Gen X at 40

Canada's Favorite Blog

Comments

Comments are locked. No additional comments may be posted.

cm -

Oh! Look! Shiny!

Gordo -

If that's all that the cabal can dig up on him, then it's truly pathetic. I didn't think citizenship was really an issue when th GG renounced hers.

Don -

Why should he even be a Canadian citizen? Why should we care?

Alan -

Is a dual citizen less of a Canadian citizen than a single passport qualifying Canada.

Hans -

The shrillness of the attacks about his citizenship is quite telling. Ezra Levant was verily screaming himself hoarse with distortions about what it says about Dion's loyalty that were no doubt making David Frum proud. And I am surprised at the circus-like atmosphere that Bourque is making of it. The agitators know its not a real issue but they are trying to incite the fears of the unthoughtful among us. I think Dion is right that he has sufficiently demostrated his loyalty to Canada. That's all he needs to say and maybe punctuate it with a Trudeau/Chretien shrug. I hope he doesn't react as shrilly as his critics which is what they are trying to goad him into. Millions of Canadians have dual citizenship by virtue of their birth. Its not like he went around applying to get into to other countries. Is Sir John A. any less Canadian for also being a British subject?

Gordo -

He's just as Canadian as I am. It's as simple as that. I can only speculate that Levant and his ilk are attempting to provoke some response from Dion, but I hope he has the sense to just ignore it.

Don -

Why should he even be a Canadian citizen? Why should we care?

Alan -

Don - please use your brain and discuss. I will delete anything from you like that if you do it again.

Chris Taylor -

I hope you're all willing to demonstrate the same broad-mindedness when some future prospective PM has dual Canadian-American citizenship and does not see any conflict of interest in negotiating, say, trade agreements between same.

The fact that all parties (even smilin' <i>Jack!</i>) -- except the Bloc, natch -- seem to think it's a big deal says that perhaps the optics are not the greatest.

I am not one to question Dion's integrity over this but there is no guarantee that future PMs in the same situation will have the same integrity. It sets a potentially troublesome precedent for less ethical office-seekers.

Alan -

Loyalty of any person in public office is based on their oath not on their national origin or other personal characteristics. There is no conflict of interest in anyone in public office with dual citizenship. Consider that we have a dual sovereignty form of Federation, especially now since we have the nation of Quebec. Does our current Prime Minister have a conflict because he is from Alberta in some sense? No, because he took the oath of loyalty. I have three loyalties or maybe even five if you want to be technical because all of these entities have Parliaments: Canada, Ontario, Scotland, Britain and the MacLeods.

Don -

My question was simply to see what value or meaning you place on citizenship.

It seems you feel there is no relationship between loyalty and citizenship.

So, I assume you should have no problem with a non-Candian citizen being the PM. It seems to be a ridiculous position.

Don -

You also say "Does our current Prime Minister have a conflict because he is from Alberta in some sense?"

I would say yes but that is unavoidable. Why do parties that want to be 'national' change the regions from where their leaders come from?

Oh - but it is avoidable with the Alan solution - pick citizens from other countries! It doesn't matter as long as they take the oath of loyalty.

Alan -

Thanks, Don. I needed to smoke out your elaboration. I merely make the distinction between the particular loyalty of public office and citizenship.

The general loyalty of a citizen is a different matter and not a subject of oath or this question, though it is being invoked by twisters for their own advantage. It is also unspecific as I owe no loyalty to this government or that government but, to some degree, to what: the state, the Crown or the people?

My only solution is understand that the oath and public office is hugely different from citizenship and saying someone has a dual citizenship is just discriminating on national origin - which is no different than discriminating based on race or religious affiliation.

Ben (The Tiger) -

It's not anything I feel stongly enough to make a fuss about, but when a person holds a policy-making position, he or she ought to make a good-faith attempt to shed all other loyalties.

In other words, if Syria says no, that's ok. But if one holds American or French citizenship and one wants to be in the Canadian cabinet, one really should take a short walk to the embassy and sign some papers.

Don -

I might as well answer one of your other 15 questions while I'm here:

Is a dual citizen less of a Canadian citizen than a single passport qualifying Canada.

In a lot of countries, yes. Ask those that are on death row because another country doesn't recognize their Canadian citizenship.
For me, no it doesn't make them less of a Canadian citizen.

What it does mean for me is that I'm more likely to think that their patriotism is less than mine.
Dion has proven over the years otherwise but if he wants to lead this country then he should become a citizen only of it.

Alan -

Then you have to admit you are wrong and carry a prejudice against those, like me, of dual nationality. One's non-oath loyalty is only impugned by a conviction of treason or abandonment by the citizen as Conrad Black is learning about. Other than that we are free. I would think anyone that does not appreciate the nature of citizenship is not fit to lead.

That China does not respect dual nationality is of no interest to me as it does not respect human rights of its single nationals. They are no yardstick to measure any Canadian's inherent rights.

Alan -

How about a border straddling First Nation US/Canadian dual citizen holder like Mohawks or Mi'kmaw? Are they barred from holding office without renouncing their inherent personal national right? How far does this discriminatory state action get to go? <p>Who else in the Commons has dual citizen rights? Form a line! Take names! <i>Auslanders!</i>

Alan -

Note, too, this passage on US and Israel dual citizenship. As Israel provides for a right of return for all persons of the Jewish faith including citizenship, must they renounce their faith to hold Canadian public office? Madness: of course they do not.

Don -

"How about a border straddling First Nation US/Canadian dual citizen holder like Mohawks or Mi'kmaw? Are they barred from holding office without renouncing their inherent personal national right?"

Not barred. But I wouldn't want them to be my PM.

"How far does this discriminatory state action get to go?"

State action?

"Israel provides for a right of return for all persons of the Jewish faith including citizenship, must they renounce their faith to hold Canadian public office?"

I don't see where you can't renounce your citizenship of Isreal as an adult after they've automatically confered your citizenship. To do so publicly, even if Isreal didn't accept your action would be expected.

Earlier...

"Then you have to admit you are wrong and carry a prejudice against those, like me, of dual nationality."

I'll admit I have a prejudice against you and others with dual nationality wrt your patriotism. I don't see where I'm wrong though.

So, am I correct in assuming your position on this leads you believe our PM does not need to be a Canadian citizen?

Alan -

You have not related your assumption to any fact so I can't see how I can respond but you have clearly indicated that all Christians and their divided loyalty must be driven from public office. You agree with me that that is your position, right?

Don -

How hard is it to answer my question? Do you think the PM needs to be a Canadian citizen? Would you be okay if he/she had a valid work permit and take the oath of office?

"you have clearly indicated that all Christians and their divided loyalty must be driven from public office. You agree with me that that is your position, right?"

No. If all Christians had citizenship in Christianland then yes they should renounce their Christianland citizenship if they were to be our PM.

Alan -

I am telling your Mommy you are in favour of the anti-Christ and is she going to be pissed off.<p>I don't think that a goat should be PM but I also know it is not relevant to the question but here is one that is relevant. How many PMs have been dual citizens?

Don -

How many have been goats?

(http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/key/pm/index.asp?Language=E&param=bio&id=2)

You lawyers and your precendents.

I can't believe that you don't think you need to be a Canadian citizen to be our PM. I guess my prejudice turned out to be correct. Damn Scottish Fifth columnists!

Alan -

Better a fifth columnist than an anti-Christer! ;-)

gorthos -

WOw. I actually avoided this topic today because I thought it to be a bit of a no-brainer.

We are a young country. How many past PMs were from other lands. I don't want to do the research but I am pretty darn sure that in our younger years (as a nation) we had PMs and MPs and such that were British citizens who happened to reside here, but I could be wrong. I know many, many dual citizens as well as landed immigrants who are as canadian in word and deed as the next guy or gal and damned if I care if Dion has a dual French passport. If anything, it shows us to be an internationalist land that is open to the 21st century's definition of a nation and not some namby pamby flag waving bannana republic where you have to swear allegiance, promise to ignore your history, hand over your first born to military service etc. ad finitum.

Frig. Benefica just scored.. grumble.

gorthos -

Totally different of course if he had joint US citizenship of course. That wouldn't fly outside of the oilpatch. Egad.

Chris Taylor -

Alan you are overreaching a tiny bit since there is no passport for adherents of Christianity. And the words of St. Paul say a fair bit about abiding by the jurisdiction of the earthly authorities you find yourself burdened with.

Look at it this way. Following that whole Enron mess, In 2002 the Big Four accounting firms voluntarily divested themselves of their consulting arms so as not to appear conflicted (like ill-fated Arthur Andersen) in any case where they also provide audit or tax advice to the same firms. It was not then, and is not now, illegal for them to provide both services -- just not to the same firm. One of the Big Four, Deloitte, later recanted and retained its consulting arm rather than split it off as Braxton. Deloitte took a LOT of heat for said action. It also, coincidentally or not, is the auditor of Nortel, who has had to issue restatements several times for the past few years. Last year, seven or eight Deloitte audits were criticised by the PCAOB in their annual overview. This year, 17 audits were critised by that same oversight board. The other Big Four do not get slammed for nearly as many accounting errors.

There is no causal connection between the retaining of a consulting services arm and the number of faulty audits identified by PCAOB. However, Deloitte does take criticism for the PCAOB-cited faulty audits AND the fact that it signs off on Nortel audits which later require restatement.

Nothing illegal is going on here. But it doesn't look like Deloitte is being particularly wise and certainly a lot of industry watchers think its judgement is suspect. Thinking so hardly makes Deloitte's critics bigoted.

Dion has yet to make a Deloitte-level misstep and I at least might be prepared to vote for him if I wasn't already a single-issue (strategic airlift) voter. The problem is that political parties (and life in general) are full of men who are not at all led by principle and may not act appropriately when a conflict could, potentially, raise its ugly head.

In that instance, it is better to be insulated from the source of conflict than to have to fight a rearguard action.

Alan -

Dion has no passport. His integrity is being impugned because of his mother's place of birth which, like the Jewish faith alone in relation to Israel, gives rise to the automatic right of citizenship. The UK has the same rule in relation to birth. These are personal characteristics that give rise to national identity.

This is the same as any religious adherence and the other conflicts of interest and divided loyalties that Rousseau noted in his famous book I cannot recall the name of when he said Christians make the worst citizens due to their divided loyalty.

Unlike nationality and religious affiliation, the choice of accounting firms in their client base is not a matter of constitutional right.

Ben (The Tiger) -

Alan --

And that being so, Dion can walk over to the French Embassy, swear out an oath of renunciation, and put this all to rest. Easy as pie.

Wasn't concerned that he had it, but when he refuses to get rid of it...

Chris Taylor -

Citizenship is emphatically NOT the same as religious adherence, Alan. If we are talking Christianity then you make a conscious choice to adopt the tenets of the faith. You are either christened as a child and then make a confession of faith at Confirmation later in life, or you make your initial confession of faith (and may optionally be baptised) later in life. Either way it is a conscious act. You do not get membership (in the formal, voting-at-the-synod/presbytery/etc sense) in most churches without having made a confession of faith (and/or baptism) per that denomination.

In the Jewish faith you are required to perform <i>b'nai mitvah</i> and the term itself denotes that you are now one "to whom the commandments apply". Before that, the duty is on your parents and while you may be an attendee you are not a formal member of the synagogue/temple with all of the rights and responsibilities thereof.

Dion did not apply for his citizenship, it was merely conferred by birth, unlike Christianity <i>and</i> Judaism. He made no conscious choice to seek out French citizenship and abide by its statutes.

If you want to make an argument that one can be considered a member of a Christian church or Jewish synagogue without actually adhering to the denomination's own membership requirements, I eagerly await such an explanation. Faith is a choice, not a birthright.

Flea -

<i>Loyalty of any person in public office is based on their oath not on their national origin or other personal characteristics.</i>

Alan is almost exactly right here. The point my fellow Canadians so often fail to grasp is that this is not a republic. The Queen can appoint whomever the heck she pleases to represent her. Everything else regarding the advice she takes regarding her First Minister of the Treasury (commonly styled the "Prime" Minister, after the French fashion) is so much window dressing.

Which leads me to believe that unless, Alan, you have a non-Commonwealth passport there somewhere you most probably do not have dual loyalties for all that you have dual citizenship.

Alan -

Flea: I only ever got the Right of Abode sticker so I do not have the passport just as Dion does not have the passport. But as you know that is not what makes one's loyalty to the tartan.

Having been baptized as an infant, Ben, and entered into the congregation accordingly without any process like a confirmation as it is not required - what could a confirmation of God's choice of me prove or imply after all? - I cannot agree. Like the awareness of the state of Israel as to its faithful members-to-be, so to is God to the Scots Presbyterians - you are brought into the faith through the community you were born into. You may renounce Christ and Israel's faith but they do not renounce you and the door is always open revealing to those who can see, those who can hear the truth and the draw of the second loyalty. There is no real choice in relation to the revealed truth.

Besides, on a simple legal level, they are inherent personal characteristics and accepted as such under our constitution and treated as equal as civil secular birthright. That is because, as the Dion case proves yet again, it is not the characteristic that defines the wrong but the misperception of the personal characteristic by the discriminator. Associating disloyalty with dual nationality is false and foisted only by those who would discriminate against we of two nations.

In the same way disloyalty was alleged against the Acadians in the 1750s or those interned in the wars based solely on race, it is an old song about <i>auslanders</i> and the <i>pur laine</i>. The finger pointers here seem to suggest that we now have <i>pur laine</i> Canadians based not on oath of loyalty but renunciations of personal characteristics the finger-pointers get confused by.

Ben (The Tiger) -

Nonsense.

If I became a foreign service officer or a CIA employee, I'd be required to renounce my Canadian citizenship.

If I became a Canadian diplomat, I'd have to get rid of my American nationality.

When you take up a policy-level position, you ought to divest yourself of these dual loyalties. Let it ride for those who cannot -- some countries do not allow one to renounce one's citizenship. But for those who do have an option, it ought to be required.

Chris Taylor -

The Israeli Law of Return specifies that someone whose mother (or more or less immediate married or biological family) is Jewish has the right of return to Israel. It makes no claims as to your status within the Hebraic faith -- it only validates your right to emigrate to the State of Israel. You can be a Buddhist grandchild of a non-observant Jewish grandmother and still have emigration rights to Israel. But you can't hold temple membership until <i>b'nai mitzvah</i>. The state and the faith are two separate animals.

Whatever the familyhood of the Scots Presbyterian church, I am certain they also have congregational membership requirements. One cannot just show up to any given congregation (let's say Victoria-Royce close to me) and demand membership on the pastoral selection committee, having never attended there a day in your life. They would not be too happy to oblige.

Alan -

Ben: you confuse secret service agent with an elected member of the public. No comparison. The Prime Minister is not a President, a CEO, a secret agent of any other of the strained comparators we have seen today. The Prime Minister is the leader of a party made of citizens. There is no requirement for single citizenship. Period. "Ought to be" law is not very convincing.

Chris: who says I have to be in an active congregation to be a Christian?

Ben (The Tiger) -

Alan, if spies or diplomats are privy to secrets that the PM can't be, I start to have stronger worries about the quality of our democracy than are brought forth by this tempest in a teapot...

Ian Scott -

"Dion has no passport. His integrity is being impugned because of his mother's place of birth which, like the Jewish faith alone in relation to Israel, gives rise to the automatic right of citizenship. The UK has the same rule in relation to birth. These are personal characteristics that give rise to national identity."

And up until about two years ago, was similar to Canada. I was born in Northern Ireland and hold UK citizenship. My mother was born in Canada. I was recognized as a Canadian Citizen when my parents brought me to Canada. I did not have to go to any Citizenship Court or prove any knowledge of Canada.

Personally, I consider myself a citizen of the World.

Alan -

The spies are officals who take an oath, work under a regulatory regime and otherwise fulfill a role. The constitution is silent on the PM so everything about what ought to be is speculation. It is the Privy Council that is discussed.

Chris Taylor -

Alan: You don't. As I have said all along, one is not not Jewish by birth any more than one is Christian by birth. You (or your parents) take specific steps to introduce you to membership in a faith. The statement about Israel permitting emigration to all Jews is not quite correct; one's eligibility for emigration and citizenship in Israel depends on whether your mom, grandmother or spouse is Jewish under a particular religious interpretation. This grants you eligibility for emigration, but is basically meaningless in the religious sense. Israel may consider you a Jew for immigration purposes but it doesn't get one membership in a synagogue.

Ian Scott -

"You (or your parents) take specific steps to introduce you to membership in a faith."

Technically speaking, not always correct. According to "reformed" theology, God takes the steps, through His Holy Spirit to "quicken" one's soul and offer His Saving Grace, which is impossible to refuse by His Elect. This is what provides "membership" in the "faith" of the True Church.

Fellowship (membership) within a denomination requires the individual to make a confession of faith. The faith comes first. Then confession of the faith. Then fellowship (membership).

In SOME Reformed denominations, Infants are to be baptized signifying God's New Covenant with the new Israel (the Church) in lieu of circumcision required before the New Covenant. However, at a later age, the child must still make his own Confession of Faith to continue fellowship (membership).

Alan -

The point is that all people who are born into Jewish families are entitled to claim Israeli citizenship - I am not aware of the rejection rate for those applications. Similarly people born to parents born in the UK or France get to apply for citizenship there. Being born into a member of the UK and French nations is like being born into the community Jewish faith. If you act upon that and make application you will likely get in. <p>Both personal characteristics then are analogous to being born into a Christian community - you will likely be accepted as such wherever your life takes you - people including those who will discriminate will accept you as such and discriminate accordingly. No one tests you on the various creeds anymore than the UK tests you on the members of your family. They are also inherent, requiring refutation but does it mean anything to refute if the right of birth and biology is there to be picked up again later - and refutation of Scottishness is a slightly insane idea: do I get to scrape off my freckles? The rights are mine and make me in the same way my freckles are me. It is not my nation's place to tell me to shrug off for any role I wish to play in this free society. They are all of a kind in this context and especially in the legal context - all low threshold matters of personal character.

gr -

Is this dude really Celine's brother? That should disqualify him from doing anything more than tending bar or herding pigs in Quebec.

James Bow -

> How hard is it to answer my question? Do you think the PM needs to be a Canadian citizen? Would you be okay if he/she had a valid work permit and take the oath of office?

Don, in order to go from immigrant to Canadian citizen, you have to jump through a number of hoops. You have to prove your loyalty to Canada, and then swear an oath of allegiance that natural born Canadians, by and large, do NOT swear.

Dion has remnant French citizenship by virtue of the fact that his mother is/was French. He doesn't even have a French passport or vote in French elections. He has fulfilled all of the requirements for being a Canadian citizen, and the inquisition should end there. On this basis, he is suitable for the job of being prime minister. Anything else, and you are making a statement that dual citizens are less Canadian than natural born Canadians.

If you're going to tell me that my American-Canadian wife and daughter are any less Canadian, you'll get a big argument from me.

Alan -

Don and all the others who are attacking Dion are saying exactly that: dual citizen-shippers like me are second class citizens unfit to hold high office. Fortunately I hold a secret over Don and he knows what it is.

gorthos -

And since I am a jackass, I drive a wedge into the dabate with a break for inanity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxgcjrs_jIA

Watch Princess Leia Sing!

Flea -

Mr. Gorthos, that link looks awfully familiar. It is almost as if you were getting some sort of payola from the singing cinnamon-bun set.

gorthos -

merely spreading the pain around Herr Flea

brother Iain -

Canada may very well have had a "dual citizen" PM as recently as 1984.

John Turner, the two-month wonder, was born in England. Did he ever renounce his "Britishness"? Did anyone ever ask him to?

ry -

Hmmm, let me try a Flea distraction technique: Boobies!
(did people stop arguing over this?)
Dang.
Oh well. Unsuccessful attempted blogjacking. AT least it isn't an GX40 Nation felony, yet.

gr -

I know ry, I tried it too, but was ignored (what's that thing that keeps popping up on youtube, 'ripe tv', the new bikini channel?). I answered my own question, mostly, as this Dion is not neccessarily related to the other.

Nobody made me take a citizenship test, but I have had US history and poli sci 101 etc, and forgotton a lot of it, but I believe any US president must be born in the US, moreover, I don't think our gov't recognizes or likes dual citizenship. Somebody like ry should explain because I bet he knows.

All that said, I think it would be pretty darn cool to be dual anything and SCOT. I wonder if Scots have their own wicked cool passport or is it generic UK?

Alan -

Hah! I knew there were Bristishers afoot.

Scots have not unique passport but it is a little known fact that Scotland has its own paper money printed by three different banks.

gr -

Scots are so cool. I saw 2 bumper stickers the other day 'kiss me, I'm Scottish' and 'Scots make better lovers'

Don -

James:
If you're going to tell me that my American-Canadian wife and daughter are any less Canadian, you'll get a big argument from me.

Alan:
Don and all the others who are attacking Dion are saying exactly that: dual citizen-shippers like me are second class citizens unfit to hold high office.

Not less Canadian. Maybe less patriotic. A perception of questionable loyalties. Not suited to be the leader of our country.
Sure Turner and some PMs in the past had British citizenship. I would have wanted them to renounce them too.

Alan:
Fortunately I hold a secret over Don and he knows what it is.

Damn those cookies! It is a heavy burden my family carries. Tasty - but heavy.

cm -

Cookies? Pass 'em 'round. Please.

Alan -

They would be a <i>heavy</i> burden - as they contain MEAT!

Douglas -

The first PM of the Dominion of Canada to be born in what would become the Dominion of Canada was Abbott. The first PM of Canada to be born in the Dominion of Canada was Meighen. The first PM of Canada to be born a Canadian citizen (rather than a British subject) was Campbell. The British PM Bonar-Law was born in New Brunswick. I am an old fart.

ry -

Dual citizenship is not recognized by the US. We put a Naval officer in prison for sending secrets to Israel by calling him traitor, something we couldn't rightly do if he was a citizen of both Israel and the US in many minds. You can carry another passport from another country if you wish, but we don't recognize your citizenship of another country if you are an US citizen. I have many friends who carry Mexican passports and US passports. And it annoys me.

I'm split on this, Al. There are issues of split loyalty. You brought some up yourself. "I have three loyalties or maybe even five if you want to be technical because all of these entities have Parliaments: Canada, Ontario, Scotland, Britain and the MacLeods." Which takes precidence in questions of fairness and rightness? How do you apportion your loyalty vertically and horizontally? Under what conditions does the loyalty to that of Canada outweigh those of Ontario, Scotland, Britania, and the MacLeods? Under what conditions do you choose something that's good for Canada but not good for Britain and Scotland? (you said it, not me. ;) )

This indicates that it is possible, possible I said and not must, that you would trade what is good for the MacCleods over that of what is good for, say, Scotland if the conditions were right. You ARE balancing the needs of multiple loyalties. Some people don't like that and really have questions about on what decisions you're making is based.
It is a fair question. Maybe not in this Dion dust up(since the French citizenship is largely honorific instead of practical).

I did that 'cause it was looking like they were getting nasty, gr. I don't know Don and sometimes this Humour that my Northern Cousins use goes over my head. So I tried to defuse what needn't be defused. ooops.

Alan -

That I have a conflict does not mean I need to resolve it and I would suggest it would be case by case. When I sued to go to court before Chief Justice MacDonald I always wore my McLeod or Campbell (the other clan) tartan tie. That was a wee disloyalty to the Crown right there. But I think you are stretching it when you are concerned about decisions I am making as I am a free man, unhindered by state or anything else able to use all resources available to me including dual citizenship right.

gr -

ry, I thought I remembered about the 2 citizenships thing: pretty clearly laid out by you. That's why this is puzzling to me, how can a person really be a dual citizen? Sometimes Canadians are hard to understand: so similar but so different.
As for our pres, ry, isn't it born in the US, minimum 35 years old? Senators have some type of restriction too, I think.

ry -

I think you can be born on foreign soil, like in an embassy or aboard a ship too gr. Sounds mostly right. I think you had to be 28 to be a Senator, but don't quote me. There's an age limit and you must be a citizen.

Dominion citizens have it tough because they're still part of The Empire and the way that devolved was odd. AS I see it, crzy 'Murican that I am, it just seems to have created a rather byzantine network of allegiances. Much prefer the 'Murican set up: citizen and resident. You're a citizen of the Republic but only a resident of a State. Loyalty in both the horizontal and vertical is clearly and neatly defined with few conflicts. The Dominion? Don't get it and don't want it.

Al, I was just using you as an example. NOt really personal. Just using your statement to show why someone would be worried about split citizenship. I would say that for a person running for any federal office it would have to be resolved, totally and not case by case. See the Johnathan Pollard case. Split loyalties like that can put you in situations similar to his. Not case by case, but total, if you want some kind of office. When you take an office you have made a sworn oath to uphold their interests at all times. One would think a man is as good as his word, but we're all a little more cynical than that.
The Johnathan Pollard case shows why it is not unreasonable to worry about those with dual loyalties. He swore to uphold the US Con and defend the US---but sold US secrets to the Israelis out of loyalty to them, having dual citizenship, to the detriment of the US. It isn't a figment Al.
Having dual citizenship, being a citizen of the world, can at times make one be like a lawyer selling out his client because he has sympathies with the opposing side. That isn't what one wants representing him and his in elected office.

To be fair to Dion, even if he did do whatever paperwork required to renounce his French citizenship he'd get pummeled over this anyways. Politics is a dirty game.

But the fear of what comes with those holding dual citizenship is not bs, but serious business.

gr -

Ry, from what I have heard, being a member of the Dominion meant that Australian and Canadian forces in the two world wars got to go FIRST when it came to charging the German lines.....

Alan -

We are also residents of provinces. There is a Supreme Court of Canada case from the mid-90s where a guy complained that he could not vote in the separation referendum because under Quebec law you had to be resident for 6 months to be a Quebecker. The court said that was fine.

ry -

"Ry, from what I have heard, being a member of the Dominion meant that Australian and Canadian forces in the two world wars got to go FIRST when it came to charging the German lines....."
Leaving Australia largely undefended against the Japanese advance in the Pacific. Leading to such fights as Coral Sea and Guadacanal being fought by American Naval Forces to keep Australia out of the hands of the Japanese. Nobody is questioning the bravery of Dominionists, gr. Just the intelligence of exactly that kind of arrangement that produced leaving Aus undefended. Does it make sense to have someone balancing loyalty to two masters deciding the fate of a nation? Given that Guadacanal and Coral Sea were very near things I say it shows it isn't smart at all.
And let's not forget the anger and feelings of resentment felt by the Aus and Can citizens over how they were used and USED in those wars to further the interests of The Crown at the expense of their own(what would have happened to AUS if FDR, militarist and partial to the USN FDR, had been defeated in 1940 with England dragging Aus' soldiery off to N. Africa?).

And let's not forget how The Kids in The HAll used to mock the Queen(Hellloooooo) and the idea of being part of the Empire(sad attempt at humour. I know. I'm not funny and I shouldn't try.).

I say again Al: not bs but a serious concern with real and tangible products. In the Dion case it may very well be a dirty trick since Dion himself has done nothing to have loyalty two masters. But it is not just poppycock spewed by haters as rationalization of their hatred.

"We are also residents of provinces. There is a Supreme Court of Canada case from the mid-90s where a guy complained that he could not vote in the separation referendum because under Quebec law you had to be resident for 6 months to be a Quebecker. The court said that was fine." It is similar in the US. You cannot hold resident status unless you can prove you've been in the State for 6 months. But you're still a citizen, and one case on the fringe is peanuts and less than peanuts. The cut off for elections, in my experience, is three months before. YOu move in or just establish a mailbox in the region, register to vote and then tip the results. There's a good and valid reason for such rules: voter fraud. That doesn't mean that this man wasn't injured. It does mean that you must weigh two 'goods' and see which is best for the polity. In this case it was to choose that which prevents voter fraud over one individual. Crappy for him but better for the rest of you.

gr -

Ry, I hope you got my point: I have heard that British commanders often sent Canadian and Australian (New Zealanders etc) into the biggest messes to die first, while holding back English forces. A pretty raw deal, considering those troops were HELPING the English.

ry -

Oops. I think I missed it and remade it. Sorry gr. not trying to steal your thunder there.

gr -

No no ry, just trying to say we're on the same page you see.

Chaos (master of all existant and non-existant) -

I for one do infact care that this Dion guy has two citizenships. I am a fourth generation canadian and my belief "If you are from another country, you are NOT ALLOWED to ..."

[Ed.: <i>idiot.</i>]