For decades, fraud-based denaturalization was hardly used in Norway. In the 2015–2016 “refugee crisis,” however, the right-wing government decided to reinforce efforts to expose “citizenship cheaters.” This article asks how this decision emerged, what arguments the government articulated to legitimize this decision, and how parliament responded. I examine the Norwegian case by reworking Schmitt and Agamben's perspectives on exceptionalism. The executive desire to reduce naturalized citizens to “bare life” illustrates Agamben's logic of exception: their potential exclusion is inscribed in law. Yet, the analysis shows that exceptionalism does not necessarily lead to “bare lives”: denaturalization was mediated through legal, administrative, and democratic procedures. The opposition submitted proposals to tame the executive's denaturalization powers. In responding to criticism, the government relied on three different arguments to legitimize the decision: (1) moralizing and (2) criminalizing fraud, while simultaneously (3) de-politicizing the decision through hyper-legalism. Such reasoning does not suggest the collapse of law and politics, as Agamben envisions, but rather that states formulate exclusionary politics based on formalistic interpretations of law. The article concludes by problematizing Agamben's claim that we are all equally disposed to sovereign violence. I urge to take seriously social categories of difference in developing a political sociology of exceptionalism.

中文翻译：

---

法律面前的“公民身份骗子”：从例外主义的角度解读挪威基于欺诈的去自然化

几十年来，挪威几乎不使用基于欺诈的剥夺国籍。然而，在 2015-2016 年的“难民危机”中，右翼政府决定加大力度揭露“公民身份作弊者”。本文询问了这一决定是如何产生的，政府阐明了哪些论点以使该决定合法化，以及议会如何回应。我通过重写施密特和阿甘本关于例外论的观点来研究挪威的案例。将入籍公民减少为“赤裸生命”的行政愿望说明了阿甘本的例外逻辑：他们的潜在排斥已写入法律。然而，分析表明，例外主义并不一定会导致“赤裸裸的生活”：去自然化是通过法律、行政和民主程序来调节的。反对派提交了驯服行政部门的提案 剥夺国籍的权力。在回应批评时，政府依靠三种不同的论点使决定合法化：（1）道德化和（2）将欺诈定为犯罪，同时（3）通过超法律主义使决定去政治化。这种推理并不像阿甘本所设想的那样意味着法律和政治的崩溃，而是国家根据对法律的形式主义解释制定排他性政治。文章最后对阿甘本的主张提出了问题，即我们都同样倾向于主权暴力。我敦促在发展例外主义的政治社会学时认真对待差异的社会类别。同时（3）通过超法律主义将决定去政治化。这种推理并不像阿甘本所设想的那样意味着法律和政治的崩溃，而是国家根据对法律的形式主义解释制定排他性政治。文章最后对阿甘本的主张提出了问题，即我们都同样倾向于主权暴力。我敦促在发展例外主义的政治社会学时认真对待差异的社会类别。同时（3）通过超法律主义将决定去政治化。这种推理并不像阿甘本所设想的那样意味着法律和政治的崩溃，而是国家根据对法律的形式主义解释制定排他性政治。文章最后对阿甘本的主张提出了问题，即我们都同样倾向于主权暴力。我敦促在发展例外主义的政治社会学时认真对待差异的社会类别。