[sourcery]

Inherent in that power is the act of determining whether or not naturalization is required in the first place.

Utterly false. A person who disputed an Act of Congress which claimed they were not citizens absolutely would not be told by a court that Congress has sole discretion regarding whether or not they are a citizen. A court could, and would, decide that for itself based on the normative meanings of words. The same as it would for any other issue brought before which requires the meaning of one or more words or phrases which occur in the Constitution be adjudicated.

[CommerceComet]

A person who disputed an Act of Congress which claimed they were not citizens absolutely would not be told by a court that Congress has sole discretion regarding whether or not they are a citizen.

If it is a settled matter of law with no unique factual situation, their petition would certainly be denied.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Utterly false. A person who disputed an Act of Congress which claimed they were not citizens absolutely would not be told by a court that Congress has sole discretion regarding whether or not they are a citizen.

I actually laughed out loud at that. Thanks for the chuckle.

In case you're wondering why I laughed, SCOTUS did exactly that in Rogers v. Bellei.