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
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.)
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
The Taiwanese disagree with bolded part, which is beyond the scope of this thread and belongs in GD.
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.
There were charges made that Alberto Fujimori 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.
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.
Nor did she ever set foot in Scotland, having died on her way there.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.