JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY EUROPEAN STUDIES  35 citizenship deprivation orders show that most of those deprived of citizenship are Muslim men; some of them had lived in the UK from an early age; most of them entered the UK as asylum seekers, and later on naturalized. Although most cases relate to national security, only a fraction of them have been prosecuted for criminal terrorist acts. Statelessness has been the most effective shield against citizenship deprivation, while Article 8 ECHR or EU citizenship arguments was not successful (Mantu 2015, 226), which explains the political insistence on reversing the protection against statelessness introduced in 2002 to align UK law with international standards. Citizenship deprivation in France: republican principles and (dis)loyal citizens French nationality law allows for loss of nationality where the loyalty and allegiance of the person concerned are disputed. The law distinguishes between loss that is applicable to all French nationals (Article 23 Civil Code), and deprivation – applicable only in respect of naturalized citizens (Article 25 Civil Code). All the changes adopted or discussed in the past 20 years or so concern Article 25 Civil Code, which aims to sanction a lack of allegiance and can be applied only in the following circumstances: (1) conviction for acts against the fundamental interests of the nation; (2) conviction for crime or offence constituting acts of terrorism; (3) conviction for crimes considered to be crimes against the public administration (crimes committed by persons holding a public office); (4) acts of insubordination; and (5) engaging, for the benefit of a foreign state, in acts that are incompatible with the quality of French national and commission of acts that are prejudicial to the interests of France. In the last case, deprivation can occur in the absence of a conviction. The requirement to first be convicted of a specific crime (4 out of 5 situations) before being deprived of citizenship functions as an extra safeguard, especially when considering the UK situation where a criminal conviction is not essential for a citizenship deprivation order. Similar to the UK, citizenship deprivation entails an administrative procedure that gives the executive the power to decide whether to pursue citizenship deprivation. The person concerned needs to be notified of the government’s intention to deprive, and be given the opportunity to make observations and mount an appeal (Decree no 93-1362). The order to deprive has to be motivated stating the legal and factual grounds upon which the measure is taken; the authorities can proceed with deprivation only after the favorable opinion of the Council of State1. The changes underwent by French nationality legislation can be situated in the context of several national debates addressing the links between citizenship, integration, the importance of French values, and the need to uphold the Republican notion of citizenship (Fulchiron 2017; Roques 2008). According to Bertossi and Hajjat (2012) since 2003 every new immigration law has also affected nationality law, leading to the rather paradoxical situation where nationality as a concept is no longer at the heart of debates on the future of French citizenship. The notion of laïcité and the conflict between French republican values and Islam drive debates on French citizenship, in which the allegiance of dual French–Algerian citizens figures strongly (Nicholls 2012; Weil 2008). French anti-terrorism legislation reflects an increasing nexus between security and immigration, while riots and violent clashes with the police in France’s poor immigrant neighborhoods start to be addressed as security threats. Some of the changes operated by the French Government are better understood as having the dual purpose of fighting terrorism and lack of integration, an issue strongly associated