“You are reading that as “not natrualized,” period”
Yes, I am, because you are trying to find things in the court case that are not there.
In the light of the complete lack of rational basis for distinguishing among citizens whose naturalization was carried out within the physical bounds of the United States, and those, like Bellei, who may be naturalized overseas, the conclusion is compelled that the reference in the Fourteenth Amendment to persons 'born or naturalized in the United States' includes those naturalized through operation of an Act of Congress, wherever they may be at the time. Congress was therefore powerless to strip Bellei of his citizenship; he could lose it only if he voluntarily renonuced or relinquished it. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 87 S.Ct. 1660, 18 L.Ed.2d 757 (1967). I dissent.
Your claim that the court found Bellie to be "not naturalized, period," is false, and you know it. It is you who are making things up, claiming to find things in the court case that are not there.