Chris, valid point. I never realized how many Lebonese held other passports (there can't really be over 200,000 tourists in the country, can there?). But I think it makes a lot of sense. If your country was embroiled in a lengthy civil war, you'd probably flee too, and stay away until hostilities subsided. While abroad while not have a child or five - boom, instant duo citizens created, all of whom should be somewhere between 16 and 26 (very rough approximation). I would think that this generation would be prime candidates for getting the heck out of Dodge once again.
Do they deserve the second passport? I'm with you. I really can't see on what grounds you could take it away.

Heh.. good post, Chris.

Having two passports isn't a "Lebanese" thing. My father had two passports - one Canadian, one U.K. Made it easier in some instances depending where he was going and where he was coming back from.

I could obtain a second passport myself.

Taborskey's writings on blogs is an example of Insane Thinking.

BTW, for more on "ET," and one of her strange assertions:

http://ianism.com/?p=103

I think this is just an emotional issue for Turner et al, prompted by the media focusing strictly on comments of criticism from Lebanese-Canadians, and not giving airtime or print space to the numerous comments of praise and gratitude.

Turner's a very, very emotional man, and doesn't think with his head nearly enough, alas.

Instead of his unreasonable outburst of outrage directed at Lebanese-Canadians, he could have instead generated more publicity for the Canada-praising comments going unseen and unheard.

That's the real shame here.

Isn't this beyond dual passports and about human beings being rescued from a bad situation - this is just so much nitpicking.

By the way - what is Harper's gang doing about the tsunami situation in Indonesia - nadda, nadda - he's not a multi-tasker that's for sure - only 5 priorities can be handled (now 4 as he's deserted the wait times guarantee)- not even seducing his wife can be accomplished when strategizing us to death.

He can't even multi-task when it comes to saving lives - in any event, citizenship is not the issue - it's about getting innocent people out of harms way.

"Turner's a very, very emotional man, and doesn't think with his head nearly enough, alas."

Jasopn, I'm not sure that Turner has ever thought with his head!

I think it might be useful to discuss the criteria for becoming a Canadian citizen, the requirements for retaining that citizenship after naturalization, whether native-born Canadians should lose their citizenship after a period of living abroad, and whether one can hold dual citizenship. However, I think that the middle of an evacuation exercise is a damned poor time to be talking about philosophy of civic obligations and long-term policy - let's wait until this issue is behind us, and approach the subject calmly with a view towards what kind of society we wish to foster, what sort of citizens we need (or need to avoid), to create that society and what policies give us the greatest chance of attracting and retaining the citizens we want and allowing them to contribute to Canada. In any event, none of that discussion, even if the issue were settled instantly, should affect the current Canadian citizens in Lebanon; it is abhorent to me that we might try to chnage the status of someone's citizenship (or our commitment to Canadian citizens) on a retroactive basis.

Just goes to show Harper was absolutely right to sideline Turner; the man is a buffoon and an embarrassment.

DCardno, I agree with you every point of the way - probably a useful discussion to have in the future, to affect the future, for sure.

"whether native-born Canadians should lose their citizenship after a period of living abroad,"

Native born, eh? So, if they don't manage to obtain citizenship in the country they are living in, or are on some extended adventure and don't even qualify for citizenship anywhere else, they could become citizens of no place?

I am not arguing for that, Ian - just identifying that it is a possible approach. If such a regime existed, then I would imagine that someone would have to live for an extended period (say 10 years) with no material connection with Canada. I suppose that at the ~7 year mark they would have to determine whether they could get citizenship in their new domicile, or re-establish themselves in Canada.

"I suppose that at the ~7 year mark they would have to determine whether they could get citizenship in their new domicile, or re-establish themselves in Canada."

As a libertarian, I could care less about borders, citizenships, and nationalities.

But to discuss the point anyhow, it seems to me this would be absurd and so many exemptions would need to be made for a number of circumstances.

What if someone went off on an adventure and owned businesses in Canada, but had them managed in his/her absence... and spent two years here, two years there, some years somewhere else.. then he MUST return to Canada after some arbitrary number of years?

What if Canada happens to be at war? What if the economy takes a major shit? The person would still be required to return before things got "better" in his/her opinion?

Bah...the more regulations there are, the more the freedom of the individual is reduced.

Bullshit, Ian. The individual remains entirely free to do as they wish, so long as they accept the obligation to continue their material presence in Canada (or periodically renew that material presence) as a condition of maintaining the right to re-settle here. You know - they make a decision, then they face the consequences thereof; I thought that had some philosophical attraction to you - perhaps not.

If they are unable to obtain citizenship in another country, I don't see that this is my problem after they have determined to "have their adventure" or run a business, or whatever, in some foreign location. Perhaps they should have thought of that before they left, no?

"What if Canada happens to be at war? What if the economy takes a major shit?"
Yeah - what an incredible inconvenience, expecting that they face the same hardships as their fellow citizens. Sorry - you'll have to do better than that.

"The person would still be required to return before things got "better" in his/her opinion?"
No - they would not be "required" to do anything; but if they wished to maintain an option to reside in Canada, they would periodically have to, you know, reside in Canada. There is huge value in optionality, Ian - and we give it away too cheaply when we allow an option of refuge to people who make no effort to contribute to the country, irrespective of where they are born.

I understand the attraction of the Libertarian fantasy, but aside from the fact that it has never worked anywhere on Earth, as a practical matter that's not how things are done in any Nation that I (nor, I daresay, you or any other readers of this blog) would want to live in, and that's not about to change. There are real costs involved in maintaining a functioning civil society - not only economic, but in terms of self restraint, tolerance, and community contribution; I don't think it is unreasonable to take a position that the benefits of that society should be restricted to those who have borne the costs. I think this is doubly so if Canada should go through a period of war or the economy should take a major shit (to you your felicitous phrasing) - the rebuilding effort to get to the point where things were "better" in the opinion of our galivanting ex-Pat would be neither easy nor cheap: why the fuck would they be entitled to partake in the benefits of it after sitting out the tough bits? I don't think this "former citizen" should face a permanent ban from Canada - but they should be treated like any other potential immigrant, with their (re-)admission to Canada determined by whether it represents a benefit to the country.