No. None of that applies to Barry. A legitimated child is legitimated under section 23 if the UK subject father marries the mother of the child AFTER the child is born. Prior to a post-birth marriage, such a child was illegitimate and NOT a UK subject at birth.
There is zero evidence that BHO Sr. and Stanley Ann were married anywhere, bigamously or not, Muslim or not AFTER Barry was born...and which could have legitimated him under section 23, IMO.
No. None of that applies to Barry. A legitimated child is legitimated under section 23 if the UK subject father marries the mother of the child AFTER the child is born. Prior to a post-birth marriage, such a child was illegitimate and NOT a UK subject at birth. There is zero evidence that BHO Sr. and Stanley Ann were married anywhere, bigamously or not, Muslim or not AFTER Barry was born...and which could have legitimated him under section 23, IMO.
This argument might hold water if it were not for the Obama/Dunham divorce decree from the state of Hawaii. That alone is enough evidence in any court in the U.S. or U.K. they were perceived to be married by the state of Hawaii, and that the child was born legitimately in the United States.
The Nationality Act of 1948 is quite clear. Section 23 only applies to children who are not legitimate based on the jurisdiction where they are born. As Obama Jr. was supposedly born in the United States and the marriage was perceived to be binding in the United States at the time of birth, the BNA would consider him a British citizen. Had Obama Jr. been born in Kenya, this would be quite a different story.
Putting it in laymen’s terms: If the U.S. says Obama was legitimate, the U.K. honors this for citizenship as Obama Jr. was “born in Hawaii”, a jurisdiction of the U.S.
If this is enough to make anyone’s head hurt, it is quite clear the Framing Fathers did not want to deal with this messy situation. Hence the Natural Born Citizen clause in Article II.