PDA

View Full Version : World Leaders NOT Born in the Nation They Led


astorian
06-11-2006, 12:38 AM
In the USA, of course, foreign born citizens cannot become President. But in many other countries, people born elsewhere HAVE made it to the highest offices. Among them:

1) Ireland's President, Eamon de Valera, was born in New York.

2) Germany's Chancellor, Adolf Hitler, was born in Austria.

3) Several Israeli Prime Ministers (including Golda Meir) were born far from Israel.

How many others can you think of?

mamboman
06-11-2006, 12:43 AM
Australia has had a few foreign born Prime Ministers - JC Watson was born in Chile, GH Reid and Andrew Fisher wre born in Scotland, Joe Cook was born in England and Billy Hughes always played up his Welsh heritage, but he was in fact born in London.

mm

Jeff Lichtman
06-11-2006, 01:52 AM
Napoleon was born in Corsica. The island is French territory - whether this means he was born in France is a semantic question, I guess.

Cerowyn
06-11-2006, 01:56 AM
In the USA, of course, foreign born citizens cannot become President.I'm pretty sure we've established that this statement is false. Natural born Americans (i.e. those entitled to US citizenship at birth) are eligible to become President regardless of where they are born.

The following four Canadian Prime Ministers were not born in Canada: John A. MacDonald (Jul 1, 1867 to Nov 5, 1873 and Oct 17, 1878 to Jun 6, 1891), born Glasgow, Scotland Alexander Mackenzie (Nov 7, 1873 to Oct 8, 1878) born Perth, Scotland Mackenzie Bowell (Dec 21, 1894 to Apr 27, 1896) born Suffolk, England John Turner (Jun 30, 1984 to Sep 16, 1984) born Surrey, England

Operation Ripper
06-11-2006, 01:56 AM
Arthur Chung? (http://www.gina.gov.gy/natprofile/formerpresidents.html)

Operation Ripper
06-11-2006, 02:02 AM
Janet Rosenberg? (http://www.jagan.org/janet_jagan29.htm)

astorian
06-11-2006, 02:03 AM
I'm pretty sure we've established that this statement is false. Natural born Americans (i.e. those entitled to US citizenship at birth) are eligible to become President regardless of where they are born.

The following four Canadian Prime Ministers were not born in Canada: John A. MacDonald (Jul 1, 1867 to Nov 5, 1873 and Oct 17, 1878 to Jun 6, 1891), born Glasgow, Scotland Alexander Mackenzie (Nov 7, 1873 to Oct 8, 1878) born Perth, Scotland Mackenzie Bowell (Dec 21, 1894 to Apr 27, 1896) born Suffolk, England John Turner (Jun 30, 1984 to Sep 16, 1984) born Surrey, England


My phrasing was a bit off, but it remains true that people like Henry Kissinger, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Madeleine Albright are ineligible to become President, even though they're U.S. citizens, because they were born overseas.

That said, thank you for the Canadian Prime Ministers- they're just the kind of answer I was looking for.

waterj2
06-11-2006, 02:40 AM
If John McCain manages to become President, he'd at least be born outside of what is now the United States, in the Panama Canal Zone, which was returned to Panama in 1979.

Certainly, back in the day, kings and queens (and princes, princesses, dukes, etc.) inherited titles in foreign lands, such as George I of Great Britain, a German prince who barely bothered to learn English. And, of course, the Spanish Habsburgs. But I suppose that sort of thing doesn't really happen in this day and age.

Oh, and the Pope, the leader of the Vatican City, is actually some German guy.

Back in 1818, Sweden ran out of their own monarchs and elected Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, a Frenchman (who, ironically had apparently gotten a tattoo saying "death to all kings" (in French) back when he was fighting in the French Revolution), as their king. His descendants still sit on the Swedish throne.

OK, probably not exactly the examples the OP was looking for, but hopefully mildly interesting trivia nonetheless.

Cunctator
06-11-2006, 07:40 AM
Many of New Zealand's early Prime Ministers were born overseas: John Ballance, Richard Seddon and Bill Massey all in the UK, and Michael Savage in Australia.

jimmmy
06-11-2006, 09:31 AM
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

That man is the 10th U.S. President John Tyler (March 29, 1790 – January 18, 1862) who was the (the first president 1841-1845) born after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution (and the first to assume the office of President following the death of his predecessor and on almost Daughters of the Confederacy/Southern Website the only President to die a Citizen of another "Country" as he claimed to be a Citizen of Virginia and CSA - Not the USA- as he died of natural causes during the Civil War)

Meaning a LITERAL answer to the OP would note these US Presidents were not born the USA (as the USA did not exist):
Washington • J Adams • Jefferson • Madison • Monroe • JQ Adams • Jackson • Van Buren* • W Harrison

*Van Buren was born after the Declaration of Independence but before the Constitution was adopted so sometimes he is listed as "first" but technically according to the words of the Constitution - I think we can all agree that Tyler is first.

ElvisL1ves
06-11-2006, 09:41 AM
My phrasing was a bit off, but it remains true that people like Henry Kissinger, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Madeleine Albright are ineligible to become President, even though they're U.S. citizens, because they were born overseas.Not because they were born overseas, but because they were not US citizens at birth. Someone born outside the US who was nevertheless a US citizen at birth is eligible.

ElvisL1ves
06-11-2006, 09:44 AM
Oh, yeah, the Canal Zone was administered by the US but was still part of Panama.

FlyingRamenMonster
06-11-2006, 09:58 AM
Do takeovers of other countries count? Because then there'd be a lot more, for example Maximilian I of Mexico who was born in Austria and offered the throne by Napoleon III. He didn't last very long, though.

Jophiel
06-11-2006, 10:25 AM
Poland went through a period where kings were elected by the upper noblemen with no real restriction regarding the origin of the monarch. As such, there's a fairly good list (http://projects.edte.utwente.nl/masters/spizewsk/pl_kings/foreign.htm) of foreigners from France, Saxony, Hungary, Lithuania, Swedan and Czechia legitimately holding the crown in Poland (as opposed to those who invaded, engaged in a coup, etc). Didn't do the nation any favors in the long run, but there ya go.

bibliophage
06-11-2006, 11:29 AM
Andrew Bonar Law was briefly Prime Minister of the UK in the 1920s. He was born in New Brunswick in 1858. He doesn't quite qualify as foreign-born though, since NB was a British colony at the time of his birth.

Peter Morris
06-11-2006, 11:54 AM
In the USA, of course, foreign born citizens cannot become President. But in many other countries, people born elsewhere HAVE made it to the highest offices. Among them:

I asked a similar question a while back.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=287260

ColonelDax
06-11-2006, 11:55 AM
Back in 1818, Sweden ran out of their own monarchs and elected Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, a Frenchman (who, ironically had apparently gotten a tattoo saying "death to all kings" (in French) back when he was fighting in the French Revolution), as their king. His descendants still sit on the Swedish throne.

And when the Norwegians separated from Sweden in 1905, they elected a Dane to serve as their first king, taking the name Haakon VII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haakon_VII_of_Norway).

Sunspace
06-11-2006, 12:26 PM
Michaelle Jean, Canadian governor-general, was born in Haiti.

waterj2
06-11-2006, 12:37 PM
Michaelle Jean, Canadian governor-general, was born in Haiti.And, if I'm not mistaken, her predecessor, Adrienne Clarkson, was born in Hong Kong. And in years past, many Governors General were from the UK. I'm not sure I'd really call them "leaders" of Canada, though.

Nema98
09-29-2015, 09:41 PM
Armenia has had three presidents since gaining independence from the Soviet Union, and none of them were born in Armenia.

First president Levon Ter Petrosyan was born in Aleppo, Syria.
Robert Kocharyan was born in Stepanakert, Nagorno Karabakh, Azerbaijan.
The same with current president Serzh Sargsyan, also born in Stepanakert.
Now Azerbaijan and Armenia were both republics of the Soviet Union when they were born. But the USSR no longer exists, and while Armenia claims Nagorno Karabakh as it's own, the international community does not recognize this claim and it is technically Azerbaijan territory occupied by Armenians.

So none of Armenia's presidents have been in Armenia proper. That must be a record.

Algeria's President Abdelaziz Bouteflika was born in neighboring Morocco, not Algeria.

Northern Piper
09-29-2015, 09:53 PM
Ted Cruz hopes to join the list.

penultima thule
09-29-2015, 10:37 PM
Australia has had a few foreign born Prime Ministers - JC Watson was born in Chile, GH Reid and Andrew Fisher wre born in Scotland, Joe Cook was born in England and Billy Hughes always played up his Welsh heritage, but he was in fact born in London.

mm

To those five you can add two more recent PMs.
Julia Gillard was born in Wales and Tony Abbott was born in England

dropzone
09-29-2015, 10:41 PM
There's the joke that Austria's greatest triumph was convincing the world that Beethoven was Austrian and Hitler wasn't.

thelurkinghorror
09-30-2015, 12:53 AM
AFAIK, every single one of the co-princes of Andorra were born outside of the country. Haakon VII of Norway was a rare (outside of the Vatican) elected monarch and was Danish, the son of the Danish King and the next king's younger brother.

Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Estonia, born in Sweden, raised in New Jersey. I suppose you could count everyone in the Baltic states, most of the -stans, etc. because it was technically USSR, but I don't think that's what you want. Stalin was born in what is now Georgia though.

Lord Feldon
09-30-2015, 01:29 AM
Since this thread was started, Australia has had two prime ministers born in Britain (although I think a child born today in the same circumstances as Tony Abbott would be an Australian citizen at birth).

Senegoid
09-30-2015, 01:49 AM
3) Several Israeli Prime Ministers (including Golda Meir) were born far from Israel.

The earliest Prime Ministers of Israel, including the first of them, David Ben-Gurion, were born before Israel even existed. The same could be said for the first several American presidents (although, of course, they were born in the colonies that became the United States).

Any time a new country is created, its first top-dog leader, and probably the first several, will necessarily be born before that county existed.

Horatio Hellpop
09-30-2015, 01:59 AM
Jomo Kenyatta, Idi Amin (both born in British East Africa, led Kenya and Uganda respectively) and Robert Mugabe (born in Rhodesia, leads Zimbabwe) all meet the letter of this.

Emperor Baldwin of Constantinople was, IIRC, born in Flanders. Emperor Baldwin of Jerusalem was born in Lorraine.

Simon Bolivar, born in Caracas Venezuela, presided over Venezuela, Gran Colombia, and Ecuador, the last of which qualifies him for this.

Catherine the Great of Russia was born in Germany (Prussia).

Chiang Kai-shek, president of Taiwan, was born in Xikou, mainland China.

Horatio Hellpop
09-30-2015, 02:04 AM
England's William the Conqueror, of course, was born in France.

AK84
09-30-2015, 02:06 AM
Every Pakistani President or PM until Benezir Bhutto was born before there was a Pakistan.

JustinC
09-30-2015, 05:54 AM
Brezhnev was born in Kamenskoye (now Dniprodzerzhynsk in Ukraine), his ethnicity was specified as Ukrainian in some documents and Russian in others.

Augustus Henry Fitzroy, 3rd Duke of Grafton and the tenth British Prime Minister was born, but nobody knows where.

George II was born at Schloss Herrenhausen, Hanover, Germany, William III was born in The Hague, Netherlands, and many British Monarchs were born in France (https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zrRJwnXeepqg.kEwLy5BPQUjE&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=m&ll=50.958427%2C0.922852&spn=9.694083%2C28.125&z=5&source=embed).

Alessan
09-30-2015, 06:10 AM
The earliest Prime Ministers of Israel, including the first of them, David Ben-Gurion, were born before Israel even existed. The same could be said for the first several American presidents (although, of course, they were born in the colonies that became the United States).

Any time a new country is created, its first top-dog leader, and probably the first several, will necessarily be born before that county existed.

Israel is a special case. Benjamin Netanyahu is the only Israeli Prime Minister to be born in Israel; four previous Prime Ministers (Rabin, Sharon, Barak and Olmert) were born in the country that would be Israel in the future; while all other Prime Ministers (including every one prior to 1975) were born in various European countries.

PatrickLondon
09-30-2015, 07:31 AM
George II was born at Schloss Herrenhausen, Hanover, Germany, William III was born in The Hague, Netherlands, and many British Monarchs were born in France (https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zrRJwnXeepqg.kEwLy5BPQUjE&msa=0&ie=UTF8&t=m&ll=50.958427%2C0.922852&spn=9.694083%2C28.125&z=5&source=embed).

Many English monarchs between the Norman Conquest and the Tudors were born in France, because the Norman and Planatagenet lands included parts of what is now France. I don't think many, if any, Scottish monarchs were born outside Scotland.

George II was the last British monarch not born in Britain. Numbers of politicians born outside the UK have made it into Parliament, but the only one who became Prime Minister was Andrew Bonar Law, who was born in Canada (there were some eighteenth century ministers born in Ireland, but that was part of the UK then - and citizens of Commonwealth countries are entitled to vote and stand for election in the UK if they live here; the New Zealander Bryan Gould was at one time a contender for the Labour Party leadership).

AK84
09-30-2015, 07:35 AM
Israel is a special case. Benjamin Netanyahu is the only Israeli Prime Minister to be born in Israel; four previous Prime Ministers (Rabin, Sharon, Barak and Olmert) were born in the country that would be Israel in the future; while all other Prime Ministers (including every one prior to 1975) were born in various European countries.

Surprising. The first generation born after '48 must be in their late 60's by now, so one would have expected more than just Bibi.

OneCentStamp
09-30-2015, 07:39 AM
When I lived in Ecuador in the early 90s, the president, Sixto Durán, was a man who had been born in Boston.

Alessan
09-30-2015, 08:03 AM
Surprising. The first generation born after '48 must be in their late 60's by now, so one would have expected more than just Bibi.

Bibi's been in office for a long time, and he just came in under the wire - born in 1949.

Besides, of the past four PMs, two were roughly his age (Olmert - 1945, Barak - 1942). Ariel Sharon was the outlier, having been born in 1928 and was largely considered a has-been when he was elected in 2001. Remember, he was seen as a "caretaker" Likud leader at the time, and his election came as a surprise to everyone.

robert_columbia
09-30-2015, 08:25 AM
King Bhumibol of Thailand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhumibol_Adulyadej) was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Malden Capell
09-30-2015, 09:09 AM
The 1st Duke of Wellington was born in Ireland in 1769, when it was a separate, although British-dominated, country.

Andrew Bonar-Law, as mentioned, was born in New Brunswick.

zimaane
09-30-2015, 10:06 AM
Soviet records indicate that Kim Jong-Il, the second leader of North Korea, was born in Russia.

However, his official biography claims he was born in Korea - on a sacred mountain, no less.

John Mace
09-30-2015, 10:12 AM
You know who else was not born in the nation they led? :D

mentioned int he OP, I know, but I had to get that in...

As for the US, it would have been possible for a foreign born person to be president in the early days of the republic, but not now.

Really Not All That Bright
09-30-2015, 10:17 AM
The 1st Duke of Wellington was born in Ireland in 1769, when it was a separate, although British-dominated, country.
What country was he the leader of? :confused:

Hari Seldon
09-30-2015, 10:36 AM
James VI of Scotland, Ist of Britain was born in Scotland before the Act of Union.

AK84
09-30-2015, 10:50 AM
What country was he the leader of? :confused:

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Jeff Lichtman
09-30-2015, 10:55 AM
As for the US, it would have been possible for a foreign born person to be president in the early days of the republic, but not now.

This isn't true. The Constitution requires that a president be a natural-born citizen, which means a citizen by birth (not naturalized). It doesn't require that a president actually be born in the U.S. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone to American parents, so he's an American citizen by birth who is eligible to be president (and could have become president in the 2008 election). Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother, so he's a natural-born citizen who is eligible to become president (despite what some people like Donald Trump have said).

Jeff Lichtman
09-30-2015, 11:04 AM
Brezhnev was born in Kamenskoye (now Dniprodzerzhynsk in Ukraine), his ethnicity was specified as Ukrainian in some documents and Russian in others.


I don't see how this counts. Brezhnev was head of the Soviet Union, of which Ukraine was a part. Also, I believe most of Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire when Brezhnev was born in 1906.

bordelond
09-30-2015, 11:34 AM
Any time a new country is created, its first top-dog leader, and probably the first several, will necessarily be born before that county existed.

This is where Kemal Atatürk would fit in, right? Born in the Ottoman Empire in what is now Thessaloniki, Greece. Atatürk later became the first president of Turkey.

Really Not All That Bright
09-30-2015, 11:43 AM
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Huh. I was thinking of the 1st Duke of Marlborough. :smack:

Flyer
09-30-2015, 11:48 AM
Chiang Kai-shek, president of Taiwan, was born in Xikou, mainland China.

This one is incorrect. Regardless of what one may think of the Chinese Communist Party, Taiwan is a province of China.

Colibri
09-30-2015, 11:52 AM
This one is incorrect. Regardless of what one may think of the Chinese Communist Party, Taiwan is a province of China.

And the Nationalists never claimed any differently. They claimed to be the legitimate government of all of China, both Taiwan and the mainland, just as the Communists did.

Really Not All That Bright
09-30-2015, 11:53 AM
Regardless of what one may think of the Chinese Communist Party, Taiwan is a province of China.
Not to the Taiwanese, or the 22 states that recognize Taiwan's independence from the "occupied" mainland.

slash2k
09-30-2015, 11:53 AM
Hans-Adam II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Adam_II,_Prince_of_Liechtenstein), the current Prince of Liechtenstein, was born in Switzerland, as was his immediate heir the Hereditary Prince Alois, while Alois's son Joseph Wenzel was born in London. (Actually, I'm not sure ANY of the Liechtensteiner princes have ever been born in the principality.)

Juan Carlos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Carlos_I_of_Spain), until recently King of Spain, was born in Rome, Italy, in 1938, during the Spanish royal family's exile.

Horatio Hellpop
09-30-2015, 11:55 AM
You know who else was not born in the nation they led? :D

mentioned int he OP, I know, but I had to get that in...

As for the US, it would have been possible for a foreign born person to be president in the early days of the republic, but not now.

Their wording was delightfully imprecise, but I think the intent was to keep carpetbaggers from England out of the process, and it had the (unintended?) consequence of keeping Alexander Hamilton (born in Nevis, British West Indies) out of the running.

Chronos
09-30-2015, 11:57 AM
According to China, maybe. Taiwan itself disagrees.

Acsenray
09-30-2015, 12:01 PM
I think the title of of this thread should be "World Leaders NOT Born in the Country They Led ..." Or "Nation-State." "Nation" really makes it a different question.

slash2k
09-30-2015, 12:05 PM
Their wording was delightfully imprecise, but I think the intent was to keep carpetbaggers from England out of the process, and it had the (unintended?) consequence of keeping Alexander Hamilton (born in Nevis, British West Indies) out of the running.

Alexander Hamilton was "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution."

Colibri
09-30-2015, 12:27 PM
Not to the Taiwanese, or the 22 states that recognize Taiwan's independence from the "occupied" mainland.

Not sure what you are talking about, since the current government has renounced the idea of declaring independence and has said that mainland China is still part of the Republic of China. At any rate, any consideration that the Republic of China was not the legitimate government of all of China happened well after the death of Chaing Kai-shek (who we are discussing here) in 1975.

JustinC
09-30-2015, 12:31 PM
I don't see how this counts. Brezhnev was head of the Soviet Union, of which Ukraine was a part. Also, I believe most of Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire when Brezhnev was born in 1906.

Yes, it's very tenuous. Brezhnev was born before the USSR, but his parents were from Russia and there isn't much difference between the peoples/history of Russia and Ukraine. Apparently he didn't get a passport until 1930 so I expect he'd never needed one.

Horatio Hellpop
09-30-2015, 04:26 PM
This one is incorrect. Regardless of what one may think of the Chinese Communist Party, Taiwan is a province of China.

It's one thing to claim sovereignity over a separate land mass. It's another thing to issue marching orders for it and have those orders obeyed. The situation between Beijing and Taipei is kind of complicated, but Taiwan prints its own money, conducts its own foreign policy, has its own military, and quarters no soldiers from the mainland. They hold elections on their schedule, not Beijing's, and the Chinese Communist Party doesn't have a say in its outcome.

It trades ambassadors with the US. If I want to work in mainland China, I have to go to a consulate in San Francisco, but if I want to work in Taiwan, they have a consulate right here in Seattle to process my visa. I have a little bit of first-hand knowledge about this.

Nema98
09-30-2015, 05:41 PM
Ted Cruz hopes to join the list.

We may have already had a Canadian born President way back in the day, Chester Arthur.

But historians are split over it and there is no absolute proof whether he was born in Canada or Vermont, USA.
Here is one article:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-original-birther-controversy/

Nema98
09-30-2015, 05:43 PM
Jomo Kenyatta, Idi Amin (both born in British East Africa, led Kenya and Uganda respectively) and Robert Mugabe (born in Rhodesia, leads Zimbabwe) all meet the letter of this.

Emperor Baldwin of Constantinople was, IIRC, born in Flanders. Emperor Baldwin of Jerusalem was born in Lorraine.

Simon Bolivar, born in Caracas Venezuela, presided over Venezuela, Gran Colombia, and Ecuador, the last of which qualifies him for this.

Catherine the Great of Russia was born in Germany (Prussia).

Chiang Kai-shek, president of Taiwan, was born in Xikou, mainland China.

But Rhodesia to Zimbabwe was just a name change, still same country. Would that not fit with the premise of the OP, set nine years until I revived this zombie?
I may be wrong, but a country changing names would not count.

bryanmaguire
09-30-2015, 05:54 PM
Jomo Kenyatta, Idi Amin (both born in British East Africa, led Kenya and Uganda respectively) and Robert Mugabe (born in Rhodesia, leads Zimbabwe) all meet the letter of this.

Emperor Baldwin of Constantinople was, IIRC, born in Flanders. Emperor Baldwin of Jerusalem was born in Lorraine.

Simon Bolivar, born in Caracas Venezuela, presided over Venezuela, Gran Colombia, and Ecuador, the last of which qualifies him for this.

Catherine the Great of Russia was born in Germany (Prussia).

Chiang Kai-shek, president of Taiwan, was born in Xikou, mainland China.

Given that Mugabe was born in Southern Rhodesia (Northern Rhodesia is now know as the Zambia) and Southern Rhodesia is the same piece of land as Zimbabwe does he really fit the thread? Are Southern Rhodesia and Zimbabwe not the same country except with independence and a name change?

Edited to add: I swear that Nema98s post wasnt there when i started writing my post.

Flyer
09-30-2015, 06:08 PM
It's one thing to claim sovereignity over a separate land mass. It's another thing to issue marching orders for it and have those orders obeyed. The situation between Beijing and Taipei is kind of complicated, but Taiwan prints its own money, conducts its own foreign policy, has its own military, and quarters no soldiers from the mainland. They hold elections on their schedule, not Beijing's, and the Chinese Communist Party doesn't have a say in its outcome.

It trades ambassadors with the US. If I want to work in mainland China, I have to go to a consulate in San Francisco, but if I want to work in Taiwan, they have a consulate right here in Seattle to process my visa. I have a little bit of first-hand knowledge about this.

I worded my response the way I did in order to avoid going down a side issue, but it didn't work.

What you are saying is absolutely true. It's also completely irrelevant. The reason why you were wrong about Kai-shek is because the government that he lead is the ONLY legitimate government of ALL of China. The Chinese Communists are nothing more than mostly-successful rebels against that government. It doesn't matter how many nations recognize the mainland government--it still remains illegitimate.

thelurkinghorror
09-30-2015, 07:32 PM
Soviet records indicate that Kim Jong-Il, the second leader of North Korea, was born in Russia.

However, his official biography claims he was born in Korea - on a sacred mountain, no less.
Nonsense, do not libel him. He was born on flat land in Korea, and a mountain subsequently appeared to raise up his greatness.

clairobscur
10-01-2015, 04:54 AM
Napoleon was born in Corsica. The island is French territory - whether this means he was born in France is a semantic question, I guess.

Corsica was sold to France one year before Bonaparte's birth. So he was born a French subject.

Horatio Hellpop
10-01-2015, 09:57 AM
I worded my response the way I did in order to avoid going down a side issue, but it didn't work.

What you are saying is absolutely true. It's also completely irrelevant. The reason why you were wrong about Kai-shek is because the government that he lead is the ONLY legitimate government of ALL of China. The Chinese Communists are nothing more than mostly-successful rebels against that government. It doesn't matter how many nations recognize the mainland government--it still remains illegitimate.

We may lack a common referent to discuss this meaningfully.

phaemon
10-01-2015, 12:55 PM
I don't think many, if any, Scottish monarchs were born outside Scotland.
Queen Margaret, Maid of Norway, was not born in Scotland. :)

DrDeth
10-01-2015, 01:49 PM
This one is incorrect. Regardless of what one may think of the Chinese Communist Party, Taiwan is a province of China.

Not since 1949.

sbunny8
10-01-2015, 02:49 PM
The Constitution requires that a president be a natural-born citizen, which means a citizen by birth (not naturalized).

The constitution doesn't define what "natural-born citizen" means. You think you know what it means and I think I know what it means but there's no specific definition given.

John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone to American parents, so he's an American citizen by birth who is eligible to be president (and could have become president in the 2008 election).

John McCain is a US citizen whose citizenship is based on the circumstances of his birth, but on the day he was born he was not a US citizen. Citizenship for babies like him was granted (retroactively) two years later. IMHO, this could fall outside the definition of "natural-born citizen". It's enough of a controversy that Congress felt it necessary to issue a declaration stating that John McCain is eligible to be President.

Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother, so he's a natural-born citizen who is eligible to become president (despite what some people like Donald Trump have said).

Ted Cruz was a US citizen on the day he was born, which is one way of interpreting "natural-born citizen". But another way to interpret it is that anyone who chooses, as an adult, to become an American, is not a "natural-born citizen". Therefore, a child who grows up with dual citizenship, Canadian and American, and then as an adult gets to choose which of these two citizenships to keep and which one to discard, would not be eligible to be POTUS. Does Ted Cruz fall into that category?

MikeS
10-01-2015, 09:02 PM
Ted Cruz was a US citizen on the day he was born, which is one way of interpreting "natural-born citizen". But another way to interpret it is that anyone who chooses, as an adult, to become an American, is not a "natural-born citizen". Therefore, a child who grows up with dual citizenship, Canadian and American, and then as an adult gets to choose which of these two citizenships to keep and which one to discard, would not be eligible to be POTUS. Does Ted Cruz fall into that category?You don't have to choose between the two citizenships upon adulthood; some countries have such laws, but neither the US nor Canada does. Sen. Cruz only renounced his Canadian citizenship for political reasons, saying "As a U.S. senator, I believe I should be only an American." (http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/06/no-canada-sen-ted-cruz-has-formally-shed-his-dual-citizenship.html/) So no, Senator Cruz would not fall into that category, in the sense that he didn't have to choose between his citizenships; and he didn't certainly choose to become an American citizen, he was born that way.

sbunny8
10-01-2015, 09:27 PM
You don't have to choose between the two citizenships upon adulthood; some countries have such laws, but neither the US nor Canada does.

That's true now, but it wasn't true at the time Ted Cruz was born. At that time, US law did not permit US citizens to have dual citizenship with another country.

Sen. Cruz only renounced his Canadian citizenship for political reasons, saying "As a U.S. senator, I believe I should be only an American." (http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/06/no-canada-sen-ted-cruz-has-formally-shed-his-dual-citizenship.html/) So no, Senator Cruz would not fall into that category, in the sense that he didn't have to choose between his citizenships; and he didn't certainly choose to become an American citizen, he was born that way.

I didn't say "have to choose". I said "gets to choose". Cruz had the choice to be Canadian or to be American or to do nothing and retain dual citizenship, and he CHOSE to be an American.

For the record, I'm not claiming that Ted Cruz is ineligible to be POTUS. I'm just pointing out that the situation isn't black and white. There's a lot of grey. There's more than one way to define "natural-born citizen" and the US constitution does not explain what the authors meant.

UDS
10-01-2015, 09:39 PM
I didn't say "have to choose". I said "gets to choose". Cruz had the choice to be Canadian or to be American or to do nothing and retain dual citizenship, and he CHOSE to be an American.
He didn't choose to be an American; he was an American all along. He chose to cease to be a Canadian citizen.

slash2k
10-01-2015, 11:07 PM
That's true now, but it wasn't true at the time Ted Cruz was born. At that time, US law did not permit US citizens to have dual citizenship with another country.

The US didn't have a law that forbade US citizens from having dual citizenship, and for all practical purposes this would have been unenforceable law anyway, because the U.S. can't control the operation of other countries' laws.

For example, until the 1870s it was not possible under British law to renounce British citizenship. If a person was born a subject of the British crown and had no way to get rid of this "extra" citizenship (a renunciation in an American court was null and void as far as the Brits were concerned, which was a factor in the War of 1812), how could the U.S. hold it against them? Argentina, to name another, forbade renunciation of citizenship at least into the 1980s, and may still have that law.

The U.S. did not *recognize* dual citizenship for most of its history, and there were a series of treaties (the Bancroft treaties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bancroft_Treaties)) and statutes providing for the conditions under which somebody could lose U.S. citizenship, but most of these were swept away by the Supreme Court's decision in Afroyim v. Rusk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk), decided in 1967. (Cruz was born in 1970.) However, failure to recognize is not the same as not permitting.

sbunny8
10-01-2015, 11:40 PM
The US didn't have a law that forbade US citizens from having dual citizenship, and for all practical purposes this would have been unenforceable law anyway, because the U.S. can't control the operation of other countries' laws.

For example, until the 1870s it was not possible under British law to renounce British citizenship. If a person was born a subject of the British crown and had no way to get rid of this "extra" citizenship (a renunciation in an American court was null and void as far as the Brits were concerned, which was a factor in the War of 1812), how could the U.S. hold it against them? Argentina, to name another, forbade renunciation of citizenship at least into the 1980s, and may still have that law.

The U.S. did not *recognize* dual citizenship for most of its history, and there were a series of treaties (the Bancroft treaties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bancroft_Treaties)) and statutes providing for the conditions under which somebody could lose U.S. citizenship, but most of these were swept away by the Supreme Court's decision in Afroyim v. Rusk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk), decided in 1967. (Cruz was born in 1970.) However, failure to recognize is not the same as not permitting.

Hmm. I could have sworn that the latest change in the US's dual-citizenship policy was in 2005. Perhaps I was remembering something else. I distinctly remember talking to someone in 1996 who told me he was hoping to have dual citizenship in the US and... I wanna say it was Switzerland? Perhaps the problem lay not in the mere fact that he want to be both Swiss and American at the same time but in the fact that US law forbade serving in the military of another country and Swiss law required military service of all citizens. It looks like I got those two issues mixed up.

TallTrees
10-02-2015, 12:39 AM
I believe this discussion has a couple of underlying false assumptions, perhaps a result of some of you trying to look at the rest of the world as if it were like the US:

- The US is one of very few countries where place of birth has anything to do with citizenship. For most countries, a child's citizenship depends on the parents' citizenship and place of birth is usually irrelevant. Being born outside of a country of citizenship is therefore not of any significance for most other countries.

- The US is also one of very few countries where there's a place of birth requirement to be a political leader. Elsewhere, it's mostly just a citizenship requirement, and citizenship can change.

In an increasingly mobile world, there's really nothing too unusual about circumstances that meet the question asked

Colibri
10-02-2015, 12:45 AM
John McCain is a US citizen whose citizenship is based on the circumstances of his birth, but on the day he was born he was not a US citizen. Citizenship for babies like him was granted (retroactively) two years later. IMHO, this could fall outside the definition of "natural-born citizen". It's enough of a controversy that Congress felt it necessary to issue a declaration stating that John McCain is eligible to be President.

McCain is, however, also a citizen of Panama, which regards anyone born in the Canal Zone as having been born within Panama's national territory.

TokyoBayer
10-02-2015, 01:15 AM
It trades ambassadors with the US. If I want to work in mainland China, I have to go to a consulate in San Francisco, but if I want to work in Taiwan, they have a consulate right here in Seattle to process my visa. I have a little bit of first-hand knowledge about this.You are right that the situation is complicated but this part is not correct. As the US does not recognize Taiwan as an official country on paper the countries do not trade ambassadors or have official embassies or consulates. Instead the have such things as the American Institute in Tawan, where I go to have my own and my children's passports renewed.

It's all part of the legal fiction that there is only one China which no one but a few hard core diehards in Beijing believe.

The point you were responding to was absolutely incorrect. Taiwan is in no way part of China.

UDS
10-02-2015, 01:43 AM
Taiwan is in no way part of China.
Well, in the context of this thread, it's more complicated than that.

When Chiang Kai-Shek rose to power in the Republic of China, the territory of the Republic, both legally and de facto, included the place where he was born.

Subsequently, a rival polity, the PRC, acquired power in most of China, including the place where Chiang was born. What we then had was a country with two rival governments, each controlling a different part of the national territory.

The OP asks about leaders "not born in the nation they lead". Whatever the formal positions of the leadership on both sides, the Chinese situation fairly soon developed into a case of two states, each claiming to be the political embodiment of the Chinese nation, and each claiming jurisdiction over the territory of the other - claims which they still both formally maintain, SFAIK. But, if a nation is defined ethnically, culturally, linguistically, etc there was and still is only one Chinese nation. The questions is not whether Chiang was born outside the Chinese nation - he certainly was not - but whether he was the leader of that nation. He claimed to be, but in reality, after 1949, he had been largely displaced from that position. His claim to leadership remained effective only in Taiwan, and he was not born in Taiwan. But to his dying day he regarded himself not as the leader of Taiwan, but as the leader of China.

TokyoBayer
10-02-2015, 03:48 AM
Well, in the context of this thread, it's more complicated than that.

When Chiang Kai-Shek rose to power in the Republic of China, the territory of the Republic, both legally and de facto, included the place where he was born.

Subsequently, a rival polity, the PRC, acquired power in most of China, including the place where Chiang was born. What we then had was a country with two rival governments, each controlling a different part of the national territory.

The OP asks about leaders "not born in the nation they lead". Whatever the formal positions of the leadership on both sides, the Chinese situation fairly soon developed into a case of two states, each claiming to be the political embodiment of the Chinese nation, and each claiming jurisdiction over the territory of the other - claims which they still both formally maintain, SFAIK. But, if a nation is defined ethnically, culturally, linguistically, etc there was and still is only one Chinese nation. The questions is not whether Chiang was born outside the Chinese nation - he certainly was not - but whether he was the leader of that nation. He claimed to be, but in reality, after 1949, he had been largely displaced from that position. His claim to leadership remained effective only in Taiwan, and he was not born in Taiwan. But to his dying day he regarded himself not as the leader of Taiwan, but as the leader of China.Of course, but I wasn't responding to that. I was addressing two points. First, that Horatio Hellpop was mistaken that the US and Taiwan traded ambassadors and had consulates in each other's countries and then to agree that currently there is no way that Taiwan can be considered a part of China now.

UDS
10-02-2015, 04:19 AM
Of course, but I wasn't responding to that. I was addressing two points. First, that Horatio Hellpop was mistaken that the US and Taiwan traded ambassadors and had consulates in each other's countries and then to agree that currently there is no way that Taiwan can be considered a part of China now.
Taiwan is not part of the PRC, obviously, despite the PRC's formal claims. But is it part of the geographic, cultural, ethnic, historical entity that we know as China? Yes. Are Taiwanese citizens of the RoC part of the Chinese nation? Yes. And the OP asks about people born in the nation that they lead. Chian was certainly born in the Chinese nation, which is the only nation that he ever led, albeit that he didn't really lead it in any substantial way after 1949.

UDS
10-02-2015, 04:21 AM
Of course, but I wasn't responding to that. I was addressing two points. First, that Horatio Hellpop was mistaken that the US and Taiwan traded ambassadors and had consulates in each other's countries and then to agree that currently there is no way that Taiwan can be considered a part of China now.
Taiwan is not part of the PRC, obviously, despite the PRC's formal claims. But is it part of the geographic, cultural, ethnic, historical entity that we know as China? Yes. Are Taiwanese citizens of the RoC part of the Chinese nation? Yes. And the OP asks about people born in the nation that they lead. Chiang was certainly born in the Chinese nation, which is the only nation that he ever led, albeit that he didn't really lead it in any substantial way after 1949.

DrDeth
10-02-2015, 01:32 PM
- The US is one of very few countries where place of birth has anything to do with citizenship. For most countries, a child's citizenship depends on the parents' citizenship and place of birth is usually irrelevant. Being born outside of a country of citizenship is therefore not of any significance for most other countries.

One of "few" perhaps but not "very few". Canada has jus soli too.. The United States is joined by Brazil, Argentina and Mexico, along with nearly every country in Central and South America

In other words, in general- the New World has jus soli and the Old World doesn't.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/23/se-cupp/se-cupp-only-about-30-other-countries-offer-birthr/

But even in the Old World they have a form of it:" Many European countries still maintain a version of birthright citizenship, however. In Germany and the United Kingdom, citizenship is now automatically granted to a person if at least one of his or her parents is a citizen or permanent resident."

Horatio Hellpop
10-02-2015, 04:16 PM
Of course, but I wasn't responding to that. I was addressing two points. First, that Horatio Hellpop was mistaken that the US and Taiwan traded ambassadors and had consulates in each other's countries and then to agree that currently there is no way that Taiwan can be considered a part of China now.

Embassy, The Republic of China on Taiwan
4201 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20016
Phone: (202) 895-1800
Email: tecroinfodc@tecro.us
URL: http://www.roc-taiwan.org/us/mp.asp?mp=12

Representative Office of United States in Taipei
7, Lane 134, Shinyi Rd., Sec. 3
Taipei 106
Taiwan
Phone+886-2-2709-2000
Fax+886-2-2162-2251
+886-2-2701-4854
Website URL: www.ait.org.tw

Embassy, The Embassy of the People's Republic of China
3505 International Place, NW, Washington DC 20008
Phone: (202) 495-2266
Fax: (202) 495-2138
Email: chinaembpress_us@mfa.gov.cn
URL: http://www.china-embassy.org/

United States Embassy of Beijing, China
No. 55 An Jia Lou Lu 100600
Tel: (86-10) 8531-3000

Taiwan consulates in the US (http://www.passportsandvisas.com/embassyconsulate/taiwanembassy.asp)

Maybe we should create a new thread about Taiwan and PRC, lest this discussion eat the thread it found itself in?

Siam Sam
10-03-2015, 02:47 AM
King Bhumibol of Thailand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhumibol_Adulyadej) was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

In addition to him, recent prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva was born in England. In fact, there was a small Obama-esque controversy while he was in office, with his critics trying to argue (unsuccessfully) that no one born outside Thailand could "really" be Thai and thus was ineligible for office. (Said critics conveniently forgot the king's birthplace.)

TokyoBayer
10-03-2015, 08:58 AM
We are all in agreement that Chiang Kai-shek is not an example of a leader born in a foreign country. He was born in China, in the Qing Dynasty and became the leader of the Republic of China, which was forced to retreat to the island of Taiwan, which was then only one province when the PRC won the civil war. Taiwan and a few islands are all that are left.

However, the point of
Taiwan is not part of the PRC, obviously, despite the PRC's formal claims. But is it part of the geographic, cultural, ethnic, historical entity that we know as China? Yes. Are Taiwanese citizens of the RoC part of the Chinese nation? Yes. And the OP asks about people born in the nation that they lead. Chian was certainly born in the Chinese nation, which is the only nation that he ever led, albeit that he didn't really lead it in any substantial way after 1949.The Taiwanese disagree with bolded part, which is beyond the scope of this thread and belongs in GD.

Embassy, The Republic of China on Taiwan
4201 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20016
Phone: (202) 895-1800
Email: tecroinfodc@tecro.us
URL: http://www.roc-taiwan.org/us/mp.asp?mp=12

Representative Office of United States in Taipei
7, Lane 134, Shinyi Rd., Sec. 3
Taipei 106
Taiwan
Phone+886-2-2709-2000
Fax+886-2-2162-2251
+886-2-2701-4854
Website URL: www.ait.org.tw

Embassy, The Embassy of the People's Republic of China
3505 International Place, NW, Washington DC 20008
Phone: (202) 495-2266
Fax: (202) 495-2138
Email: chinaembpress_us@mfa.gov.cn
URL: http://www.china-embassy.org/

United States Embassy of Beijing, China
No. 55 An Jia Lou Lu 100600
Tel: (86-10) 8531-3000

Taiwan consulates in the US (http://www.passportsandvisas.com/embassyconsulate/taiwanembassy.asp)

Maybe we should create a new thread about Taiwan and PRC, lest this discussion eat the thread it found itself in?Did you read your links? The US and Taiwan do not have official diplomatic relationships, hence they are forced to use different names for the institutes which are normally called embassies and consuls. The US has the American Institute in Taiwan (look at your own link) which functions as an embassy and provides consulate services such is issuing visas to Taiwanese nationals and US citizen services including issuing and renewing passports, something which I have done several times for me and my children.

Click on you link under the section you have labeled the "Embassy, The Republic of China on Taiwan" and see it says no such thing. It is called the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Service in the U.S.

One of my friends is a Taiwanese diplomat stationed in New York in one of their centers. It would be called a consulate if the two countries had diplomatic relations, but we don't.

Both countries need to provide consular services, which they do, but because of the lack of official status, they are required to do things such as use different names for the institutes located in each others' countries.

This is all that I have been saying since my original post which corrected some wrong information.

As you say, it's a hijack and if anyone really needs to continue this, it should be in a different thread. The point about consulates and embassies can be in GQ as there is a definitive answer and any argument if they are the name "country" would be in GD.

TokyoBayer
10-03-2015, 09:07 AM
There were charges made that Alberto Fujimori (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Fujimori#Birthplace) former president of Chile was born in Japan and not Chile, which would have made him ineligible for the office, and their version of the Birthers claimed his birth certificate had been forged. The rumors died out, although he was convicted of human rights violations and corruption and sentenced to prison.

Horatio Hellpop
10-03-2015, 10:02 AM
As you say, it's a hijack and if anyone really needs to continue this, it should be in a different thread. The point about consulates and embassies can be in GQ as there is a definitive answer and any argument if they are the name "country" would be in GD.

I started one in GD last night. It's called "One China or two?"

alphaboi867
10-03-2015, 03:34 PM
...Stalin was born in what is now Georgia though.

Joseph Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union as a whole, not just Russia and Georgia was part of the USSR (it was also part of the Russian Empire). Granted we was born before the Soviet Union existed, but so were all Soviet leaders until Gorbachev. No Soviet leader was born outside of territory that would become part of the USSR.

Queen Margaret, Maid of Norway, was not born in Scotland. :)

Nor did she ever set foot in Scotland, having died on her way there.

Mahaloth
10-03-2015, 06:36 PM
This isn't true. The Constitution requires that a president be a natural-born citizen, which means a citizen by birth (not naturalized). It doesn't require that a president actually be born in the U.S. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone to American parents, so he's an American citizen by birth who is eligible to be president (and could have become president in the 2008 election). Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother, so he's a natural-born citizen who is eligible to become president (despite what some people like Donald Trump have said).

And yet, both my children are excluded. We adopted them from Korea and brought them home very early and they know nothing of Korea or Korean. Both my wife and I are citizens born in the US. Odd.

Some Call Me... Tim
10-03-2015, 09:04 PM
As for the US, it would have been possible for a foreign born person to be president in the early days of the republic, but not now.

Again, this is incorrect. Anyone who has US Citizenship from birth is eligible, regardless of the location of said birth. John McCain(Panama), for example, was eligible. Even if certain conspiracy theorists were correct about the location of Barack Obama's birth being somewhere other than Hawaii, he would nevertheless be eligible. Ted Cruz(Canada) is eligible.

Strangely, whether or not certain people understand the eligibility rules seems to vary depending on who they're discussing. Why hasn't Donald Trump discussed Ted Cruz' Canadian birth?

Jeff Lichtman
10-03-2015, 09:40 PM
Why hasn't Donald Trump discussed Ted Cruz' Canadian birth?

He has. At first Trump said that Cruz being born in Canada could disqualify him for the presidency. Last month Trump said that lawyers had advised him that Cruz is eligible. So Trump hasn't ignored the question - he's just been inconsistent about it.

Some Call Me... Tim
10-03-2015, 10:05 PM
He has. At first Trump said that Cruz being born in Canada could disqualify him for the presidency. Last month Trump said that lawyers had advised him that Cruz is eligible. So Trump hasn't ignored the question - he's just been inconsistent about it.

Fair enough as far as it goes, and while I'm tempted to follow up I'm offtopic and this is GQ so I'll leave it there.

Siam Sam
10-04-2015, 08:03 PM
As for the US, it would have been possible for a foreign born person to be president in the early days of the republic, but not now.

Again, this is incorrect. Anyone who has US Citizenship from birth is eligible, regardless of the location of said birth. John McCain(Panama), for example, was eligible.

Of course, the first seven Presidents were not born American. (They were, however, all born in territory that would eventually become the US.)

robert_columbia
10-04-2015, 09:46 PM
...The OP asks about leaders "not born in the nation they lead". Whatever the formal positions of the leadership on both sides, the Chinese situation fairly soon developed into a case of two states, each claiming to be the political embodiment of the Chinese nation, and each claiming jurisdiction over the territory of the other - claims which they still both formally maintain, SFAIK. But, if a nation is defined ethnically, culturally, linguistically, etc there was and still is only one Chinese nation. The questions is not whether Chiang was born outside the Chinese nation - he certainly was not - but whether he was the leader of that nation....

Does every ethnic group or linguistic group have their own "nation", or do only some of them do? For example, do the Quebecois and Acadiens of Canada and the Cajuns of Louisiana all belong to an ethnic nation of "French North America"? That would mean that, for example, a French-speaking Montrealer could emigrate to the US, be naturalized as a US Citizen, be elected as Governor of Louisiana, and then claim to be a national leader of his chosen version of the nation of French North America. What about Celts? Do citizens of the Republic of Ireland and UK citizens of Northern Ireland who descend from ancient Celtic populations all belong to one modern Celtic nation that could theoretically have a leader? Are Welsh allowed into the Celtic Nation? There are enormous numbers of people of Celtic heritage in many places in the US, especially New England and Appalachia. Are they included in the Celtic Nation? Does the Governor of West Virginia count as a contender for the position of Leader of the Celtic Nation?

UDS
10-04-2015, 10:01 PM
Does every ethnic group or linguistic group have their own "nation", or do only some of them do? For example, do the Quebecois and Acadiens of Canada and the Cajuns of Louisiana all belong to an ethnic nation of "French North America"? That would mean that, for example, a French-speaking Montrealer could emigrate to the US, be naturalized as a US Citizen, be elected as Governor of Louisiana, and then claim to be a national leader of his chosen version of the nation of French North America. What about Celts? Do citizens of the Republic of Ireland and UK citizens of Northern Ireland who descend from ancient Celtic populations all belong to one modern Celtic nation that could theoretically have a leader? Are Welsh allowed into the Celtic Nation? There are enormous numbers of people of Celtic heritage in many places in the US, especially New England and Appalachia. Are they included in the Celtic Nation? Does the Governor of West Virginia count as a contender for the position of Leader of the Celtic Nation?
It's not quite as mechanical as you seem to think. The Quebecois and Acadiens of Canada and the Cajuns of Louisiana do not constitute a nation because they don't consider themselves to be a nation, which is the first requirement. Similarly, while there are several nations that could call themselves Celtic with some degree of plausibility, there is no all-embracing Celtic nation because, basically, Celts don't think there is. Considering yourselves to be a nation is a pretty essential condition of actually being one.

And it's not just about ethnicity. Americans, to take an obvious example, are from a diversity of ethnic backgrounds, but they share a common and distinctive culture, history and location, and I doubt you will meet anybody who denies that there is an American nation.

And not every nation necessarily has a "leader". Unless there is a state corresponding to the nation, or at the very least a popular national independence movement, there probably won't be a political leader for the nation. But for the purposes of the OP that doesn't matter. For a question about national leaders to have any meaning it's not necessary that every nation should have an identifiable leader; just that some do.

Rick Kitchen
10-04-2015, 10:31 PM
King Ernest Augustus I of Hanover was born in London, having been the son of King George III of the United Kingdom. His son, George V of Hanover, was born in Berlin, which was not a part of the Kingdom of Hanover.

UDS
10-04-2015, 11:04 PM
King Ernest Augustus I of Hanover was born in London, having been the son of King George III of the United Kingdom. His son, George V of Hanover, was born in Berlin, which was not a part of the Kingdom of Hanover.
Well, for that matter, George III was himself born in London, but reigned as Elector, and later King, of Hanover.

In fact, come to think of it, none of the Kings of Hanover - there were five, between 1814 and 1866 - was born in Hanover.

robert_columbia
10-04-2015, 11:04 PM
It's not quite as mechanical as you seem to think. The Quebecois and Acadiens of Canada and the Cajuns of Louisiana do not constitute a nation because they don't consider themselves to be a nation, which is the first requirement. Similarly, while there are several nations that could call themselves Celtic with some degree of plausibility, there is no all-embracing Celtic nation because, basically, Celts don't think there is. Considering yourselves to be a nation is a pretty essential condition of actually being one.

And it's not just about ethnicity. Americans, to take an obvious example, are from a diversity of ethnic backgrounds, but they share a common and distinctive culture, history and location, and I doubt you will meet anybody who denies that there is an American nation.

And not every nation necessarily has a "leader". Unless there is a state corresponding to the nation, or at the very least a popular national independence movement, there probably won't be a political leader for the nation. But for the purposes of the OP that doesn't matter. For a question about national leaders to have any meaning it's not necessary that every nation should have an identifiable leader; just that some do.

Those are good points. Thanks!

You are right that there is not a general idea of a single Celtic "nation", at least not one that would be considered in any way organized.

There are some ethnicities that have significant political movements that are calling for the formation of, and political organization of, new countries to serve and represent their respective national identities. Some examples of this include Kurds and Basques, whose members often self-identify as outsiders to the countries in which they hold citizenship and believe that they are actually citizens of their own not-yet-recognized nation-state. Celts (reasonably defined as people who have a significant (more than trivial) amount of Celtic ancestry, culture, and/or language and also self-identify as Celtic) do not generally do this. One can be Celtic and American, or Celtic and British, or Celtic and Australian.

UDS
10-04-2015, 11:26 PM
There are some ethnicities that have significant political movements that are calling for the formation of, and political organization of, new countries to serve and represent their respective national identities. Some examples of this include Kurds and Basques, whose members often self-identify as outsiders to the countries in which they hold citizenship and believe that they are actually citizens of their own not-yet-recognized nation-state. Celts (reasonably defined as people who have a significant (more than trivial) amount of Celtic ancestry, culture, and/or language and also self-identify as Celtic) do not generally do this. One can be Celtic and American, or Celtic and British, or Celtic and Australian.
The notion that a nation ought to govern itself through a sovereign state - political nationalism, in short - is a relatively recent one. Sure, there were nations states from way back - France, for example - but it's not until the nineteenth century that you have a political philosophy which sets this up as some kind of ideal, or political imperative. So I'm quite comfortable with the fact that there are nations that don't have their own sovereign state and, perhaps, don't necessarily want one. Scotland, for example, has just voted against independence, but undoubtedly regards itself (and is regarded by others) as a nation. I don't see any reason why the Kurds and the Basques can't be considered nations. The Germans, the Irish, etc were regularly spoken of as nations long before there was a unified German state or a separate Irish state.

Conversely, it's possible to be a sovereign state, but not a distinct nation. You might argue that there's a single Arab nation, for example, but a number of sovereign Arab states. Or you could say that about Korea. And, of course, you can say it about China, which is where we started.

Nava
10-05-2015, 02:35 PM
One of "few" perhaps but not "very few". Canada has jus soli too.. The United States is joined by Brazil, Argentina and Mexico, along with nearly every country in Central and South America

In other words, in general- the New World has jus soli and the Old World doesn't.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/23/se-cupp/se-cupp-only-about-30-other-countries-offer-birthr/

But even in the Old World they have a form of it:" Many European countries still maintain a version of birthright citizenship, however. In Germany and the United Kingdom, citizenship is now automatically granted to a person if at least one of his or her parents is a citizen or permanent resident."

Uhm... wouldn't having citizenship granted by virtue of a citizen parent be jus sanguinis? A permanent resident parent may not necessarily mean that the parent was residing in the country at the time of the child's birth, or that the child was born in the country either: it's a widening of the concept of jus sanguinis but it is not jus solis.



Pretty much any king regnant who was so by marriage to a crown princess will fall into the OP's conditions. Juan Carlos I of Spain was born in Rome because that's where his parents were exiled. King Amadeo I de Saboya was elected by Spanish parliament to replace Isabel II, but eventually he decided we were even nutter than his native Italians; his abdication started the 1st Republic.

hibernicus
10-06-2015, 04:44 PM
Pretty much any king regnant who was so by marriage to a crown princess will fall into the OP's conditions.

Has this ever happened? In the Scandinavian, British and Dutch monarchies, a man who marries a crown princess does not, on her accession to the throne, become a king; even if he were given the title of king consort, he would not be head of state.

Alessan
10-06-2015, 06:13 PM
Has this ever happened? In the Scandinavian, British and Dutch monarchies, a man who marries a crown princess does not, on her accession to the throne, become a king; even if he were given the title of king consort, he would not be head of state.

Well, there was William III, but that was a special case.

Northern Piper
10-06-2015, 06:37 PM
Phillip II of Spain was styled King of England when he married Queen Mary, by virtue of an Act of the English Parliament: Act for the Marriage of Queen Mary to Phillip of Spain.

However, unlike the case of William III, Phillip's title as King did not survive Mary's death.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_for_the_Marriage_of_Queen_Mary_to_Philip_of_Spain

alphaboi867
10-06-2015, 06:59 PM
Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley became king consort upon his marriage to Mary, Queen of Scots. Much to his displeasure his wife refused to grant him the Crown Matrimonial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Matrimonial); which would've allowed him to rule in his own right if he outlived her.

Queen Victoria wanted to make Prince Albert a king consort, but her government was opposed and she eventually created the title Prince Consort for him.

Annoying Buzz
10-08-2015, 12:00 AM
There were charges made that Alberto Fujimori (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Fujimori#Birthplace) former president of Chile was born in Japan and not Chile, which would have made him ineligible for the office, and their version of the Birthers claimed his birth certificate had been forged. The rumors died out, although he was convicted of human rights violations and corruption and sentenced to prison.

Nitpick: Peru, not Chile.

Colibri
10-08-2015, 12:14 AM
Well, there was William III, but that was a special case.

Yes, as a grandson of Charles I and nephew of James II William was also in the line of succession, although after his wife (and first cousin) Mary.

BigT
10-09-2015, 01:00 AM
Taiwan is not part of the PRC, obviously, despite the PRC's formal claims. But is it part of the geographic, cultural, ethnic, historical entity that we know as China? Yes. Are Taiwanese citizens of the RoC part of the Chinese nation? Yes. And the OP asks about people born in the nation that they lead. Chiang was certainly born in the Chinese nation, which is the only nation that he ever led, albeit that he didn't really lead it in any substantial way after 1949.

He clearly meant the political concept, or else it would be impossible for one to President of the United States, which is not a single nation (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwigj9-hzrTIAhVLGj4KHesCBvI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Factually-there-are-11-americas-map-2013-11&usg=AFQjCNEF2xw2Lbsv97JAE6qBgGh0Fm20Bw&sig2=q3vimo4DqBUj79JVNul6Dw).

And neither is China, BTW. They don't share a language--that's a communist fiction.

UDS
10-09-2015, 02:12 AM
He clearly meant the political concept, or else it would be impossible for one to President of the United States, which is not a single nation (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwigj9-hzrTIAhVLGj4KHesCBvI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Factually-there-are-11-americas-map-2013-11&usg=AFQjCNEF2xw2Lbsv97JAE6qBgGh0Fm20Bw&sig2=q3vimo4DqBUj79JVNul6Dw).
I think Americans consider themselves to be a nation, and I think they're quite right. The "rival regional cultures" that the article you link to don't look to me sufficiently integrated by culture, ethnicity, history, etc and sufficiently distinct from one another to be classed as nations. Which is not to say that they might not eventually become so, but I don't see it happening any time soon.

Yes, there are multinational states. But the US is not really one of them.

Having said all that, I accept that the OP probably meant "state" when he said "nation". But Chiang was born it (what was to become) the Republic of China, which is the state that he led. It's just that while he was leading it it lost a good deal of its territory, including the bit that he was born in.

And neither is China, BTW. They don't share a language--that's a communist fiction.
Meh. Language is just one of the factors that is a mark of nationality, and not necessarily an essential one. If there's a sufficient cultural and ethnic similarity by reference to other factors, you can have a nation which has more than one language (like Paraguay or Canada) or a nation which has a language which it shares with other nations (like the US). In any event, the Han Chinese are a nation, and they culturally dominated both Chinese states (the PRC and the RoC).

Nava
10-09-2015, 03:37 AM
Has this ever happened? In the Scandinavian, British and Dutch monarchies, a man who marries a crown princess does not, on her accession to the throne, become a king; even if he were given the title of king consort, he would not be head of state.

"The Spains" had several cases where the heir was a woman and her husband was made co-regnant, for example Juana de Evreux and husband in Navarre, Juana I and husband in Castille. Juana I of Castille's fights with her husband Philip I, the courts and her father Ferdinand of Aragon produced several epic moments such as that "the state, c'est moi" one when she entered a session of Parliament dressed in the flag.

Other cases involved an independent county and a kingdom becoming merged through marriage, where again the man was considered not consort but (co-)regnant and, as his wife's legal representative (there were locations where a woman pretty much had to become a widow or an abbess in order to be treated like she owned a brain), the person legally responsible for all decisions.

Alessan
10-09-2015, 07:32 AM
Yes, as a grandson of Charles I and nephew of James II William was also in the line of succession, although after his wife (and first cousin) Mary.

The fact that he landed in England at the head of an army didn't hurt, either.

jtur88
10-09-2015, 11:44 AM
Ireland's deValera and Israel's Meir both served simultaneously, both born in the USA. From 1969 to 1973, the leaders of three countries (with Nixon) were all US-born.

Colibri
10-09-2015, 11:53 AM
And neither is China, BTW. They don't share a language--that's a communist fiction.

Switzerland is clearly a nation, and it has four national languages.

jtur88
10-09-2015, 11:57 AM
Ireland's deValera and Israel's Meir both served simultaneously, both born in the USA. From 1969 to 1973, the leaders of three countries (with Nixon) were all US-born.




This happened again, from 1997 to 1999, with Lester Bird of Antigua and Janet Jagan of Guyana and Bill Clinton of the USA.

hibernicus
10-09-2015, 02:42 PM
Ireland's deValera and Israel's Meir both served simultaneously, both born in the USA. From 1969 to 1973, the leaders of three countries (with Nixon) were all US-born.

Interesting fact, but:
1) Golda Meir was not born in the USA
2) At the time that Meir was PM, de Valera was president - were they both "the leaders" of their respective countries?

hibernicus
10-09-2015, 03:02 PM
"The Spains" had several cases where the heir was a woman and her husband was made co-regnant, for example Juana de Evreux and husband in Navarre, Juana I and husband in Castille.

Thanks for the examples. As it happens, I spent two weeks in Navarre and Basse Navarre last month.

It's quite confusing because your first two examples are both Juana and Felipe, and both couples were king and queen of Navarre!

jtur88
10-09-2015, 10:16 PM
Interesting fact, but:
1) Golda Meir was not born in the USA
2) At the time that Meir was PM, de Valera was president - were they both "the leaders" of their respective countries?

You are right. I think earlier boigraphies of Meir stated that she was born in the USA, where she spent her childhood and had citizenship.

In Ireland (and many other countries, including Canada), there is a Head of State and a Head of Government, serving simultaneously with separate functions. Ireland has a President, and a Prime Minister. De Valera was President, which was the Head of State.

Michaelle Jean, who was Canada's Governor General (Head of State, but not of Government) from 2005 to 2010 was born in Haiti.

UDS
10-11-2015, 08:47 PM
In Ireland (and many other countries, including Canada), there is a Head of State and a Head of Government, serving simultaneously with separate functions. Ireland has a President, and a Prime Minister. De Valera was President, which was the Head of State.
De Valera was at various times head of government (President of the Executive Council, 1932-37; Taoiseach 1937-48, 1951-54, 1957-59) and head of state(President of Ireland, 1959-73). And, at a time when the existence of the state was disputed, he was both (President of the Irish Republic, 1921-22)

In any event, there is no law of God or nature that says that leadership is something that has to be exercised by one person to the exclusion of all others. You can have a collective leadership (the Swiss Federal Council, for example) or you can have various leadership functions allocated to different persons (almost any Westminister-style parliamentary democracy). I don't see any difficulty in regarding both the Head of State and the Head of Government as national leaders.

Northern Piper
10-12-2015, 07:35 AM
If we're counting GovGens, the majority of Canada's GovGens since Confederation have been foreign born: 19 out of 28.

Nava
10-14-2015, 06:21 AM
Thanks for the examples. As it happens, I spent two weeks in Navarre and Basse Navarre last month.

It's quite confusing because your first two examples are both Juana and Felipe, and both couples were king and queen of Navarre!

Not quite. Juana I of Castille inherited Navarre from her father, but at that point her husband was already dead and she in Tordesillas. Her son Carlos became her new tutor.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.