5 ms·

If he is taxed, he should renounce US citizenship as he's very unlike to move back to the US.

_dark_matter_ 1y ago
Very unlikely is an understatement. Francis never even visited his home country of Argentina after being elected as Pope.
- mFixman 1y ago
  Francis was seen as being too close to the Kirchnerists in ideology and too conflicted with the Kirchnerists in actions when he was Archbishop. Visiting Argentina would have forced him to take a side and trigger a political crisis he probably wanted to avoid. As far as I know there's no similar conflict with the new Pope, and he wasn't even in America for the most important part of his church career.
  - lormayna 1y ago
    Really? I always heard that Francis was the first enemy of Kirtcherners
    - mFixman 1y ago
      Francis was the most important supporter of liberation theology in Argentina, which was very ideologically aligned with the Kirchners. He was also strongly opposed to almost every politician who opposed the government. Bergoglio had several conflicts with the Kirchner government when he was an Archbishop. Cristina didn't tell the position the government would take when he got elected Pope, but the government-aligned (but not government-controlled) mass media associations preemptively filled Buenos Aires with anti-Bergoglio propaganda. A week later Cristina met the Pope and announced that they were politically aligned, and the same mass media associations filled Buenos Aires with pro-Bergoglio propaganda.
      - lormayna 1y ago
        > Francis was the most important supporter of liberation theology in Argentina Really? I am Italian, so I known Bergoglio only by name before he became Pope, but I always heard that he was not really a supporter of liberation theology. Anyway, during his papacy he showed that he was influenced in many aspectes by liberation theology and peronism approach.
codethief 1y ago
Notably, in that case he might end up no longer being able to enter the US at all: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Amendment_(immigration) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Amendment_(immigration)
- School-Cotton 1y ago
  Whether they let the pope enter the US will be entirely based on whether the administration wants the pope to visit the US, not on some obscure immigration law that, according to the article you yourself linked, is almost never enforced even on normal people.
- joecool1029 1y ago
  He's a sitting head of state now. Even if he violated US law, he's diplomatically immune. One case of it being brought up in the past: https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/87327.pdf https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/87327.pdf
  - jkaplowitz 1y ago
    It's not clear that he is diplomatically immune from US law if he retains his US citizenship. The source you linked was not a case of a US citizen pope. If the pope renounces his US citizenship for the purpose of having diplomatic immunity or treats his acceptance of the papacy as an expatriating act with intent to relinquish citizenship within the meaning of INA §349(a)(4), he would not be inadmissible under the Reed Amendment: that amendment only applies when the reason for renouncing is to avoid taxation, and might not apply to relinquishment under §349(a)(4) regardless of reason since it uses the verb renounce rather than relinquish. Why might the verb matter? The only parts of INA §349 that use the verb renounce are the ones about explicitly swearing or affirming an oath or affirmation of renunciation, not the other potentially expatriating acts. Relinquishment is the broader term in the statute which encompasses all such acts. And I say "might" only because this amendment has been so rarely enforced that the courts haven't had occasion to rule on it. Only two people have ever been denied admission to the US under the Reed Amendment. It was a very badly drafted legal provision.

Very unlikely is an understatement. Francis never even visited his home country of Argentina after being elected as Pope.

mFixman 1y ago
Francis was seen as being too close to the Kirchnerists in ideology and too conflicted with the Kirchnerists in actions when he was Archbishop. Visiting Argentina would have forced him to take a side and trigger a political crisis he probably wanted to avoid. As far as I know there's no similar conflict with the new Pope, and he wasn't even in America for the most important part of his church career.
- lormayna 1y ago
  Really? I always heard that Francis was the first enemy of Kirtcherners
  - mFixman 1y ago
    Francis was the most important supporter of liberation theology in Argentina, which was very ideologically aligned with the Kirchners. He was also strongly opposed to almost every politician who opposed the government. Bergoglio had several conflicts with the Kirchner government when he was an Archbishop. Cristina didn't tell the position the government would take when he got elected Pope, but the government-aligned (but not government-controlled) mass media associations preemptively filled Buenos Aires with anti-Bergoglio propaganda. A week later Cristina met the Pope and announced that they were politically aligned, and the same mass media associations filled Buenos Aires with pro-Bergoglio propaganda.
    - lormayna 1y ago
      > Francis was the most important supporter of liberation theology in Argentina Really? I am Italian, so I known Bergoglio only by name before he became Pope, but I always heard that he was not really a supporter of liberation theology. Anyway, during his papacy he showed that he was influenced in many aspectes by liberation theology and peronism approach.

codethief 1y ago

Notably, in that case he might end up no longer being able to enter the US at all: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Amendment_(immigration) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Amendment_(immigration)

School-Cotton 1y ago
Whether they let the pope enter the US will be entirely based on whether the administration wants the pope to visit the US, not on some obscure immigration law that, according to the article you yourself linked, is almost never enforced even on normal people.
joecool1029 1y ago
He's a sitting head of state now. Even if he violated US law, he's diplomatically immune. One case of it being brought up in the past: https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/87327.pdf https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/87327.pdf
- jkaplowitz 1y ago
  It's not clear that he is diplomatically immune from US law if he retains his US citizenship. The source you linked was not a case of a US citizen pope. If the pope renounces his US citizenship for the purpose of having diplomatic immunity or treats his acceptance of the papacy as an expatriating act with intent to relinquish citizenship within the meaning of INA §349(a)(4), he would not be inadmissible under the Reed Amendment: that amendment only applies when the reason for renouncing is to avoid taxation, and might not apply to relinquishment under §349(a)(4) regardless of reason since it uses the verb renounce rather than relinquish. Why might the verb matter? The only parts of INA §349 that use the verb renounce are the ones about explicitly swearing or affirming an oath or affirmation of renunciation, not the other potentially expatriating acts. Relinquishment is the broader term in the statute which encompasses all such acts. And I say "might" only because this amendment has been so rarely enforced that the courts haven't had occasion to rule on it. Only two people have ever been denied admission to the US under the Reed Amendment. It was a very badly drafted legal provision.