There is a statute that in Hawaii children of a bigamist marriage are legimate.
it is irrelevant to British law for these set of circumstances
AGAIN,
There are voidable marriages and VOID marriages.
Bigamist marriages are VOID. Getting a divorce does not make the marriage all of a sudden legitimate for immigration law.
I really don’t care what you guys think. I know what I believe.
Neither of you seem to even understand the difference between VOID and VOIDABLE.
You truly don’t have a clue about immigration law if you think someone can lie to get married , get a divorce, and then say..hey look..my marriage was valid because I got a divorce.
For those of you that still can’t grasp the concept of a marriage that is void ab initio..
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0073p-06.pdf
Obama SR was already married. The marriage in Hawaii was not valid.
A divorce does not make the marriage valid.
I don’t care whether posters here are too ignorant to understand this concept.
Do you honestly think any court in the world is going to declare Barack Obama a bastard, for any reason at all?
There's still the acknowledged paternity of Barack, Sr. to contend with, so it would be an exercise in futility, either way.
Even if some Orly type were to somehow hoodwink a court in Hawaii to declare a marriage, dissolved by the divorce of now-deceased parties 45 years ago, as void, in order to ... what, make Obama not a British citizen currently? Declare him a bastard so only his mother's citizenship presumably applies to his own, what?
It's just nonsensical.