But someone such as Vivek is not a naturalized citizen.
Some Freepers say that there are two main classes to citizens, those being natural born,or those who are naturalized. If you didn’t have to be naturalized to be a citizen, then that makes you natural born .
“But someone such as Vivek is not a naturalized citizen.”
Yes, but what I mean is that to say, essentially, “if someone doesn’t have allegiance to a foreign country, they must be natural born” is a bad argument. Since we already have a ready example at hand of people who don’t (or at who have sworn not to) have allegiance to a foreign country who are definitely not natural born, and that is the naturalized citizens.
“Some Freepers say that there are two main classes to citizens, those being natural born,or those who are naturalized.”
Yes, but that’s a slightly different argument. If there are 2 classes, then “not A” must equal B. That’s sound (if the premise is correct, and you can’t be a member of both).
The variation based on whether they have allegiance is more like: If there are two classes, and a third condition, to say “A doesn’t have this condition, therefore, if you don’t have this condition, you must be in class A” is a fallacious argument if anyone can demonstrate that even one member of class B also doesn’t have that condition.
The 14th amendment is a blanket naturalization.
A few weeks back I was actually reading the debates on the 14th amendment, and the congressmen discussing it were themselves calling it "naturalization."
Well what *DO* you call it when you pass a law granting citizenship to something like 3 million black people all at once? Isn't it "naturalization"?