If Dion's commitment to Canada is 100% as he claims (which I do not doubt for a second), what level of commitment does that leave for his French citizenship? Citizenship conveys not only rights but responsibilities, and if ones loyalty is in its entirety devoted to Country A, and always will be, one has no business holding citizenship of Country B.Now, I just did the apparently unthinkable, and called up Dion's publicity people. I confirmed with one Jennifer Mowbray how, exactly, he got his citizenship. It was conferred honorarily upon Dion by the fact of his birth, at the time of his birth, and was nothing he ever sought out or took an oath for.
Meaning, if you're following along, that Dion cannot possibly be breaking any vow of French citizenship (because he never took one) nor can he reasonably have his integrity questioned on these grounds - his citizenship was not something he chose, but something that was forced on him.
As for the question of why he would bother keeping it, well, how about not wanting to give Ezra Levant the time of day, much less the satisfaction of scoring a cheap partisan point? How about being proud of his heritage? How about any number of personal reasons that shouldn't be made in to a political football?
And I don't know the intricacies of French immigration law, but if his honorary citizenship was conferred at birth, there's probably no way he could practically "renounce" it any more than he already has - you know, by never making use of his rights as a French citizen.
There are plenty of states where citizenship can be conferred automatically by your birth - most prominently, Israel, which takes it very seriously indeed. Indeed, for the first decade of the Mossad's existence, it's primary mission was rescuing Jews in the Arab world and other hostile places.
That doesn't mean that Jewish-Canadians have "dual loyalties" any more than Dion does - indeed, there's a long history of anti-semitism in that charge. (I wonder if Ezra Levant thought about that before he squatted out this little tempest in a teapot.) What it means is that some countries define citizenship differently than we in Canada do, they make laws to codify that, and some people in Canada have a legal status and identity they never asked for and may never take advantage of.
Please, people. There is absolutely nothing worthwhile in this discussion - no principle, no philosophy, no deep thought whatsoever. Stop wasting time and bytes on this.