[devattel]

IIUC, your interpretation of Section 23 is wrong. There is nothing in it that distinguishes illegitimate children of UK father NOT being UK subjects whether born in or out of UK jurisdiction.

Are you sure? It states right in Section 23:

(2) A person shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to have been legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents if by the law of the place in which his father was domiciled at the time of the marriage the marriage operated immediately or subsequently to legitimate him, and not otherwise.

I am interpreting the law based on what the government says the interpretation is. Take note:

1.9 -- An illegitimate child should be regarded, for the purposes of s.47(1) of the 1981 Act, as having been legitimated by the subsequent marriage of the parents if, by the law of the place in which the father was domiciled at the time of the marriage, the marriage can be regarded as having legitimated the child. Note, though, that s.47(1) only refers to legitimation through subsequent parental marriage - it does not extend to those who are "legitimated" by means of legislation passed by another country (see, for example, 5.1.2 below). Where a child, born illegitimate of a British citizen father, has been legitimated by operation of law rather than by the subsequent marriage of his or parents, it may be appropriate to consider registration under s.3(1) of the Act.

- http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/nationalityinstructions/nisec2gensec/legitimacy?view=Binary

The document goes a step further stating courts could not nullify polygamous marriages until the Matrimonial Proceedings Act of 1972 was passed. By then Obama and Dunham were divorced:

2.2.4.1 The courts did not have jurisdiction to grant a decree of nullity in respect of polygamous [the term includes potentially polygamous] marriages until 29 June 1972, when the Matrimonial Proceedings (Polygamous Marriages) Act 1972 was enacted. However, the effect of this Act is to allow the courts to exercise jurisdiction in respect of any polygamous marriage, irrespective of the date on which it was contracted.

I believe we are mincing concepts here based on what we know based on what we suspect, regardless as to what is the truth. Here is what we know:

• Obama was born in Hawaii
• Obama and Dunham were divorced in Hawaii
• Hawaii certified Obama and Dunham to be legally married, and thus allowed a legal divorce
• Obama Sr. was the father of Obama Jr.
• Obama Sr. was domiciled in Hawaii at the time of birth

Here is what we do not know:

• The actual place and date of marriage
• Whether or not Obama Sr. licensed his tribal marriage with Kenya
• Whether or not Obama Jr. renounced his U.K. citizenship

Until evidence of what we suspect comes to light, this is all the information we have to use at our disposal.

[Seizethecarp]

“The document goes a step further stating courts could not nullify polygamous marriages until the Matrimonial Proceedings Act of 1972 was passed.”

IIUC, the BHO Sr. SADO marriage was absolutely NOT a polygamous marriage IF performed in HI because the Kenya Marriage Act of 1902 did not recognize marriages that were illegal where performed due to bigamy. Under the Kenya Marriage Act, mixing marriages from three separate marriage codes was illegal and a bigamous marriage is moot in the UK and US.

IIUC, legitimation can only occur via a post-birth marriage of the parents which converts a child that was illegitimate at birth (and thus non-UK subject at birth) into a “legitimated” post-birth UK subject. There is no evidence of a post-birth marriage of SADO to anyone but Lolo Soetoro, IIUC.