I pinged Springfield Reformer to this thread as I’ve found a thread In which he discusses this very issue in a manner clearer than I can- It appears he is saying roughly the same thing I’ve been trying to convey- here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3390852/posts?page=40#40
I refuse to engage Springfield Reformer.
I read the post #40 by Springfield Reformer. He’s making a different argument than you are, one that looks at conditions subsequent to birth, associated with 1409. His contention is that because 1401 has no conditions subsequent to birth, that citizenship under 1401 is not naturalization. His contention is directly contradicted by the Bellei case.