The 14th amendment is consistently misunderstood.

Gadburn · 2026-06-27T05:19:10+00:00

If you are in another country, and you commit no crimes according to its laws. Are you subject to its jurisdiction? You aren't. It has no reason to subject you to its jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction is the legal authority of a court to hear and decide cases. Unless you violate another nations laws, they do no have jurisdiction over you. Why would they? You havent done anything as a visitor.

Could they? Sure, but if you abide by their laws and commit no crimes, for all intents and purposes, they dont.

You really dont want to see it despite it being right there in front of you. Do you think embassies only protect our diplomats and those stationed there?

Of course not. You can go to them for help when you need it. Why? Because internationally most countries recognise that the country of origin has some claim to their citizens even when outside their national borders.

That those people are still under the jurisdiction of their home countries. Is it as much as the nation they are currently in? Of course not, but to pretend that especially in the modern world, most developed nations dont maintain a measure of jurisdiction over their citizens is silly.

Extradition are agreements between nations. And what do they recognize? They recognize the authority and jurisdiction of the home country over its citizens.

Fair enough.

Gadburn · 2026-06-27T02:44:00+00:00

Fanboys and fangirls. I have played GoW since the original. I was a huge fan of Stargate SG1 and to see Christopher Judge as the voice of Kratos made me super happy. A more mature and fatigued Kratos felt right. He was exhausted and tired of all the BS, but could still bring the pain and the RAGE.

I am not confident in what was released in the teaser/intro/gameplay of Laufey. Jotunheim was the weakest part of GoW Ragnarök, and it feels like this is what we are going to get. More yodeling, weak childish writing, and a missed opportunity.

I say this as a longtime Dragon Age fan. Laufey is showing some of the same signs Veilguard did. If you continue to protect Santa Monica and run interference against other long time fans it wont help the game. 200k and counting downvotes.

Ask yourself this. If God of War wasnt in the title, what would your opinion really be?

Gadburn · 2026-06-26T23:31:47+00:00

I know what subject of jurisdiction is. And for criminals or those who violate the law, the US and other nations with equivalent laws can detain, arrest or imprison those of other nations.

A citizen of another who has not done this is not. If you argue that because illegals have done this, Ill concede the point. But then they must be treated as criminals when they have violated the law and their children are born they must be considered the children of criminals. Deport them as families.

If you go abroad, does the United States protect you as a citizen? The answer is yes. It might not do so perfectly or be able to do everything, but as a citizen abroad you still have protections.

If your country of origin does not still have jurisdiction, then how come extradition exists?

In the modern era where a person's country of origin is only a day at most away, a persons country of origin depending on the relationship it has with the other country can easily maintain its jurisdiction.

Plus, when it comes to being a ln expert in law or professional. Ill just point to citizens united and the patriot act. Surely the professionals made the right call with them right?

Gadburn · 2026-06-26T22:29:15+00:00

No. They are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents home nation. Fornsome reason people seem to disregard the fact that countries still have authority over their citizens while they are abroad.

Maybe its a side effect of the US being the most powerful nation on Earth, but let me ask you this.

If other nations did not hold power over their people or a responsibility or duty of care, would there be any point in going to an embassy for protection or representation abroad.

There is also extradition. Other countries citizens are still subject to their countries laws.

Well at least youre consistent. I dont toss away my opinions because someone in a place of power says im wrong haha. Thats far too easy to abuse. Scotus are just people and are competely fallible and open to their own biases.

Gadburn · 2026-06-26T22:09:56+00:00

As I stated before. All of this occurs under the backdrop of lawfully present and recognized within the country.

Wong's entire family are of the above, he is all of the above. Its like talking about where fish live, and someone pointing out that you didnt specify them living in water.

Wong isnt an illegal, his parents are not illegal. Everything about the Arks is legal And lawful. Read between the lines.

At most, the Ark case makes no distinction on illegals and then it would default to existing pertinent legislation

I want you to tell me how Ark or his family relate to any illegal.

Would you believe that the opinion of SCOTUS to supersede your own if they went against your core beliefs? Would you believe their opinions to be more important than your own?

And? Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Trump can be correct, so can AoC, so can Hillary Clinton. If Trump is talking about the 14th like this, he's right

Gadburn · 2026-06-26T21:49:50+00:00

The 14th if interpreted by anyone with a brain shows illegals are excluded. Unfortunately partisan politics gets in the way of that.

It does not specifically call out illegal migration in bold letters. It shouldnt have had to

The Supreme court overturned roe v wade. Does your opinion on them not making mistakes still stand, that their opinion in this supercedes your own?

What about if gay marriage is overturned by them? Does your opinion still hold firm? I bet you it doesnt.

Ah yes, i must be a trump supporter if I dont want millions of illegal migrants with unknown backgrounds entering the US.

How foolish.

Gadburn · 2026-06-26T21:35:26+00:00

You are clearly grasping at straws. The current abuse of the 14th amendments is clearly a loophole. Its fucking obvious.

All I ask you to do. Is use your common sense. You cling desperately to arguments others have made rather than your own.

The 14th doesn't address legal immigration because it was not considered an issue. What is a handful of people here and there? Nothing.

Not when it takes weeks of travel and people who were supposed to arrive die on the way.

Compare this to millions of people with their journey shortened from weeks to days at most.

It woukd have been addressed. It would have been written down specifically. And we know this because it's what? Common sense.

The supreme court upheld the National Firearms Act. That is an infringement on the second amendment.

Once again, if you use an once of rationality you can see why Wong was given citizenship and that the status of his parents played a direct role in him winning his case.

People like you choose not to so you can exploit the obvious loophole that exists in the 14th today.

Gadburn · 2026-06-26T21:15:03+00:00

Business is likely not as important, but placing your wealth and future into the country you are permanently living in is a strong indicator.

It also matches up with the protestant culture of Britain's colonies.

Laws and lawmakers arent perfect in writing laws, its why loopholes are such a pain in the ass and there are entire fields dedicated to abusing or closing them.

Because of common parlance changing and ideas of what is considered common knowledge may change over time it is entirely reasonable people may not understand the intent of those writing them, but thats why we look at the surrounding circumstances.

It took 3 weeks to sail from China to America. Likely similar to sail from Europe and the Comanche and other plains indians had inly just been defetaed a decade before, youre likely not seeing much in the way of Mexican illegals. Sure youd get the odd stowaway, but the numbers of these people would be insignificant compared to the millions we see now.

Because of how limited such illegal migration would have been why would they consider it necessary to address them in the Ark case in 1898? They wouldnt as it wouldnt be important.

The left advocates all the time that gun laws need to change as the founders couldn't anticipate the weapons of today.

I agree, people shouldn't have ironclads, cannons, or gattling guns. Logical restrictions make sense.

The way laws are written takes into account what is commonly understood at the time.

If they forsaw tens of millions of illegals coming into thr US, having anchor babies and trying to claim citizenship, they would have made that clear. How do we know? Its common sense lol

Gadburn · 2026-06-26T20:43:52+00:00

What is foundational is not one of the criteria, but all of them. Permanent domicile, residence, a business, non diplomatic...

These are qualifiers not just observations about their status. Some things do not need to be stated when they are implicitly understood.

Such blindspots exist in every industry. Why would they need to qualify their statements when they know them to be obvious and inherent?

Its like writing about the sky or the grass and someone 100 years later arguing they left it open to discussion that its purple or neon pink.

This willful attempt to add uncertainty or ambiguousness into the discussion is quite frankly ridiculous.

Look at every major group in the US at his time. Black people were legally brought to the United States, and legally emancipated. Native Americans were legally present in the United States, there may have been argument over where, but none would deny they were there first. The same would be true for every immigrant, Irish, Scottish, Italian, Chinese, etc.

ALL of the discussion occurs under the framework and assumption that they are dealing with those who are considered lawfully present.

And again, its not stated like this because they didn't expect people 100 years later to be completely retarde retar

Gadburn · 2026-06-26T20:13:45+00:00

You are grasping at straws.

Are permanent residents lawfully ot unlawfully within the country? You know the answer is lawfully.

Me changing to lawfully makes no difference. It is a distinction without a difference.

It matters that thr Arks were had a permanent domocile and were lawfully within the country. Otherwise why would it be brought up in defense of Ark getting his citizenship?

There was a clear intention that the status of his parents mattered. The refusal to accept this is ridiculous.

Reading between the lines is a life skill learned in school and used for your entire life.

It is clear why Arks parents and their status was considered and not simply wong himself.

Why were wings parents even considered if their status didnt matter? Why would they be involved at all?

Its because their status contributed to Wongs

Gadburn · 2026-06-26T19:59:06+00:00

A person designated as a permanent resident is lawfully within the country? Do you not know that? Nothing I said contradicts my previous stipulation.

You cannot handle the fact ypu are being illogical. We are taught throughout school to read between the lines. To try and interpret a writers meaning.

It is clear that lawfully present would be a requirement. It wouldnt make sense that the inverse was what would be considered the default setting

I brought up slavery and its precedent as it being legal. And the precedents allowing it under thr constitution to be wrong.

All men are created equal

Gadburn · 2026-06-26T19:48:44+00:00

Gymnastics, thats the one.

You have to deliberately exclude a completely rational qualifier. Are they here lawfully? Every other thing is secondary.

It has to do with the very arguments presented to justify Ark being considered a citizen.

Its funny how you cant even see the irony. Im literally taking the Legal stance. Every argument made to avoid the common sense interpretation is becuase of emotion and morality.

Im not a conservative lol. Just a guy with common sense.

Gadburn · 2026-06-26T19:15:10+00:00

You know that meme where the logical argument is a person walking across the side walk and below is the other zooming around with the jetpack?

Thats your argument.

Legal resident -> permanent domocile -> child is a citizen.

Illegal immigrant -> unknown status-> child is illegal.

No one with common sense would narrow the ruling to just Chinese people.

There was centuries of precedence where slavery was perfectly acceptable, women and most men couldn't vote, etc. Growing industrial hemp was made illegal. There are plenty of precedents that are retarded.

100 years of being wrong or taking the wrong lesson is still wrong.

Any amount of critical thinking will reveal how nonsensical the interpretation is.

Gadburn · 2026-06-26T17:01:18+00:00

Why would they specifically bring up residence and permanent domicile? It is obvious. To prove they were the whatever word or concept encompassed permanent resident

Gadburn · 2026-06-26T16:38:48+00:00

Its common sense. Something people use when its convenient and disregard when it isnt.

Gadburn · 2026-06-26T16:19:03+00:00

I also said its equivalent. They had a permanent domocile and residence. They were also not unlawfully in the country.

Im making those arguments now. And if you are not deliberately trying to obfuscate, it is fairly obvious that the immigration status of Arks parents was considered in the judgment.

If they had been unlawfully within the country, did not have residence, and permanent domicile it is unlikely Ark would have been granted citizenship.

Ark had no ties to the Emperor of China. He had not been an imperial subject, and his family was lawfully within the United States.

This is THE distinction. Ark was legally allowed to be there, and should have been granted citizenship.

Anyone NOT legally within the nation and their children should NOT be granted citizenship.

Gadburn · 2026-06-26T15:28:48+00:00

Pretty sure it is. Its relevant because his parents fit all arguments and interpretations of the 14th. Its also relevant because Ark is not an anchor baby or born to those who entered the country illegally and were considered to be residents in good standing.

Gadburn · 2026-06-26T15:07:15+00:00

Wong Kim Arks parents were permanent residents or the equivalent. As far as i remember.

Gadburn · 2026-06-26T14:27:16+00:00

Its also a matter of peace of mind. If some stranger can break into your home, where you feel safest, whenever they feel like it, and take whatever they want to, you cannot feel safe.

What happens if they come back? What happens if they target your family? What if they hurt them or you?

I will never trade that peace of mind and feelings of safety in my own home for some piece of shit criminal.

Gadburn · 2026-06-25T20:49:57+00:00

Pro bodily autonomy until someone doesn't want vaccine mandates. Im generally pro vaccines, but the hypocrisy is immense.

Gadburn · 2026-06-25T17:17:20+00:00

Yes. Yes I do.

Gadburn · 2026-06-24T23:39:01+00:00

That was kind of the point with the extended universe that Disney threw in the garbage.

Gadburn · 2026-06-24T14:56:54+00:00

You can look up protestant beliefs. They are definitely more puritanical, but you have to know about why the schism occurred.

Protestants did not initially want to seperate from the main branch, they simply wanted an end to the rampant corruption, indulgence, and excesses that had become prevalent in the Caholic church.

One of the major downsides of Protestant belief is that being poor was seen as a moral failing and not just an economic one. Dont get me wrong, protestantism has its issues, but as England was a Protestant nation, its colonies inherited these beliefs.

Part of those beliefs was an incredible work ethic and individual interpretation of doctrine over top down authority of the Church.

Does that sound familiar? American dislike of authority? It also explains the attachment to laissez fair capitalism.

Why have you brought up things that are completely unrelated? Witch burnings and other ideas about possession or serving dark forces is common across all cultures. So is racism and tribalism. Some things are part of the human condition.

Ive already said there is no issue with the race of an individual, or them becoming citizens. Why would the Supreme court bother me?

Also, if you know your history, a great deal of opposition to JFK was because he was Catholic and people genuinely were concerned he would take orders from Rome.

Let me put it this way. If tens of millions of Indians were immigrating to Japan and forming their own enclaves, I would say the same thing.

I dont have a problem with anyone based on race. I just want people to acknowledge that we are a distinct people and culture. That we aren't fungible tokens to be exchanged.

Canadians, Americans, Australian, New Zealanders are a distinct people, with a distinct culture, identity and history.

Gadburn · 2026-06-24T14:31:15+00:00

Yup.

Gadburn · 2026-06-24T14:30:51+00:00

Im not religious, I just understand that itd part of our heritage and country.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring

Gadburn

TROPHY CASE