in modern times? Is exile an accepted practice in the international community? Could an exile be said to lose citizenship of their former home nation, and what happens to someone who is not a citizen of any nations?
Best answer: Banishment in the present day would be a difficult form of punishment to administer. In order to banish someone you naturally have to have a place to banish them to. Since nearly all land is claimed by one state or another that would require an agreement of some kind or the banished person would just get deported back unless the government was intentionally circumventing immigration restrictions.
The US for instance had a very difficult time finding a place to relocate the Uighur deatainees from Guantanamo even thought they were generally thought to be not a threat.
Right to a nationality is one of the rights gauranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are plenty of rights in there that actual people frequently lack, but at least it suggests that stripping people of citizenship entirely is not an accepted practice of the international community.
Yaser Esam Hamdi the Bush era "enemy combatant" was released from US custody only after he agreed to renounce his citizenship, be deported to Saudi Arabia, and take travel restrictions that prevent him from returning to the US. That is a sort of effective banishment, though he was a dual-citizen so he did not become stateless.
Apparently some First Nations in Canada do "banishment" as a triditional punishment, but it only applies to the area under the band's control.
posted by Winnemac at 11:07 PM on May 1, 2012 [3 favorites]
The US for instance had a very difficult time finding a place to relocate the Uighur deatainees from Guantanamo even thought they were generally thought to be not a threat.
Right to a nationality is one of the rights gauranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are plenty of rights in there that actual people frequently lack, but at least it suggests that stripping people of citizenship entirely is not an accepted practice of the international community.
Yaser Esam Hamdi the Bush era "enemy combatant" was released from US custody only after he agreed to renounce his citizenship, be deported to Saudi Arabia, and take travel restrictions that prevent him from returning to the US. That is a sort of effective banishment, though he was a dual-citizen so he did not become stateless.
Apparently some First Nations in Canada do "banishment" as a triditional punishment, but it only applies to the area under the band's control.
posted by Winnemac at 11:07 PM on May 1, 2012 [3 favorites]
several hundred Etarras were taken manu militari from Spain on Interior Ministry flights, and dispersed to Cape Verde (off the Coast of Senegal), São Tomé (off West Africa), Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, and various South American countries in pursuance of the policy of Rafael Vera and Julián Sancristóbal, respectively secretary and undersecretary of state for the interior until 1994. via scroll down. Yes I know its a larouche source but I do remember reading about this in the Spaish Press though not "hundreds".
posted by adamvasco at 12:14 AM on May 2, 2012
posted by adamvasco at 12:14 AM on May 2, 2012
In relation to "what happens to someone who is not a citizen of any nations?" This is called statelessness and the wiki link provides a reasonable overview, as well as links to the international law and conventions.
With regards to external exile (as opposed to internal exile - being forcibly relocated within the country), as Winnemac states, this would be difficult to achieve in many countries - where nationality is a right that cannot be revoked - and the difficulty in finding somewhere else that will actually accept the exiles.
On the other hand, many countries use deportation as a means of removing foreign nationals. This has no affect on their nationality though, as they are normally deported to their home country.
posted by Hobo at 12:56 AM on May 2, 2012
With regards to external exile (as opposed to internal exile - being forcibly relocated within the country), as Winnemac states, this would be difficult to achieve in many countries - where nationality is a right that cannot be revoked - and the difficulty in finding somewhere else that will actually accept the exiles.
On the other hand, many countries use deportation as a means of removing foreign nationals. This has no affect on their nationality though, as they are normally deported to their home country.
posted by Hobo at 12:56 AM on May 2, 2012
I believe that the mainland UK used to place restrictions on entry for some citizens from NI during the 1970s. (Well, nationalist citizens suspected of terrorist links.) I'm searching for a link but I can't find it right at the moment. The restriction must have been hard to enforce, though, if you came via boat. I guess that would technically be internal exile, though.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 2:21 AM on May 2, 2012
posted by lesbiassparrow at 2:21 AM on May 2, 2012
It sounds like some Amish communities practice forms of exile - the post-rumspringa choice (baptise or leave), the use of organized shunning in other situations, etc.
posted by -harlequin- at 2:22 AM on May 2, 2012
posted by -harlequin- at 2:22 AM on May 2, 2012
Best answer: Is exile an accepted practice in the international community?
No. As a matter of fact, in the U.S. anyway, revocation of citizenship was actually declared to constitute cruel and unusual punishment by the Supreme Court in Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958).
Note that "exile" is conceptually different from "deportation." The former is forcing a natural born citizen to leave. The latter is sending a non-citizen or naturalized citizen back from whence they came. The latter is permissible, and the government is actually allowed to revoke the citizenship of naturalized citizens that gained their naturalization via misrepresentation, if it's discovered within about two years of the naturalization.
Also note that "self-imposed exile," e.g., staying out of the country to avoid punishment, is an entirely different thing.
But in general, the answer is "No." Exile is no longer used as a kind of formal punishment in the modern world.
posted by valkyryn at 2:59 AM on May 2, 2012
No. As a matter of fact, in the U.S. anyway, revocation of citizenship was actually declared to constitute cruel and unusual punishment by the Supreme Court in Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958).
Note that "exile" is conceptually different from "deportation." The former is forcing a natural born citizen to leave. The latter is sending a non-citizen or naturalized citizen back from whence they came. The latter is permissible, and the government is actually allowed to revoke the citizenship of naturalized citizens that gained their naturalization via misrepresentation, if it's discovered within about two years of the naturalization.
Also note that "self-imposed exile," e.g., staying out of the country to avoid punishment, is an entirely different thing.
But in general, the answer is "No." Exile is no longer used as a kind of formal punishment in the modern world.
posted by valkyryn at 2:59 AM on May 2, 2012
Wilfred Burchett, an Australian journalist who was a Communist (and allegedly, traitor) in the post-war era, was exiled by de-facto in that his passport wasn't renewed and he wasn't allowed to re-enter Australia for the funerals of his father and brother.
In Australia we also have a (controversial) policy of deportation of permanent resident non-citizens who have criminal records and who don't meet a "character test", regardless of their actual residency status or time of residency or links to the community. For instance.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 4:48 AM on May 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
In Australia we also have a (controversial) policy of deportation of permanent resident non-citizens who have criminal records and who don't meet a "character test", regardless of their actual residency status or time of residency or links to the community. For instance.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 4:48 AM on May 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
When Israel releases prisoners or engages in prison swaps with the palestinians, they sometimes demand that the released people be exiled from the West Bank or Gaza. Here is one article discussing this. You can do some googling for terms like "israel prisoners exile terrorism" to get more details.
posted by andoatnp at 8:06 AM on May 2, 2012
posted by andoatnp at 8:06 AM on May 2, 2012
But in general, the answer is "No." Exile is no longer used as a kind of formal punishment in the modern world.
valkyryn, it's my understanding that there are exiles (who were declared as such) from the PRC.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:00 AM on May 2, 2012
valkyryn, it's my understanding that there are exiles (who were declared as such) from the PRC.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:00 AM on May 2, 2012
Villages in Alaska do this all the time to get rid of troublemakers. Sometimes they can petition to return, sometimes not.
posted by fshgrl at 11:44 AM on May 2, 2012
posted by fshgrl at 11:44 AM on May 2, 2012
it's my understanding that there are exiles (who were declared as such) from the PRC.
I don't think so. Not as such. There are certainly exiles, but I think it's a de facto state of affairs and frequently self-imposed rather than a de jure, official punishment.
Take Wang Dan, one of the instigators of Tianamen Square, for instance. His official sentence was eleven years in prison. But his release to the US was officially for "medical reasons," and upon arrival he was examined at a hospital and released here. So he's functionally in exile, and bad things will happen to him if he goes back, but I don't see that there's been an official declaration of such.
Same goes for Burchett and other people hampered by passport bureaucratics. In practice, they're exiled, and they're certainly informal personae non gratae. But that's just it: it's all informal. I don't think that exile, as a formal, official, legal punishment, is still in practice.
posted by valkyryn at 1:47 PM on May 2, 2012
I don't think so. Not as such. There are certainly exiles, but I think it's a de facto state of affairs and frequently self-imposed rather than a de jure, official punishment.
Take Wang Dan, one of the instigators of Tianamen Square, for instance. His official sentence was eleven years in prison. But his release to the US was officially for "medical reasons," and upon arrival he was examined at a hospital and released here. So he's functionally in exile, and bad things will happen to him if he goes back, but I don't see that there's been an official declaration of such.
Same goes for Burchett and other people hampered by passport bureaucratics. In practice, they're exiled, and they're certainly informal personae non gratae. But that's just it: it's all informal. I don't think that exile, as a formal, official, legal punishment, is still in practice.
posted by valkyryn at 1:47 PM on May 2, 2012
Best answer: Here's a surprising one: legal banishment is still used as a punishment in the US state of Georgia. This article explains that it's illegal to banish convicted criminals from the state entirely, but it *is* legal to ban them from all but one county (usually a rural, isolated county) in the hopes that they will leave the state voluntarily.
posted by texano at 8:26 PM on May 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by texano at 8:26 PM on May 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
According to this article, the PRC does exile dissidents.
posted by IAmBroom at 7:00 AM on May 3, 2012
posted by IAmBroom at 7:00 AM on May 3, 2012
No, it doesn't. The article uses "exile" in an informal sense like I described above and does not assert that the PRC uses exile as any kind of formal judicial punishment. It's sort of a "Look, if you stay here we're gonna keep you in jail. That's becoming embarrassing, so if you want, you can just go away."
posted by valkyryn at 10:25 AM on May 3, 2012
posted by valkyryn at 10:25 AM on May 3, 2012
Ah, I see your point. Further googling reveals more "waffle-meaning" use of the word, w.r.t the PRC.
posted by IAmBroom at 10:30 AM on May 3, 2012
posted by IAmBroom at 10:30 AM on May 3, 2012
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Monsieur Caution at 11:00 PM on May 1, 2012