2019 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 1(2) and, ultimately, acquire the nationality of their new home. Such a person will generally have stronger community ties with their country of residence, rather than Belgium. And yet, the art 12 category does not take into account the many people with strong community ties that may otherwise fall under this provision, and thus may potentially be deprived of citizenship. Consider a Belgian national who was born in Belgium, residing and working there uninterrupted for 30 years, but who only received Belgian nationality in their teenage years, following the implementation of CBN art 12. For example, on 23 October 2018, the Antwerp Court of Appeal deprived Fouad Belkacem, a Belgian–Moroccan convicted terrorist leader, of his Belgian nationality. 89 Mr Belkacem’s parents are both Moroccan nationals who came to Belgium when they were teenagers. 90 He was born in Belgium and received Belgian nationality at the age of fourteen when his mother acquired Belgian nationality. 91 Belkacem has a wife and children in Belgium who are, in turn, Belgian nationals as well. 92 He will most likely have stronger ties with the Belgian community than the first-mentioned example. In such scenarios, the current interpretation of strong links with the national community seems flawed; the pre-set categories of CBN do not allow for an effective assessment of individual situations. This approach results in the ‘wrong’ group of people being subjected to the law. The argument of having strong community ties is a valid one, but the Belgian legislature and courts apply it incorrectly: the sole fact of being born into a certain nationality does not necessarily lead to having such strong community ties, just as acquiring the Belgian nationality on the basis of CBN art 12 does not exclude an individual from having strong ties with the community. The development of social, professional, cultural and family ties does create community ties, irrespective of the manner in which the person has acquired said nationality. The interpretation of the criterion must thus be revised and, a fortiori, the group of people subjected to denationalisation legislation as well. In and of itself, the criterion of strong community ties is a valid one, because citizenship deprivation enables expulsion. Without it, governments would see themselves restrained by the prohibition to expel their own nationals, as enshrined in, among others, art 3 of Protocol 4. 93 From a security perspective, to denationalise an individual without subsequently expelling them does not make sense. The individual will still be able to stay on Belgian territory, albeit as a non-Belgian. From the preparatory works of recent legislative initiatives strengthening denationalisation legislation, we clearly learn that the goal is to ‘lutter plus efficacement contre le terrorisme’, which translates to ‘to fight more effectively against terrorism’. 94 If the underlying motivation is indeed the protection of national security and the fight against terrorism, the status of the individual is irrelevant. The most recent cases of denationalisation in Belgium teach us that, following a decision to deprive a 89 90 91 92 93 94 Cour d'Appel Antwerpen [Antwerp Court of Appeal] Judgment App No 2016/AR/2072, 23 October 2018 (‘Belkacem’). Copy on hand with the author. ibid. Preliminary Question No 16/2018 (n 75) [A.1.3.]. ibid. Protocol 4 (n 53) art 3. Act to Reinforce the Fight against Terrorism (n 5). 274