Citizenship is often portrayed as an essential legal and social status: people define themselves by where they come from, and where they can always return. However, citizenship revocation\u2014a method of involuntarily stripping an individual of their citizenship, for reasons such as counter-terrorism\u2014 turns this notion on its head. To frame how the practice of revocation impacts citizenship, this note conceptualizes citizenship under two frameworks: citizenship as a privilege or a right, and as one of four models based on the citizen\u2019s role in, and relationship to, society. Functioning within these conceptual frameworks\u2014and under international and regional laws regulating the treatment and revocation of citizenship\u2014revocation affects the ex-citizen in numerous ways and interferes with societal understandings of citizenship. Based on these underlying frameworks and the case studies of the citizenship revocations of Shamima Begum in the United Kingdom and Adam Johansen in Denmark, this note argues that the practice of citizenship revocation unequally devalues citizenship on racialized grounds. Through this devaluation of citizenship, as well as the treatment of ex-citizens by governments and domestic and regional courts, revocation drains citizenship of its ethos and reduces it to merely a revocable license. Ultimately, it makes citizenship fragile, not just for individuals who risk losing their own citizenship, but for the entire populace, and makes society vulnerable to democratic erosion. As the practice of citizenship revocation spreads throughout the world, this note warns of the widespread impacts of unwieldy and unmeasured uses of citizenship revocation as a counter-terrorism tool.<\/p>\n