The invention of French citizenship appeared at the same time as the French Revolution. Since then, the core values liberty, equality and fraternity have led in the construction of the French nation, and are closely connected to French citizenship. Historically, France has been a country affected by immigration, and citizenship has functioned as a tool to automatically assimilate immigrants into citizens. In the form of a combination of jus sanguinis, jus soli and double jus soli, French state membership has been based on a will to participate in the national community. Therefore, French citizenship can be characterised as an open and assimilist state-centred expression systematically institutionalised in the construction of a voluntaristic nationhood. In the wake of the terrorist attacks November 2015 in Paris, President Hollande suggested a constitutionalisation of citizenship deprivation for French-born terrorists convicted of terrorism. This master’s thesis investigates the relationship between citizenship deprivation in the context of terrorism and historical understandings of the French nation. By using a case study and analysis of documents as research strategies, this study examines the constitutional law proposal aimed toward protecting the nation. I raise three main questions: i) How did the discussion of citizenship deprivation as a punishment for terrorism progress in the French Parliament? ii) How does citizenship deprivation appear as a means to include and exclude members of the nation in the parliamentarian examination? iii) How do conflicting ideas of nationhood come into play in the parliamentarian examination? In the end of the parliamentarian examination of the constitutional law proposal the constitution was not amended. The parliamentarian members in the National Assembly and in the Senate did not agree on the terms of application, as a result of conflicting understandings of nationhood. The National Assembly adopted citizenship deprivation without a reference to dual citizenship, while the Senate adopted citizenship deprivation for citizens with dual citizenship. Dual citizenship appears as a judicial prerequisite for citizenship deprivation in order to avoid creating stateless individuals. At the same time, the reference to dual citizenship is against the republican principle of equality. Based on this conflict, I argue that citizenship deprivation functions as judicially exclusive, but also as socially inclusive. As a measure of securitisation with the aim of removing the terrorist from the state-territory, citizenship deprivation demonstrates its judicial dimension. At the same time, citizenship deprivation as punishment is socially inclusive. It appears as a moral institution that reflects solidarity and unity in the nation. In times of war and terrorism, citizenship deprivation is a means to define the members and the enemies of the nation, based on the idea that citizenship provides loyalty to the republican values. In this sense, citizenship deprivation manifests itself as a symbol of nationhood directed toward the national and international community. Based on the judicial and social dimensions of citizenship deprivation, the parliamentarian members face what I call the paradox of inevitable exclusion. In a historical and political context, equality and preventing statelessness are two fundamental principles of the French nation. On one hand, France is bound by internal laws, international conventions and engagements to avoid statelessness. On the other hand, the reference to dual citizenship in the context of citizenship deprivation is understood as against the principle of equality. Because of France’s history of immigration, jus soli and double jus soli, the reference to dual citizenship appears as socially exclusive as it denotes discrimination, stigmatisation and the construction of a sub-group of citizens. Citizenship deprivation was meant to reaffirm the voluntarist understanding of French nationhood, but it risks excluding one part of the population from the national community based on will. As such, a means originally aiming to to judicially exclude “enemies” from the state territory leads to the social exclusion of the part of the population with dual citizenship. The paradox of inevitable exclusion comes into play because of two conflicting fundamental principles in the context of citizenship deprivation.