Voluntarily? Excuse me, VOLUNTARILY? What are you smoking, drinking, ingesting or shooting up?
Bellei did not meet the requirements of the statute.
Bellei's citizenship was taken from him against his will.
He sued to get it back.
The dissent in the Bellei case said this ...
The holding [in Afroyim] was clear. Congress could not, until today, consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment enact a law stripping an American of his citizenship which he has never voluntarily renounced or given up. Now this Court, by a vote of five to four through a simple change in its composition, overrules that decision.
For those of you in Rio Linda, what that says is that the majority decision in this case upholds a statutory provision (since removed by Congress) that strips an American of his citizenship which he has never voluntarily renounced.
Your posts are so riddled with errors, misstatements and fabrications, that it would be impossible to do so by accident. It has to be deliberate on your part. Why don't you get serious and conduct an adult conversation?
I’ve given this link before, but I’ll give it again as it pertains to the issues being discussed here as to whether an act of statute always confers a naturalization process
[T]he statute simply ensures equivalence between two expectant mothers who are citizens abroad if one chooses to reenter for the child’s birth and the other chooses not to return, or does not have the means to do so.163
Concerning the contention made in earlier cases that everyone who is made a citizen only by federal statute is a “naturalized” citizen (even those who are made citizens at birth by statute), it may be noted that the common understanding and usage of the terms “naturalized” and
“naturalization,” as well as the precise legal meaning under current federal law, now indicate that someone who is a citizen “at birth” is not considered to have been “naturalized.”164
Justice Breyer, for example, dissenting on other grounds in Miller v. Albright, explained that “this kind of
citizenship,” that is, under “statutes that confer citizenship ‘at birth,’” was not intended to
“involve[ ] ‘naturalization,’” citing current federal law at 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(23).165
The Supreme Court recently recognized in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, that federal law now specifically
defines “naturalization” as the “conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth,”166 and thus it could be argued that by current definition and understanding in federal law and jurisprudence, one who is entitled to U.S. citizenship automatically “at birth” or “by birth” could
not be considered to be “naturalized.”
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has specifically recognized in a recent
case that one may be a “natural born” citizen of the United Sates in two ways: either by being born in the United States, or by being born abroad of at least one citizen-parent who has met the residency requirement. In United States v. Carlos Jesus Marguet-Pillado, a case dealing with the propriety of an appeal based on requested jury instructions not given, the court stated:
No one disputes that Marguet-Pillado’s requested instruction was “an accurate statement of the law,” in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968 is a natural born United States citizen:
(1) that the person was born in the United States or
(2) born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met
certain residency requirements.167
Although the legal cases specifically concerning Senator McCain’s eligibility were generally dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction (that is, the lack of legal standing of the plaintiff),168 a federal district court for the Northern District of California did note that Senator
McCain would qualify as a citizen “at birth,” and thus was a “natural born” citizen, since he was born “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States” to U.S. citizen parents, as provided for in federal nationality statutes in force at the time of his birth.169
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
The weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject,
also indicates that the term “natural born citizen” would most likely include, as well as native
born citizens, those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously
resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the
birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.233