Bellei was a natural born citizen. --
And naturalized.
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
His citizenship was taken by denaturalization, not expatriation. There is a totally different line of cases dealing with expatriation.
I'll let others read the case themselves and see if your assertion "Bellei was not naturalized by statute," holds water. I have no interest in discussion with you, you are on my twit list.
‘Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
His citizenship was taken by denaturalization, not expatriation. There is a totally different line of cases dealing with expatriation.”
Your entire erroneous analysis includes trying to make fine distinctions that the law does not make.
You are trying to analyze these issues the way the law was in 1410.
The law does not separate out pigeon hole areas of the law as you imagine.
The law does not identify cases as “denaturalization” cases or something else.
You DO have to look at what the QUESTION PRESENTED was.
What the court says along the way means NOTHING, really.
The only thing that counts is the question that the court was answering, and what the answer was.
So if the court is answering the question: How much tax do you owe on selling a business?
And the court comments in the middle of that “Alaska is not really part of the United States” that comment LITERALLY MEANS NOTHING and is TOTALLY IGNORED in the interpretation of the court case.
The ONLY thing that counts is what was the question the court was asked to decide and what was the answer.
Courts do not give “advisory opinions” commenting on other topics, and if they do (they shouldn’t) advisory opinions are IGNORED as IRRELEVANT and have NO legal meaning or authority whatsoever.
In Rogers v. Bellei, you ASSUME because you want to twist the facts to fit your narrative that it has something to do with naturalization.
That is impossible. Was there a swearing in ceremony? NO! Was there a naturalization petition? NO! Did a judge administer the oath of citizenship? NO!
There was no naturalization.