Maybe they will let out some blue smoke from Vatican :)
i thought the pope relinquished citizenship of their home country
Yep, he was born in Chicago and has US citizenship, he has the right to vote.
Probably the only foreign head of state allowed to vote huh
Daniel Noboa, President of Ecuador, is also a US citizen. There have been a few others in the past. No idea if any of them voted in US elections, though.
In fascist Ecuador, US votes Noboa into office
Foreign heads of states should not be allowed to vote.
Why not? If they are citiziens they have the same rights as everyone else.
They have a glaring conflict of interests, because their primary duty is to the states they head, not to the United States.
Wouldnāt that be true for many people who vote, and thatās why voting is done en masse, to track the interests of the whole populace? Many people have ādutiesā to things which are not their country, would you also say that someone who is dedicated to their job shouldnāt vote because their āprimary dutyā is not to the United States, but to a corporation?
Itās not like heās in a position of power in the political system, itās just one vote.
Most people arenāt the head of a foreign country.
So the fuck what? Itās one damn vote out of millions. Letās have a little perspective here, eh?
And if your argument is going to be that they can influence others to vote like them, well, I present to you (gestures all around) all religions and political parties!
No itās literally just that foreign heads of state, regardless of citizenship status. I would also go so far as to say foreign heads of state should not be able to hold dual citizenship, but thatās more of a problem for members of that state, not the state theyāre also a citizen of.
You still havenāt explained why being a foreign head of state is any different than having a job in the US. Your point was their devotion, but so what?
Is your concern that their vote reflects their political beliefs? Thatās silly, donāt you think? Of course it reflects their political beliefs.
Is your concern that their political beliefs may reasonably be aligned with the destruction of the US? Thatās a bit far fetched, donāt you think?
But regardless, heās an American. If he wants to destroy the state, shouldnāt he be free to vote that way?
Or, are you concerned that, by acting as head of state, his actions would arguable be that of the state he represents? Meaningā¦ itās not Leo XIV voting, itās the Pope?
You donāt make that same conclusion when the president votes, do you?
Should Trump not be allowed to vote because heās the head of MAGA? Surely MAGA is worse than Pope, right?
Iām really struggling to find the coherency in your perspective. Can you help me out?
He is Monarch and absolute sovereign of Vatican city, that places him in the political spectrum.
As pope he is head of the Catholic Church, that gives him incredible reach and influence over Catholics around the world.
Can you imagine if it got out who he voted for?
It wouldnāt be much different from any other celebrity declaring who theyāre going to vote for.
Different social classes, within the same country, have different interests. That is where the root of much conflict lies.
Soā¦ how is that different from any other pope endorsing a candidate?
Which other Pope has endorsed a US candidate? I things they tried to stay out of that part (but are fine weighing in on bigger ideas like nuclear war and abortion)
I meanā¦they basically endorse Republicans every chance they get.
Like you say, they weigh in on abortion. They say abortion is murder, Democrats support abortion, therefore Democrats are evil satanists baby killers.
I remember the āVote for lifeā bumper stickers
I mean, none to my knowledge; the point is that even if they did none of these people would be making such a fuss about it.
The state has a duty to its people, not vice versa.
Actually yeah, this raises a good question. Iām gonna go look stuff up instead of jumping to answers though.
At least for now, Illinois has no problem with him voting, so Iām gonna find out why.
From what I understand, a pope does not have to renounce their citizenship, though some choose to.
Furthermore, the US Department of State can review American citizens acting as heads of state for other nations, and may revoke voting rights. The Department of State has decided not to, not whatever reason.
Thus, Pope Leo can vote.
Literally 1 personā¦
Imo it has nothing to do with head of state, no one living abroad permanently should vote in their home country. I get the reason, theyāre citizens and one of the fundamental right that comes with that is the right to vote, but it makes no sense. People should vote where they live and where their vote directly affects their them.
Theyāre still obligated to pay US taxes if theyāre US citizens. Other countries with different tax policies I can perhaps get behind that somewhat, though.
Itās not only taxes.
My kid is trans, our home countryās trans acceptance policies and free speech policies impact our passport renewal process.
I live in another country, my home countryās foreign policy decisions directly impact my ability to live and work in my residence country and impacts how and which countries I can travel through.
Decisions made in my home country can impact my life on the other side of the world, education, free speech, and anti corruption policies indirectly impact me by influencing voting behaviour in my home country.
It also impacts stuff like willingness to return in issues like this as well. If I feel the country is too unsafe to stay in Iād hate to not be able to vote to change it back
If the US didnāt make me pay taxes from abroad every year then Iād be fine not voting.
No taxation without representation
I bet that papist is only voting how the pope wants him to /s
A lot of people agreeing about the legality of this. For me this is one of the few papal actions I approve of
This isnāt specifically about the Pope, or dual or triple citizenship, but I have long ordered how it is ethical for a dual citizen to actually vote in more than one place.
I mean, I am personally a dual citizen and pay taxes in both countries, but I really donāt feel right voting in elections effecting the place that I do not live in.
The one person, one vote thing - as idealistic as it is - sort of matters to meā¦ either that or Iām justifying my laziness.
If you pay taxes in both places, why wouldnāt it be right to be able to vote?
Well then we enter into āwhat about non citizens that pay taxesā argument.
Non citizens who live here do pay taxes and should be able to vote in at the very least local elections. They live here, they contribute to the local economy, they should have a say as much as someone born in a different state who moves in. Imo a lot of the citizenship voting laws are a dog whistle for racism, trying to prevent the āwrong typeā from influencing elections.
Then again, I also believe that the immigration system is designed to be as difficult to properly follow as possible to keep people from getting access to the same rights and services citizens get. Usually this is, again, the āwrong peopleā kept from getting their resident or citizenship.
To which I ask, out of ignorance, āWhy are non citizens paying taxes if they arenāt getting the benefits of citizenship?ā
Sales taxes.
Income taxes.
Property taxes.
The list goes on if you want to get detailed about what kinds of added taxes when you buy things from a special area.
Thank you.
It is early where I am and none of this would enter my brain on its own. How could I forget about sales taxes lmao
Legal residents (but not citizens) in most countries do have to pay taxes.
Most places make you pay income tax if youāve stayed more than 6 months a year while earning money.
The benefits of being a āresidentā and paying taxes include living in a place that has āthe rule of lawā and borders that are defended, so that the next country over canāt come over and seize everything and everyone occasionally. If this all sounds medieval, it is because it is. Itās like being āunder the protection ofā the local noble/warlord.
Citizenship itself, in more abstract terms is interesting. It is a āclubā that individuals can shoes to join and/or change per will? Or is it more like the state āownsā you and they donāt care enough to prevent you from moving around.
Remember, the US requires you to file/pay taxes if are a US citizen but live abroad. Most other countries do not require you to pay taxes if youāve live/work outside of their country. Does it feel āmedievalā yetā¦, where the most powerful ālordā can make his people pay tax even though they are living in another ālordāsā domain?
According to DeepMind, in the US presidential election of 2020, the overseas voting rate was 9%.
Probably a lot more refugees left the US in recent years.
Also, please donāt post unverified slop here as if itās facts
That seems like a conflict of interest
It depends on your view i guess.
If i think āstate X and state Y are differents therefore they have different interestsā. I get you
If i think āthis person grew there, he had friends, family, lived here. And he still does and he may want to keep the place that is the little nice peaceful place in this troubled world. So he is a citizen, he may voteā i go to the opposite view sorta.
Plus, you can always complexify such a debate. Do imaginary lines make you a stranger? Recent history showed us that the state could have different interests than the betterment of the peoples, even when telling otherwise. Plus you can always argue that such a debate does not matter. The āwho can voteā argument is a way to choose a tyrant that will favor us, as no one should have the right on another one. Therefore other options like the mandate imperative and revocable, direct democracy, anarchy( no unjust hierarchy) could be better to allow anyone to live a life as freely, happily and respectfully as possible.
Itās a foreign head of state voting in a US election
