“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.”
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.
Also, the BHO Sr. INS files clearly show that the US Government strongly suspected and in fact INS acted on a clear belief that BHO Sr. was a bigamist and the SADO claimed (but not ever proved) marriage was a sham and moot explicitly due to BHO Srs. known prior Kenyan marriage when the INS BOOTED him from the USA. The claim of a marriage in a divorce proceding does not PROVE that the marriage ever occured.
So contemporaneous proof that the US gov’t acted on a belief that the BHO Sr and SADO marriage was a bigamous and moot sham in no it the GA ALJ court record and was uncontested due to Barry's failure to appear.
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:
Here is what we do not know:
Until evidence of what we suspect comes to light, this is all the information we have to use at our disposal.