"He was not naturalized in the United States."
You are reading that as "not natrualized," period. That is an incorrect read of the case, as you probably know but are misrepresenting on purpose.
The case turned on the distinction between "naturalized in the US" and "natrualized outside of the US." If Bellei and others similary situated are naturalized in in the US, they are covered by the 14th amendment, and under the rule of law in Afroyim and other cases, cannot have their citizenship removed for failure to comply with US residency requirements.
“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.
“The case turned on the distinction between “naturalized in the US” and “natrualized outside of the US.””
No, it did not.
Absurd.
Rogers v. Bellei turned on whether Bellei had complied with the STATUTE.
And it turned on whether Bellei had anything to lose.
How could Bellei lose his citizenship if he never had it to being with?
HMMMM??