.
Dicta from dissenting justices is not relevant.
(but it tickles the fancy of the deceivers)
Yes it is because the dissent is not on whether or not Belli was naturalized, it was on whether or not he could have his citizenship stripped from him. Both the concurring and dissenting justices agreed he was naturalized. It is just in the dissent they spelled out why.
By the way, the definition of naturalized in the dissents opinion is not dicta since it directly addresses the specifics of the case before them, that being he had to be determined naturalized first before they could strip his citizenship from him.