“As has already been stated, “probably bigamy” wasn’t the reason Sr’s Visa was not renewed.”
I disagree. See and note collusion between Harvard and INS and the reference to uncertainty over number of wives:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/28/harvard-wanted-barack-obamas-dad-deported/
“Harvard wanted Barack Obama’s Dad Deported”
begin quote
The Arizona Independent filed a FOIA request respecting the President’s father and reports this is among the
information they found in the immigration files:
1. “ The memo refers to Obama Sr.’s plans to attend the University of Hawaii for one more year to obtain his bachelor’s degree in economics, and that his spouse, a United States citizen, plans to work at the university.
“They have one child born Honolulu on 8/4/1961 – Barack Obama II, child living with mother (she lives with her parents & subject resides at 1482 Alencastre St.),” the memo states.”
2.” [T]he agency “recommend(s) that Subject be closely questioned before another extension is granted – and denial be considered. If his USC (United States Citizen) wife tries to petition for him make sure an investigation is conducted as to the bona-fide of the marriage.”
3.”Documents show that Obama, Sr. was denied an extension on his student visa in July, 1964, in part because Harvard University, where Obama, Sr., was a Ph.D. candidate, sought his removal. Obama Sr. eventually left the United States willingly after becoming an illegal alien for remaining in the country past the expiration of his visa.
An INS investigator, M.F. McKeon, wrote “They (Harvard officials) weren’t very impressed with him and asked us to hold up action on his application until they decided what action they could take in order to get rid of him. They were apparently having difficulty with his financial arrangements and couldn’t seem to figure out how many wives he had.”
Documents show that Harvard officials considered Obama, Sr. to be a “slippery character,” and conspired with the INS to have him deported.”
end quote
I see Harvard’s motives for wanting to see the backside of him as a combination of events, they had parents of one girl complaining about their daughter’s relationship with him, he maintained he had a wife named ANN S DUNHAM in Hawaii, (that was on the Immigration docs, after the original name of ‘wife’ was crossed out) another student from Kenya was apparently making plans to fly to the UK for an xxxxxx (deleted) and he was attempting to obtain a further extension to complete his Phd, so they told him to complete it in Kenya, they had no more funds.
He must have been a PITA from start to finish.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File
HI doesn't recognize common law marriages. Therefore, when they married Sr. to SADO (assuming that marriage took place) it was a valid marriage.
Valid-Where-Consummated and Public Policy Limits to Recognizing Customary Marriagehttp://www-bcf.usc.edu/~idjlaw/PDF/10-2/10-2%20Laymon.pdfPublic policy trumps recognition of a custom, even where the validwhere- consummated doctrine applies. For example, in People v. Ezeonu, the court could disregard the valid-where-consummated rule if the marriage was against public policy: the court did find that the Nigerian man’s marriage was valid under Nigerian law, but that it was “absolutely void
even where it was legally consummated in Nigeria.”83 Public policy limits to the recognition of customary law have earned much criticism from scholars of law and anthropology since public policy limits almost never address the fact that the claimant has a bona fide belief in the validity of his marriage.84 Overall, the invocation of public policy will overcome any request that a customary marriage is recognized.
In sum, we see that the rule of valid-where-consummated is limited on several grounds. Evidentiary standards in the United States may render a marriage that is valid in its country of origin invalid in the United States. While formalizing a marriage or divorce in the United States or obtaining a certificate from a customary court of the country of origin may be helpful, this option is not always available to the immigrant. Such certification also greatly undermines the significance and meaning of customary law to those trying to preserve their culture. A taint of fraud, even if there is only a rational basis for suspicion, may overcome any claim that the custom was valid in its country of origin. Naturalization cases also present a special problem to immigrants who must overcome judicial deference in favor of the INS. In sum, despite a first impression that valid-where-consummated is a clear rule, the doctrine is actually very limited, and often puts the immigrant claimant in a no-win situation.
COMMON-LAW MARRIAGE AND VALIDATION OF A CUSTOMARY MARRIAGE
When a court is unable to apply the valid-where-consummated doctrine to enforce a customary marriage, the cultural minority may invoke the doctrine of common-law marriage in those jurisdictions that recognize it. The common-law marriage doctrine is often treated very differently from one state to the next. Most U.S. states simply recognize or refuse recognition of common-law marriage entirely; some allow common-law marriages made within the state, but not elsewhere; and others allow common-law marriages if they are valid where consummated, but do not recognize marriages created through cohabitation in that state.85