[DiogenesLamp]

We were told in the military if our children were born while deployed overseas, they would be considered NBC.

If the principle of "natural born citizen" is based on Vattel's Law of Nations, then this is exactly correct. See below.

If the principle of "natural born citizen" is based on English Common Law, then your children are NOT natural born citizens. Now Jeff is going to come along and say "Yes they are!" and is going to argue that English Common law does make subjects of children born abroad. (Which if true, ought to have made all the Children of British Citizens born in the USA into British Subjects, but paradoxes don't bother Jeff.)

Jeff will be wrong no matter what he says. For one, it isn't English Common law which would be in effect, but a Positive law passed by an act of Parliament which made the Children of Englishmen born abroad into "natural born subjects." (Again, begging the question as to how the Children of British subjects born in America are not British Subjects.)

The point is, British Common law doesn't account for it no matter how you slice it. Vattel's Principles of natural law account for it perfectly.

[allmendream]

“how the Children of British subjects born in America are not British Subjects”?

According to English law they WERE. England thought that Americans were legally English until 1815. Between the adoption of the Constitution in 1787 and the end of the war of 1812 - in 1815 - Presidents Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Lincoln and Johnson were all born.

Were none of these U.S. Presidents qualified because England considered them English according to English law?

[Eepsy]

I was born abroad to a British citizen, and I am considered a British citizen myself, although I have not at any time permanently resided in that country.

It stops at one generation, though. My children are not British citizens and cannot easily become so unless they reside in the UK for at least three years before turning 18.