“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.
Vivek is a citizen by statute. A natural born citizen is a citizen by birth and no other Government has any claim on their allegiance.