Neither Canada's nor the US's citizenship determinations take their authority from English common law. They are based on statutory law or, in cases covered by the 14th Amendment (and possibly some Canadian cases; I don't know their constitution), constitutional law.
The Jus Soli argument for the United States is based on the notion that we adopted English Common law as regards our citizens.
The jus soli argument for the United States is based on the black-letter law of the Fourteenth Amendment. It's becoming increasingly clear that you lack the first clue about how common law works; it does not supersede statutory law.
Then you have a substantially different opinion on the issue than do your allies. Perhaps you should inform Jeff Winston of your opinion on this? Someone needs to wake him the F*** up.
The jus soli argument for the United States is based on the black-letter law of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The 14th amendment is a conditional (subject to the jurisdiction thereof) Jus Soli law. I am perfectly aware of this, however virtually all of the people who take your side claim we adhered to Jus Soli BEFORE the 14th amendment. Apart from that, the 14th amendment does not create "natural" citizens. "Natural citizens" do not require the operation of the 14th amendment, just as Justice Waite pointed out in Minor.
It's becoming increasingly clear that you lack the first clue about how common law works;
I probably know more about it than do you, but I am constantly arguing with people on your side who do not. I am simply repeating to you what YOUR SIDE HAS LONG BEEN SAYING. That *YOU* alone hold a different view, I now recognize, but given that *YOUR* view is also inaccurate, (but in a different way) I can hardly be blamed for mistaking it for the other erroneous view.
it does not supersede statutory law.
Of that I am fully aware. That is axiomatic, and only someone new to this topic would even suggest that the people discussing it are unaware of this fact.