This thesis explores key empirical and normative questions prompted by deportation policies and practices in the contemporary European context. The core empirical research question the thesis seeks to address is: what explains the shape of deportation regimes in European liberal democracies? The core normative research question is: how should we evaluate these deportation regimes morally? The two parts of the thesis address each of these questions in turn. To explain contemporary European deportation regimes, the four chapters of the first part of the thesis investigate them from a historical and multilevel perspective. (“Expulsion Old and New”) starts by comparing contemporary deportation practices to earlier forms of forced removal such as criminal banishment, political exile, poor law expulsion, and collective expulsions on a religious or ethnic basis, highlighting how contemporary deportation echoes some of the purposes of these earlier forms of expulsion. (“Divergences in Deportation”) looks at some major differences between European countries in how, and how much, deportation is used as a policy instrument today, concluding that they can be roughly grouped into four regime types, namely lenient, selective, symbolically strict and coercively strict. The next two chapters investigate how non-national levels of government are involved in shaping deportation in the European context. (“Europeanising Expulsion”) traces how the institutions of the European Union have come to both restrain and facilitate or incentivise member states’ deportation practices in fundamental ways. (“Localities of Belonging”) describes how provincial and municipal governments are increasingly assertive in frustrating deportations, effectively shielding individuals or entire categories of people from the reach of national deportation efforts, while in other cases local governments pressure the national level into instigating deportation proceedings against unwanted residents. The chapters argue that such efforts on both the supranational and local levels must be explained with reference to supranational and local conceptions of membership that are part of a multilevel citizenship structure yet can, and often do, come apart from the national conception of belonging. The second part of the thesis addresses the second research question by discussing the normative issues deportation gives rise to. (“Deportability, Domicile and the Human Right to Stay”) argues that a moral and legal status of non-deportability should be extended beyond citizenship to all those who have established effective domicile, or long-term and permanent residence, in the national territory. (“Deportation without Domination?”) argues that deportation can and should be applied in a way that does not dominate those it subjects by ensuring its non-arbitrary application through a limiting of executive discretion and by establishing proportionality testing in deportation procedures. (“Resisting Unjust Deportation”) investigates what can and should be done in the face of unjust national deportation regimes, proposing that a normative framework for morally justified antideportation resistance must start by differentiating between the various individual and institutional agents of resistance before specifying how their right or duty to resist a particular deportation depends on motivational, epistemic and relational conditions.