Abstract
The article examines the parallels between the mandatory deportation of foreign nationals and the refusal of naturalization due to criminal offenses. It begins by exploring how modern States respond to individuals perceived as dangerous to society following an offense, as well as the role played by socio-ethical values and the assessment of dangerousness. Through the political philosophy models of Hobbes and Rousseau, it demonstrates that the mandatory deportation provided for by Swiss law is rooted in a logic of exclusion targeting individuals deemed insufficiently integrated into the legal community. However, this exclusion occurs only in the event of a violation of the fundamental values underlying the statutory list of offenses in Article 66a of the Swiss Criminal Code (SCC). These values manifest as an absolute hostility toward violence, which characterizes the vast majority of the listed offenses, as well as a marked hostility toward parasitic economic lifestyles, namely property crimes committed on a commercial basis and economic offenses to the detriment of tax authorities and social security institutions.
An analysis of Article 66a SCC leads to the conclusion that deportation, although possessing a quasi-criminal nature due to its deterrent effects, primarily bears the character of a preventive measure operating under a logic of neutralizing dangers, rather than a punitive sanction. Consequently, a distinction must be made between material and merely formal foreign nationals, insofar as only the former are perceived as embodying a persistent and hardly amendable danger. The raison d'être of the hardship exception (Art. 66a para. 2 SCC) is precisely to determine which category of foreign national the authority is confronting.
These reflections are subsequently transposed to naturalization law. In both configurations, the foreign national gains political visibility before the Sovereign for the first time: either as a perpetrator of violations against fundamental legal values, or as an aspirant to admission into the political body. After examining and discarding various traditional approaches to the treatment of criminal offenses within the naturalization procedure — whether based on the method of execution or the severity of the sentence —, the article advocates for an alignment with the statutory list of offenses under Article 66a SCC. Such an anchoring respects the deeply political nature of naturalization while offering a predictable, objective basis grounded in the rule of law for the treatment of offenses during the procedure, thereby aligning with recent rule-of-law paradigm shifts in naturalization law.