OK lets say the Feb ‘61 marriage index is a real entry.
From your #557 it seems that despite the ins’s concerns about bigamy, Hawaii at the time didn’t care if there was a first spouse in another country, just that the first spouse and the second spouse weren’t in the u.s.
So if that’s the case, we have SADO being married.
And the following would apply:
“kid’s birth outside u.s. to married mom” and “5 years past 14 years old”
But she was a few months shy of her 19th birthday when 0 was born.
So the kid isn’t a citizen.
“From your #557 it seems that despite the ins’s concerns about bigamy, Hawaii at the time didn’t care if there was a first spouse in another country, just that the first spouse and the second spouse weren’t in the u.s.”
Not quite correct if you look at the case on the SS website that I included in #557 which concerned two bigamous wives in HI at the same time with both claiming inheritance rights:
https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/1505305014
“Where wage earner married a second woman without benefit of termination of his first marriage in China at a time when polygamous marriages were legal, Hawaiian courts would consider the second marriage voidable due to the general public policy against polygamy. However, since Hawaiian courts would rule the marriage voidable rather than void the second wife would have inheritance rights where neither of the parties sought a divorce of nullity at any time. (C~ Tai C. RA IX (T~) to RC, 11/17/82)”
With the fact pattern of the Sr.-SADO marriage, it appears to me that unlike the Chinese marriages, both of which were in China where bigamy was legal making the second marriage voidable but not void, The HI marriage of Sr. and SADO was bigamous under both Kenyan and HI law as was thus VOID (a nullity) and not simply voidable depending on subsequent legal action.