I would say that it heavily depends on the current justices in the supreme court. With the current court composition I wouldn't say that both of those issues have equal risk of being revoked.

The current court makes this one pretty safe.

The most recent decision relevant to this topic was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslenjak_v._United_States in 2017. It was a 9-0 decision that a naturalized citizen who had made minor errors of fact in their citizenship declaration couldn't have their citizenship stripped because of that.

Between stare decisis and how solidly the court has been in protecting citizenship, this principle is not in any sort of trouble any time soon.

The US has a history of stripping people of their citizenship when things get bad, regardless of what the law says. It has happened before with Mexicans, it is happening again right now [1].

[1] https://www.vox.com/2018/8/30/17800410/trump-passport-birth-...

That is not "regardless of the law". That is "when it can be argued that the law does not apply".

The law itself is solid. Whether a particular person with paperwork issues will be given the presumption of the facts being in their favor is another story.

My point is the law is not nearly as clear cut and black and white as you make it out to be. It provides a lot of room for judgement and interpretation by those carrying it out in most cases. And unless a particular matter comes up before a court, "when it can be argued that the law does not apply" does not happen either - the immigration officer makes a decision and 99% of immigrants do not have the resources to fight it in a court. Believe me, neither your average CBP officer nor your average immigrant is very well versed in the minutiae of the law.

The end result is people can and do lose their citizenship status pretty often. Debating whether it is strictly unlawful is really besides the point.