This article examines the recent restrictive shift in ius soli in France and the United States, focusing on the 2025 reforms enacted in the French island of Mayotte and through President Trump’s executive order. While officially framed as neutral policy responses to migratory pressures, we argue that these measures rely on the instrumentalisation of the so-called “magnet affect” of ius soli – a claim with a weak empirical basis that has been mobilised to legitimise restrictive changes in citizenship law. Using Critical Discourse Analysis, we show that reformers’ alleged link between ius soli and irregular migration rests on evasive or diluted evidence rather than credible premises or causal account. By reframing ius soli as a conditional privilege instead of an automatic right, we find that both states reaffirm a sovereign logic of exclusion, reversing its historical role as a mechanism of inclusion. This study contributes to wider debates on the tightening of membership criteria in contemporary democracies and the performative function of political rhetoric in shaping legal frameworks.

Jules Lepoutre and Camille de Vulpillières, Ius soli under siege: a comparative analysis of France and the United States, Comparative Migration Studies, 2025