[togetheragainor]

Why would you claim that existing citizenship would be revoked? Ex post facto laws are incredibly rare in the US, and the executive order explicitly said it “shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.”

Also, why are you implying that the US Constitution is immutable? Birthright citizenship was enacted by the 14th amendment, which as the name implies, was a change to our “enshrined US Constitution.” The founding fathers themselves passed amendments. They recognized that no constitution could possibly anticipate every future circumstance or challenge that a nation might face. They viewed this as a feature, not a bug.

[DiogenesKynikos]

The Trump administration is claiming that the 14th Amendment does not confer birthright citizenship. In their view, no ex post facto law is needed. With that logic, they can argue that tens of millions of Americans never legitimately obtained citizenship.

Stephen Miller, Trump's chief advisor on immigration, has promised to start aggressively de-naturalizing US citizens. This is how these people talk, and it has to be taken seriously.

> the executive order explicitly said it “shall apply only ...

The very fact that the President of the US is trying to abrogate a Constitutional right by executive order is incredibly alarming. Trump started with this order. If he's successful, he won't stop there. You're trusting in his own self-restraint, which is very unwise.

> Birthright citizenship was enacted by the 14th amendment, which as the name implies, was a change to our “enshrined US Constitution.”

Birthright citizenship was the norm in the US since the founding. The 14th Amendment formally guaranteed what was already the status quo, and made sure that it was applied without regard to race. The Supreme Court's majority opinion in the Kim Wong Ark case has a good discussion of this.