Nationality and Citizenship

[Vic]

FIFA is full of cross-border shopping, especially since the 21 amendment. In Canada we are no different and have had a number of marquis cases of ins and outs with Hargreaves, Begovic, and de Guzmán on the men's side, and Leroux, Franko, Stewart, and Courtnall on the women's.

It's a pretty fascinating topic, and I've read a lot of great opinion on both sides here. I'm not sure I'm any closer to the zen of it, but I am a lot more informed on the scope and complexity of the issue and positions. This seems like as good a place as any to house the whole thing rather than sprayed all over the place.

[Richard]

OK, here goes. We live in a free country, players who are eligible should be free to aspire to whichever national team they wish without prejudice. Lucky them to have the luxury of choice, most don't.

[Guest Ed]

The Voyageurs were created to support our National Teams, not to form committees to hand out roses to those Canadians who decide to play for other countries.

Here are my categories (which differ from some):

LOVE

Players who represent Canada.

SOMEWHAT FOND OF:

Players who COULD have represented Canada but were never given the opportunity and have gone on to other nations.

Fernandes

INDIFFERENT:

Players who COULD have represented Canada but chose otherwise.

de Guzman II,

Hargreaves

HATE

Players who represented Canada and opted to go to other countries (outside CONCACAF).

Begovic,

Lesky

REALLY HATE

Players who represented Canada and opted to go to our direct rivals in CONCACAF:

LeRoux

[Vic]

The Charter provides all Canadian basic rights and protections, and of course Sydney Leroux is within her legal rights to all the avails of a social democracy from healthcare to old age security. There is no shred of a legal argument against that. But legality is a civil framework and not morality. You can remote detonate a nuclear device on a major Canadian metropolitan area and irradiate a large portion of the country and are by Charter-able rights entitled to an education, three square meals, healthcare and an exercise regimen.

The common phrase is "rights and responsibilities," and those inherent responsibilities are the morality component of citizenship. What are the moral ethics of flipping your citizenship back and forth to suit your best interests? JFK's famous line was "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Is that not the moral standard?

[Richard]

No argument there Vic, but Charter rights (and responsibilities) aside, when it comes to dual citizenship both countries have equal call and it's the person's choice and right to choose either one. What would your reaction be to an American born player who also holds Canadian citizenship choosing to play for Canada?

[AlanDouglas]

I'm of the opinion that soccer players are people, who should be able to choose how they live their lives. I don't think players should be expected to sacrifice their happiness or prosperity in order to appease a bunch of fans, especially when these are the same fans likely to turn on the player, piling on abuse and scorn should that player choose to represent Canada but play below the fans' expectations.

[Vic]

Both good points and Richard I usually have little problem with anyone making a choice in either direction. Not only am I a humanist and not a behaviorist, but I can relate on a personal level as well and I think I've always been pretty moderate here. The only time I feel anything more than clinical understanding is when I think someone has knowingly worked a system to gain an advantage and deceitfully taken resources and then flown the coup. But even then it's more of a simple disappointment. I'm not really that bothered because not only do I not want to have people like that in the team I support, I also don't believe they contribute to winning teams. But I do have a problem with anyone who flips their nationality back and forth like a slinky or fashion accessory to take whatever they can from wherever they can without moral fiber or honour. That shows a lack of respect, integrity and character. Legal yes, moral no.

[Richard]

Not sure I agree that making the choices one thinks are the best for one's happiness, professional fulfilment and personal career development, be it national team programs or any other employment, is necessarily displaying lack of moral fibre or honour. In the world of amateur sport there may be different considerations but professional sport is a business and the players have their careers and financial prosperity to consider. When I emigrated I put my own career and my family's interests way ahead of any national loyalties and took full advantage of opportunities presented. Why is it so different for professional athletes? I agree with Alan Douglas, the soccer players in question are people, who should be able to choose how they live their lives without having to sacrifice their happiness or prosperity in order to appease a bunch of fans. Well said Alan.

[AlanDouglas]

People are entitled to their opinion, so I don't have a problem with fans who have a problem with players, just as long as they're not being total douche-bags about it. What troubles me are the fans who wear their hatred like a badge of honour, and bitch and moan and hurl insults at the players for years after the fact, at any opportunity, to anyone who might listen. As far as I'm concerned, these people have issues, and they can take their over-inflated sense of entitlement and ram it where the sun don't shine.

[Richard]

Too true, everybody is entitled to an opinion. I entered this latest discussion on the topic (in another thread) when I expressed disgust at the public vilification of Owen Hargreaves which was being proposed by some posters should he accompany Man. U. to play at BMO Field this summer.

[Vic]

Not sure I agree that making the choices one thinks are the best for one's happiness, professional fulfilment and personal career development, be it national team programs or any other employment, is necessarily displaying lack of moral fibre or honour.

Neither do I Richard. I'm usually the odd man out here because I'm fine with choices. But I'm not fine with not having the integrity to live up to those choices. And yes, had you moved here for a better life and continually gone back to the UK to milk the system for things like free medical coverage I would call you a scoundrel, and I think most Brit's would too.

[Richard]

Neither do I Richard. I'm usually the odd man out here because I'm fine with choices. But I'm not fine with not having the integrity to live up to those choices. And yes, had you moved here for a better life and continually gone back to the UK to milk the system for things like free medical coverage I would call you a scoundrel, and I think most Brit's would too.

Seems your argument has moved away from choices based solely on career advancement which has been the basis of my argument all along. If his parent are still living in Canada I am not surprised he shuttles back and forth, I would too given his comfortable financial position now. Give it a break Vic, the guy is doing what he believes is best for him - he made his choice and you claim to be fine with choices!

[Vic]

Well, if we're to be exact, your "argument" about career advancement moved away from my original question of flipping back and forth, which I simply returned to.

The 'kid' is almost 20. That's not 15 or 16 and is old enough to vote and be held accountable for her choices. As Grizzly put quite well a while ago:

"Professional athletes are public figures and fan criticism is part of the territory. I do not think we should be trying to shelter athletes or their families from such criticism whether justified or not and indeed we are one of the few outlets that Canadian soccer fans have for making such criticism. That does not make it an official Voyageur policy, we would never officially use the terms Whoregreaves or LeWhore but we are a place where those who do feel this way about the respective players should be allowed to voice those views as well as those who do not feel this way."

And disregard the extreme system milkers and serial citizenship flippers, but simply with straight out one-way raised-in-Canada opt-outs - I find it interesting someone as unforgiving to Canadians who committed lifetimes to the senior program for their behaviour is so supportive and saintly to someone born and raised here with absolutely no commitment whatsoever. To quote a familiar poster from Vancouver with 6,000 posts about people seeking the greenest grass they can find: "So you only resort to playing for the country of your birth if there is little to no hope of making it for any other country... pfffttt!"

[Richard]

Seems we will have to agree to disagree about dual nationality and career choices, that's fine and you're perfectly entitled to your opinion but isn't it wonderful to have that freedom of choice!

Also, you continue to struggle with the separation of admiration for a player's prior career from certain behavious during the sunset of that career that were shameful. I do not have such difficulty, never have had.

[AlanDouglas]

As Grizzly put quite well a while ago:

"Professional athletes are public figures and fan criticism is part of the territory.

Fine, except Sydney Leroux is not a professional athlete, and 99.999% of the people in Canada have no idea who she is. Has she ever played in an international match in Canada or that was televised in Canada? I think it's a real stretch to say she's a public figure here.

[The Ref]

In the UCLA roster Leroux's hometown is listed as Vancouver, B.C.

[AlanDouglas]

My records say she was born and raised in Surrey, BC. Not sure I see where this is getting us though.

[Vic]

The amateur/professional line is not so linear. There are many definitions of amateur but I believe the one you are attributing to is an individual who has not received any compensation. I'm going to guesstimate there is a quarter-million dollars that's gone into her development. We used to play the Russians in hockey and they used to always say their guy's were amateur. They pretty much won out the Olympics from 1956-1988 using 'amateurs' while Canadians were barred entry. We lobbied for decades before the IOC finally found the political spine. The term amateur was ruined by the Russians and Americans long ago. She may not be getting a direct deposit, but she is getting the best training on the planet and is not supporting herself or paying her way.

He could correct me, but I believe the phrase "public figure" he is refering to in that quote doesn't mean household name. It means have accepted a position of public importance. If the Prime Minister turns down his salary, it doesn't mean the House of Commons shuts down. As the English Sports Minister commented the other day on England captain John Terry's purported marital infidelities - "On the field John Terry is a fantastic player and a good England captain, but to be the captain of England you have got to have wider responsibilities for the country.

Richard as to my difficulties that you don't have, I am profoundly thankful.

The inscription on the Peace Tower at Parliament Hill is "Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it." And defending the honour of Canadian soccer is the very essence of this group. So if you are going to support people who desecrate that honour, you better pack a lunch.

[AlanDouglas]

Ah, but there's the rub. Syndey did not accept a position of importance to the Canadian public. She declined that position, and instead accepted a position of (arguable) importance to the American public. I think when discussing who may be a public figure it is essential to consider which public one is talking about. I can accept that she is a public figure in the US, but not in Canada.

[Vic]

Intelligent point. And again, if she stuck to that I may not agree but I would understand. But the minute she decides that the Canada that isn't good enough for her in terms of soccer is good enough for her in terms of free healthcare, I have the same problem as when my old neighbour did something similar. He's not a public figure and I told him too. Canadians are not less than dual citizens. You make your choice of nationality and you stick to it, for better or worse. That may not be the law, but you would have a hard time convincing Canadians that's not moral.

[Richard]

But she is as Canadian under the law as you or I so perfectly entitled to all the benefits of Candian citizenship. If you have an obection to that, take it up with your member of parliament.

[Vic]

In terms of legality, I'm a little more concerned with providing a lifetime of support to the guy who kills half the country.

But she is as Canadian under the law as you or I so perfectly entitled to all the benefits of Candian citizenship. If you have an obection to that, take it up with your member of parliament.

Any dual-citizen who grows up in Canada and opts for another country is expressing their entitled freedom of choice. But the day they opt back in to avail themselves of the benefits of Canadian citizenship is at a new level of entitlement and any compassion is out the window.

But this is all supposition based on an anonymous post and I get the feeling it's time to wait for the chapter to be written.