Denationalization, to deprive citizens of citizenship, is becoming an international trend – especially in order to fight terrorism. Public opinion is generally positive to these measures. However, few consider the consequences of denationalization. Only when investigating further it becomes clear that citizenship scholars are very concerned about this new trend pointing out that it easily becomes arbitrary, creates statelessness, threatens equality and how it is not an effective measure. This thesis investigates whether Members of Parliament in the UK address these concerns when extending denationalization powers, giving the Secretary of State the most extensive powers to denationalize among all liberal democracies.

Deprivation of citizenship is currently used in democratic states to combat international terrorism and constitutes ‘the securitisation of citizenship’. The usage of which is often justified by states as assuring national security. Among scholars, there seem to be a conflict between a perspective of rights and security, where critics usually come from the former. Can citizenship deprivation be justified from a security perspective as a counter-terrorism tool? That question is asked in this thesis. By conducting an interpretative analysis of Hobbes, the question is assessed from a security perspective and the answer is not clear cut. The research shows that even when practices are investigated through a lens of security, they are problematic as they currently stand.