Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    606 points saikatsg | 14 comments | | HN request time: 1.162s | source | bottom
    Show context
    seydor ◴[] No.43929489[source]
    Will he be taxed on his foreign Papal salary? Or will he forego the salary , like Francis did?
    replies(3): >>43929532 #>>43929889 #>>43930898 #
    1. devrandoom ◴[] No.43929532[source]
    If he is taxed, he should renounce US citizenship as he's very unlike to move back to the US.
    replies(2): >>43929580 #>>43929818 #
    2. _dark_matter_ ◴[] No.43929580[source]
    Very unlikely is an understatement. Francis never even visited his home country of Argentina after being elected as Pope.
    replies(1): >>43929789 #
    3. mFixman ◴[] No.43929789[source]
    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.

    replies(1): >>43929852 #
    4. codethief ◴[] No.43929818[source]
    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)
    replies(4): >>43929864 #>>43929945 #>>43930074 #>>43930733 #
    5. lormayna ◴[] No.43929852{3}[source]
    Really? I always heard that Francis was the first enemy of Kirtcherners
    replies(1): >>43930170 #
    6. umanwizard ◴[] No.43929864[source]
    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.
    7. joecool1029 ◴[] No.43929945[source]
    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
    replies(1): >>43930758 #
    8. AlotOfReading ◴[] No.43930074[source]
    Even if the reed amendment were suddenly enforced for some reason, diplomatic visits by heads of state like the Pope operate under a completely different set of rules than normal tourists. Modi has famously been banned from personal visits to the US for decades, but he has visited the US on diplomatic business as recently as Feb.
    9. mFixman ◴[] No.43930170{4}[source]
    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.

    replies(1): >>43935245 #
    10. jkaplowitz ◴[] No.43930733[source]
    That would only apply if he were to renounce for the purpose of avoiding taxation, as opposed to for the purpose of having his sole allegiance be that of the city-state and the church over which he rules, or for the purpose of having diplomatic immunity during visits to the US.
    replies(1): >>43947665 #
    11. jkaplowitz ◴[] No.43930758{3}[source]
    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.

    replies(1): >>43931321 #
    12. thimabi ◴[] No.43931321{4}[source]
    At least according to customary international law, a head of state has full sovereign immunity regardless of any nationalities that they might hold. By the way, the immunity covers not only the head of state, but also the head of government and the Secretary of State.

    If the Pope were a mere diplomat, his immunities would be restricted to the acts directly related to his job in any country of which he’s a national or permanent resident. That’s because, unlike sovereign immunity, diplomatic immunity is based on a Vienna Convention full of restrictions like that.

    13. lormayna ◴[] No.43935245{5}[source]
    > 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.

    14. codethief ◴[] No.43947665{3}[source]
    > if he were to renounce for the purpose of avoiding taxation

    That was indeed the premise of the comment I was responding to.