I think I mostly agree with you, but I have a problem with this “magical” naturalized citizen concept. I say “magical” because everyone seems to act like it’s a done-deal, even though he swore an oath to be a citizen that he didn’t mean or keep. Why doesn’t that come into play in determining his status and the venue?
If this (in my view, absurd) interpretation of naturalization is the standard, then I think the process toward the outcome you fear will be accelerated. Jihadists will use our mis-application of Constitutional protections against us, and things will then deteriorate to the point where we willingly allow all of us to be considered Enemy Combatants in order to fight the terror.
I think there should be a substantive difference between natural born and naturalized citizenship, certainly as far as “acts of war” against the US are concerned. The oath for citizenship needs to mean something. If it doesn’t, then immigration, itself, is insanity.
The INS may seek denaturalization if the applicant made a false oral statement under oath (regardless of whether the testimony is material) with the subjective intent of obtaining immigration benefits. Alternatively, the INS may seek denaturalization if the applicant procured naturalization by concealment or willful misrepresentation of a material fact. In either case, the INS must prove its complaint by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence.
http://www.justice.gov/olc/ina340.htm
Pretty damned good analysis. Good work.