First, did I really say the Dunham/Obama marriage was valid due to a divorce? No, what I said was that because a divorce decree was entered by a Hawaiian court, in the eyes of the law, Stanley Ann was married when she gave birth in 1961.
Second, Stanley Ann avers in section II of her Libel for Divorce that she and BHO, Sr., were lawfully married February 2, 1961. Setting aside whether she knew in January, 1964 that BHO, Sr., had a living wife in Kenya as of February, 1961, he did and therefore under Section 580-21, HRS, a Hawaiian court may by a decree of nullity declare the marriage contract void. But you and I both know that didn't happen. Instead, based on the facts Stanley Ann presented, the court issued a decree of divorce.
Third, when someone believes a court made a mistake in an order or judgment, a request must be made to change the mistake; the court can act sua sponte, but there are no self help or ipse dixit remedies for a party or interested party. If the court or appellate court agrees a mistake was made, it effects the appropriate changes. But, until and unless that happens, the original order stands. For a discussion of nunc pro tunc orders under Hawaii divorce law, see Section 580-46, HRS.
Fourth, this discussion began with my point that the Telepromptee in Chief is not a "citizen" as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1401; I don't have a position on whether the President of the United States has a dumbass, as you put, for an attorney. Instead, what I hope is that people like yourself would give critical thought to the issues. As a technical point, you are probably correct that the marriage was void ab initio; however, that's not the end of the analysis and, under the circumstances of this case, it does not automatically bring 8 U.S.C. 1409 into play.
Finally, maybe the Telepromptee in Chief will someday find it necessary to collaterally attack the validity of his mother's marriage, I don't know. But so far to my knowledge he hasn't, and right now that issue is beside the point.
First of all:
§580-46 is concerning a final decree that was not entered.
I have seen immigration law about cases where one party thought they were divorced..got married..but found out that the final decree had not been entered for the first marriage.
580-46 addresses this kind of issue.
I still don’t see where you are right on a procedural basis. Perhaps you can pinpoint a law or a case that is on target with your thesis.
There is no doubt that the marriage was void ab initio if Kezia was married to Sr.
I have no doubt she was married to him. I have looked a bit into Luo tribal custom. It is possible it was just another lie but I don’t think so.
The marriage to Ann was never valid.
Many states allow for the putative spouse doctrine. The courts allow for a divorce in order to rule on rights, etc.
There is no indication this is the reason for divorce.
Maybe she didn’t know her marriage wasn’t valid and thought she needed a divorce.
It is quite possible , given that these people lie, that Ann was getting a divorce for the marriage in Kenya and not the one in the US. there are people that believe there never was a marriage in the US.
We just don’t know right now.
In any event, I am sure Immigration law spells out the meaning of Marriage. I am sure there will be words in there that indicate it must be a valid marriage.
I am sure that case law talks about it. I am sure in case law it has to be a valid marriage
This was not a valid marriage...and divorce does not make it a valid marriage.
Immigration is not going to allow a foreigner to lie to get married , get a divorce , and say ..lookee here..the divorce means I was legally married.
You can also see how it effects the UK citizen argument with this link
http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/nationalityinstructions/nisec2gensec/legitimacy?view=Binary
Furthermore, for the purposes of immigration, a marriage’s validity is a question of Federal law. You will see that rear it’s head with the Gay Marriage Issue.
If Ann went to Kenya and had a polygamous marriage recognized by Kenya - would it be recognized in Hawaii? If so, would it have been recognized by Immigration.
There are all pertinent questions. People are failing to do any analysis or even allow for this question. They are trumpeting the fact that he would not be a citizen in the US if born in Kenya due to residency...and they just don’t know that.
It is much more likely that he would be a US citizen due to the out of wedlock provision.
I believe that if he was born in Kenya, whether out of wedlock or of a marriage...SCOTUS would punt on this and say it is up to Congress to define the clause.
If he was born in Hawaii, I think he will be deemed a natural born citizen at birth by SCOTUS if they agree to take the case.
Notwithstanding the Indonesian part of this....
His history is such a mess and such a tangled web of laws would govern this mess..and so many things are not known.....that no one can say for sure what would happen.