Category talk:People with acquired American citizenship

Merge proposal

I think this category should probably be Cfd'ed asap. Debresser (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think that?--Prisencolin (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it is a distinctive feature, as opposed to having it from birth. Debresser (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Well it seems like it's a pretty notable subject, but a rather controversial one at that.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

IMHO the obvious thing to do is bring it to Cfd, and they'll decide. But I don't want to make the effort unless I'm clearly convinced it should be deleted. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Give it some WP:POTENTIAL for the mean time? I mean there are "people with acquired x citizenship " for other countries.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, this is not a meaningful category to maintain. I hope we're not going to have a "U.S. legal permanent residents" category next. — Emiellaiendiay 00:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Well you have to be in the US as a permanent resident for five years in order apply to be a citizen and less than half of all immigrants in the US are naturalized so the various "x emigrants to the US" categories doesn't cut it. Also there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a category on US legal permanent residents either, other than problems with verifiability, barring the remote possibility the federal government discloses their master list. I mean there's an entire government bureaucracy that maintains a similar list, and such a status has an enormous impact on people's lives.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• For most people who become naturalised citizens of another country, there's a sub-category for them within Category:Naturalized citizens by nation, e.g. Category:Naturalized citizens of France, Category:Naturalised citizens of Australia, Category:Naturalized citizens of Hungary, etc. But there is no such category as Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States. Why is there this huge hole? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a stupid category. But there are many stupid categories. Sorters gotta sort! --Animalparty! (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. I have no problem with it. In fact,I see that there's room for a number of people in both categories like Malin Akerman,Bai Ling,Joan Chen,and others. I don't think that "People with acquired citizenship" should disappear. I think it should stay. That may not be what some others want but that's what I'd like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:6212:a00:b8f6:70e7:3167:e790 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

It was merged per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_1#People_with_acquired_citizenship_or_Naturalized_citizens, but this may be reverted, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_9#Category:People_with_acquired_citizenship. – Fayenatic London 10:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)