Poster Saturday, L'Emprunt de la Victoire

When Wyomng Registered, and then Confiscated, Firearms

Gun registration and then confiscation, in Wyoming?

Yes, as part of the vast nationwide overreaction to all things German during World War One.

It's largely been forgotten, but prior to the Great War Germans in the United States were quite proud of their heritage and stood out, almost, but not quite, uniquely as an immigrant group that strove to retain their traditions and identity.  In many places shooting matches, a strong German sport in rural Germany, remained one in the rural German areas of the United States.  Many communities that had been originally settled by German immigrants retained German as the primary language, including for example Dyersville Iowa where my grandfather had been born.  

But the Great War changed much of that.

A real wave of anti German prejudice swept the nation and German communities reacted by shutting down much of the outward cultural attributes they had exhibited. Still people remained strongly suspicious of Germans and, oddly Eastern Europeans.  Those sorts of feelings lead to the item we saw recently accusing breweries of being money pipes to Germany.  And, in Wyoming, they lead to the 1917 act of the legislature requiring aliens to register their firearms.

Many apparently didn't, as this article notes, because they were simply unaware of the law.  And on this day the news hit that the state, using the Game and Fish Department as state police, raided a mining camp and confiscated the arms found there.  Clemency was granted to those aliens who simply surrendered them and plead ignorance, prosecution awaited for those who objected.  This amounted to a haul of seventeen firearms, not exactly a large number.

There are lessons here of all sorts, and people will draw their own, I suppose.  I suspect, although I don't know, that all the miners who found their arms taken were German, Austrian or Eastern European.  This occurred in the Sheridan area which had a large ex-patriot British community but somehow I doubt they found their arms taken.  I'll bet not.

Miners, it might be noted, were rural people and this wasn't necessarily a minor matter for them.  T he article notes that the 17 arms included a Sharps rifle, a large 19th Century rifle best recalled for use by frontier buffalo hunters. That was likely that miners hunting rifle and he likely was then going without a means of augmenting the dinner table.  Other arms may have been for self protection. Mining communities were not dens of passivity.

For what its worth, there was some armed opposition to the American role in World War One within the United States, or perhaps more accurately to conscription. We've already covered one such incident. Those incidents were, however, ones in which rural Americans took up arms against the government.  Not armed fifth column actions by immigrant aliens.

When Laramie discontinued the teaching of the German language

Getting upset with all things German had gone a bit far.

Observations on a Monday morning.

1.  My house sounds like a respiratory ward.

There's been some nasty bugs going around this winter, including the dreaded flu. So far, I've avoided them all.

One of my co-workers fell ill a couple of weeks ago and was so ill, the week before we tried a case (last week) that he was out for a couple of days.  We both made it to the trial, however.

At the trial opposing counsel became sicker and sicker.

But I made it home okay.

By which time my daughter's cold had turned from bad to really bad.

I was still okay.

This morning I have a cough . . . .

2.  There was no heat in the office on Saturday, a day I worked.  It's really cold in here today an the heat hasn't made it back to my office yet, the last heat register, or whatever it is, in this 101 year old building.   This happens every winter and for some reason the building super never gets it fixed.

Come on man!

3.  On the way down here a car from Montana hit its breaks on ice simply because it saw a Ford Ranger stuck on a side street.  That's not a good thing if you are also on the same ice patch and behind the car.

4.  It's an odd experience in speaking to a receptionist in another state whom you can't understand due to her accent can't understand you due to your accent.

5.  Boots with really high heels are not a good option on a slippery day.  I don't know why women elect for that option.

Shockingly young! Surprisingly old! Too young, too old! Well, nothing much actually changing at all. . . Marriage ages then. . . and now. . and what does it all mean?

 Eleanor Randolph Wilson in her wedding dress.  1914.  She was a daughter of President Wilson and would have been about 25 years old at the time this photograph was taken.

This is one of those topics that I started a really long time ago, and then it became sort of bizarrely relevant to current headlines, or maybe not.  

Anyhow, I thought of it, and determined to expand it out a bit, although perhaps I couldn't be doing so at a worse time, given that the current focus on marriage ages has turned sort of bizarre corner in the recent news. 

 Turkish bride and her attendants, 1914.

Indeed, this whole topic has been so much so much in current conversation, that an off line email conversation made me reconsider a lot of this topic, even though doing so makes a person feel a little odd and icky doing so.  But first we will start with what I originally started to start with, which is a link to this:

Median Age at Marriage–Then and Now

This really short article on A Hundred Years Ago has some really interesting information in it.  And some of that really interesting information just isn't what we'd expect.  The entry was part of a series on a century old diary, and its starts out:

16-year-old Helena Muffly wrote exactly 100 years ago today: 

Wednesday, March 22, 1911:  The events of the day are not worth the time to mention them. I am waiting and hoping to get a bid to the wedding.

Her middle-aged granddaughter’s comments 100 years later:

Other diary entries indicated that Edith (last name unknown) was planning to marry Harry Reynolds. I assume this is the upcoming wedding that Grandma was referring to. Edith and Grandma’s sister Ruth were both seniors at McEwensville High School.

Edith was probably about 18 years old. I’ve heard that the average age when people get married has increased a lot over the years. Until I did a little research I assumed that 18 probably was a fairly typical marriage age a hundred years ago.

 Bridesmaids, 1916.

I knew that the median age a century ago was not 18 years old, but I think that assumption is super common.  Indeed, I think that a lot of people operate under the assumption that back a century, or more, ago people married really young.

Let's take a look at that, and we'll start off with the article we linked in.

I was surprised to learn that in 1910 the median age at first marriage  was 21.6 for females and 25.1 for males.

The median marriage age steadily decreased until the middle of the 20th century. In 1950, it was 20.3 for females and 22.8 for males.

The trend then reversed and by 2007, it had increased to 25.0 for females and 26.7 for males–and preliminary estimates for 2010 suggest that it has continued to climb to about 26 for females and 28 for males.

Let's take a look at that, as I don't think that's what people expect at all.

 An early destination wedding?  A wedding, coming up on a century ago, in the Luray Caverns.

The median age for women was 21.6 in 1910. The same year, the median age for men was 25.1.

At the time the author wrote this entry, 2010, the median age for women was 25.0.  The median age for men was 26.7.  Data suggested that it had crept up a little over 1.7 years for women and 1.3 years for men.

Okay, that is a difference, but is that what you were expecting?

I doubt it, unless you are quite familiar with these statistics.

So, over century, the average age for "first marriages" has gone up a little under four years for women, and a little over 1.5 years for men.  Not that much of a climb.

 Wedding reception, 1907.  Doesn't look all that different from a lot of them you might see in a fancier wedding now.  This one is a bit unusual for the time, and was probably in a higher economic class, as the men are wearing tuxedos, which was not the standard for all weddings until relatively recently.

And that says quite a bit.

Additionally, we might note, the age differences between married couples tends not to be vast, at least for these first marriages. Early on, the men were a little over three years older than the women they married.  Now, a century later, they're almost two years older.  Not much of a change.

Particularly if we consider the vast societal, and moreover economic, changes during that century.

 Polish bride and groom, 1920.

We need, however, to first also take in mind that that these are averages. And as a median is an average, it's possible to arrive at these same results by having big swings in the numbers.  I.e., these numbers may reflect a really tight group, or they may reflect a really broad one.  The numbers themselves don't quite reveal which is which.  I'm taking them to be fairly tight, but I could be well off the mark.

But note, if this is correct, not only is the common assumption "people married so much younger" somewhat open to criticism, the assumption that "people are marrying older and older" is as well.  I suspect that both of those comments are in fact true, in context, but the numbers don't really adequately support it over the past century, and the changes, particularly after other factors are added in, may not actually be statistically significant.

 Portrait of very young Jewish bride, Ottoman Empire, 1870s.

Let's take a table that somebody else has generated and see if it changes things at all:

Year --- Men --- Women
2015 ----29.2 ----27.1
2010 --- 28.2 --- 26.1
2000 --- 26.8 --- 25.1
1990 --- 26.1 --- 23.9
1980 --- 24.7 --- 22.0
1970 --- 23.2 --- 20.8
1960 --- 22.8 --- 20.3
1950 --- 22.8 --- 20.3
1940 --- 24.3 --- 21.5
1930 --- 24.3 --- 21.3
1920 --- 24.6 --- 21.2
1910 --- 25.1 --- 21.6
1900 --- 25.9 --- 21.9
1890 --- 26.1 --- 22.0

Okay, that doesn't take us a lot further back, but it also produces some interesting results.  If we go all the way back to 1890 what we find is that the median age for men was 26.1, and that it then went down a year by 1910.  It continued to go down until 1960, at which time it was 22.8 years.  That really doesn't fit with our picture at all.  If we'd been making this same calculation mid 20th Century, we'd be noting that marriage ages were going down.  Now, if this table is correct, the age for men is 29.2, way up from 1960, and about three years up from 1890.  From 1890 on, however, it took all the way until 1990, 100 hundred years, for the age for men to rise back up to what it had been in 1890.  For that matter, it took from 1890 until 1980 for the age to rise back up to 22.0 years for women, although its climbed dramatically since then. . . maybe.

 Wedding party portrait, 1909.  Again, this couple must have been from an upper economic class, given the dress.

For women ages held fairly steady in the very early 20s, but still hit bottom in 1950 to 1960, when it was just a little over 20 years old.  It's way up to a little over 27 years old now, and that's quite a jump.

So this trend must be universal, going back, sort of kind of.

Not so much.

Let's look at 1850.

In 1850 the average marriage age for men was 28.

Um. . . 28?  Yes, we just climbed up over that in 2010.

And for women it was 26.  We got back to that in 2010 also.

It took us 130 years for the average "first" marriage age to get back to what it had been in 1850.

 Balkan wedding, 1919.  American officer is giving the bride away.

Hmm. . . . .

Now this gets harder and harder to do as you go back further and further, but let's take a look even further back.

 "Francis LeBaron and Mary Wilder during their wedding ceremony, with many guests, in a room, possibly in the magistrate's residence, officiated by a clergyman; includes two remarques, at bottom center is a bust portrait of Mary Wilder, facing left, and on the lower left is a scene with Dr. Francis LeBaron as a physician attending to a sick person."  LoC.

England, 1700s; Women: 25-26; Men: 30

New England, early 1600s; Women: Teens; Men: 26

New England, late 1600s; Women: 20; Men: 25

Pennsylvania Quakers, 1600s; Women: 22; Men: 26

Pennsylvania Quakers, 1700s; Women: 23; Men: 26

Rural South Carolina, 1700s; Women: 19; Men: 22

Wow.  None of this meets our expectations at all.

Basically, if we go back and looked at the United  States and the UK, and we take into account nothing but median ages, things have not really changed all that much.  For the most part, in North America, going back about 300 years, median ages have been in the upper half of the 20s.  Women have generally fallen in the lower half of the 20s.  Ages have climbed in recent years, but they've actually gone up and down over the years.

 Jewish wedding, Ottoman Empire, 1870s.  The families are signing a formal agreement in the context of the wedding.

So what's going on?

Well, in some ways not that much.

Truly.

The long historical data basically suggests that even over time and change, in European American culture, men tend to get married in the second half of their 20s and women in the first half.

The trend line does move, up and down, and that means that external things influence this.

So what about all the stories to the opposite?

Well, let's consider historical outliers.  But before we do that, let's consider the current outliers in our own statistics.

 Wedding at Episcopal church in Jerusalem, 1940s.

But before we do that, let's remember that when we are dealing with statistics this consistent, the outliers don't make the story.

In other words, there may truly be a lot of nothing going on in this story. Things, quite frankly, may not have changed that much.  Here's an area in which you might truly be able to look back in the past and figure that your life might have played out much the same way.  Or maybe (and at least somewhat probably) not.

Okay.  Outliers in our current statistics.

One thing we're going to have to do in this is look at economics as part of this story, as well as acceptable social conventions.  Indeed, I argued just the other day that our current social conventions are messed up, and I mean it. That taps into this story in a way.

If we look at the current stats, men at age  29.2 and women at 27.1, we have to consider that these statistics would be at least somewhat depressed if we used the 1917 definitions.

 Bedouin wedding procession, early 20th Century.

Up until after World War Two cohabitation was largely illegal in most states and extremely shameful everywhere in European American and European society. The only people you really saw cohabitate tended to be on the far edges of society.  People so down and out that the statistics didn't count for them, or so Bohemian that they didn't.  And in many instances when that occurred the presumption of the Common Law marriage was presumed to exist.

Now, Common Law marriages still exist in most states, I think, but they do not exist in mine per se (we'll recognize common law marriages that are contracted elsewhere).  Common law marriages have never been as common as presumed, but they have been widely recognized at least in societies that use English Common Law.

This matters in terms of our current statistics as quite a few instances of "cohabitation" would either be deemed common law marriages under the pre World War Two law or they'd be regarded as illegal arrangements.  Post World War Two many would still be regarded as common law marriages, at first, or would be regarded as shameful. Now it's become, and in my view its not a good thing, extremely common.

 Chinese wedding party, 1909.

It's so common in fact that what at first was an edgy behavior mostly done by middle class rebellious youth has become pretty widely accepted to the point where the old instances of the common law marriage have come to apply to them in some ways, and indeed in many ways.  Over the last ten years, for example, I knew one cohabitating couple in which at least the female in the arrangement simply introduced the male members as her "husband". That would be sufficient for a common law marriage to be recognized under the old law (they in fact later married).  Another couple I know is engaged, has a child, and have had a very long standing relationship. They're in their early 30s, but the relationship stretches back to their early 20s and would likely have been regarded as a common law marriage, if we looked at it in 1917, or they would have certainly been legally compelled to marry quite early on.  Another couple I know is in their late 30s but again has been living in such an arrangement for a decade or more.  And another one I know has been engaged in it for a shorter period but again have undertaken things that would have caused a common law marriage to have been recognized earlier on.  And to show how even the people who are engaged in such relationships are confused by what they mean, I recently heard a man in one such relationship try to describe another man in one by what he was in relation to the female object of that second union, and ended u using the word "husband".

 This photograph of a native Alaskan wedding party almost certainly depicts a party at a Russian Orthodox wedding service.

The point on this is that this is that, because marriage is a natural institution (people familiar with some bodies of law will be familiar with the term "natural marriage") people tend to re-create its incidents even when they are attempting not to.  So, if we look at the men at age  29.2 and women at 27.1, if we include common law marriages and ersatz, pseudo and near common law marriages, that number is actually lower.  Probably quite a bit lower.

Indeed, we'd have to depress these ages for every decade since the 1970s as this practice became more accepted.  If we did, my guess (and its just that) is that the ages would remain about where they were in 1980.

When we get beyond that, what we tend to find is that we have about a ten year period, from 20 to 30 years age, when "first marriages" are normally contracted for men and women, but that those ages slide around, up and down, for a variety of reasons.

 Bedouin wedding, Syria, 1940s

And I suspect that those reasons are fairly consistent.  Economic and societal reason are primary factors, over the ages, but often very different economic and societal factors.  So the forces that impact this are the same, and different, at the same time.

Currently, we've been seeing the restoration of economic forces that most people in our current era did not experience, but which are a bit of the historical norm, at least for men.  It's taking a long time for men to establish themselves economically now, and indeed due to the entry of women into the work force (which we'll deal with in a minute) its also taking a long time for women to do the same.

This has been going on longer than people recognize and I suspect that its something that can be traced at least back to the 1980s.  And in this context, its interesting to note that marriage ages for men climbed from just about 23 years of age in 1950 to just about 25 years of age in 1980, and then to 26 years of age in 1990.

In 1950 American men still lived in an era when a high school degree, which they normally acquired at age 17 or 18, could gain entry to the work force at a beginning, but real, level.  A bachelor's degree, normally obtained at that time at age 22, guaranteed entry into the white collar world.  By age 22 men had likely more often than not (but not always, these are statistics) met the woman they were likely to marry and by age 22 they were established enough to get married, more often than not.

Now, not all did.  Some married later (and we'll get to that in a moment) and some younger, but you can see how the general trend worked.

 Bride portrait, about 1910.

By the 1980s, however, this was much less the case.  Bachelors degrees that had taken four years now often took five.  And a bachelors degree was a much more dicey proposition in terms of employment.  By 1990 this was even more the case, and by 2000 many bachelors degrees did not guarantee employment at all. So this meant that men who had entered career fields at 22, in the 50s, were not entering them until 25 or 26, at the earliest, a couple of decades later, which pretty much matched the rise in marriage ages.   Now, with even advance degrees like law not offering immediate employment opportunities that stage of life is often pushed off to age 30 or even older.

The concept of somebody being young, we'd note, has also risen.  In 1930 a person who was 30 wasn't a kid.  Now, perhaps they are.

When we look back further this is all the more evident.  If we look at hard economic times, like the 1890s, men and women both pushed the age of marriage back.  When economic times were really good, like the 1950s and 1960s, the opposite was true.  Geographically this is also evident.  When we look at England of the 1700s the average age was about 30, while it was about 26 in North America.  People's prospects were generally better in North America than they were in England.

 Wartime wedding of Australian service members in Jerusalem.

When you add in women, the same is also evident, but the pressures are different.  Up until the 1930s or so, as we've written about before, most women remained in their parents households until they married.  Their labor was needed, but if you look at writings from women of that age, they often strongly desired to get married just to get out of their parents' homes.  While it would be going a ways back, the 1700s, the writings of Jane Austen, who of course was herself a late 18th Century and early 19th Century figure, and an unmarried woman, this comes across well.  In Pride and Prejudice, for example, one figure marries simply because she's a burden on her parents, past the average marriage age (late 20s in the case of the figure in the novel), and wants to keep her own home.  The marriage prospects of all of the Bennet sisters in the novel are of utmost concern to her parents as they will not inherit an estate and will be subject to economic disaster if they do not marry.   The portrayal is dramatic, but not really greatly different from contemporary writings of the time involving people in similar situations.

What this tended to mean is that women always married a bit younger than men, but never as young as some seem to think.  As a rule, prior to mid century, and even some time after that, the fact that their husband was established and they were moving from one domestic employment to another operated in regards to that.  That is, for example, if we look at 1920, they tend to average just over 21 years of age and were marrying men who were just under 25, which would mean that by that time they'd been living as adult women at home, as a rule, for several years and were marrying men who were a couple of years at least into what would likely be their lifetime employment.  Situations vary, but that would have been relatively stable.

 Wedding of officer of the German fighting ship Emden.  The ship grounded early in World War One so I don't know what happened to the subjects.

Figuring out what was going on in 1970, when women hit the floor age, wise at just under 21 is a little harder to figure. Their spouses averaged at just over 23.  So it would seem that some of the same factors were at work, but that women, who were no longer needed at home for domestic employment, but who hadn't yet been subject to the pressure of "must have a career" were marrying fairly young in relative terms.  Women may have actually hit the height of their freedom in real terms about that time.

After 1970s a new era increasingly took over in which women were now subject to increased expectations that they had to have a "career" just like men.  As that developed, they same pressure that they establish themselves in that career really built. Today that pressure is full on.  With that in mind, that "first marriage" age for women is now up to 27 is no surprise, they're enduring the same thing that men are.

So what's that leave us with? Well, for most people, marriage ages haven't changed as much as we commonly think, as first marriages are generally contracted older than we think they are, and beyond that, economic and social pressures have an influence on that.

 Just married.  1943.

Social pressures?

What am I talking about here?  I only addressed economic pressures.

Well, on to social concerns, or perhaps I should say cultural concerns. These too have historically had an impact on marriage ages, but they're outliers in a way.

Consider for example the Irish.  The news in Ireland is that marriage ages are up, and now the first age for men and women is now in the 30s (although there may be a statistical glitch in this that makes the data a bit flawed).  The average age for women, in Ireland, is 33 and for men, 35.

But in reality, the average age in Ireland, and amongst Irish Americans, has always been high.  Men have crowed or surpassed age 30 routinely for as long as the statistics have been taken, and traditionally women were in their late 20s. There were strong economic reasons for this for centuries, but its also now a strongly cultural matter that has only changed marginally.  "Young Irish bride" is a category that doesn't even really exist.  Indeed, under the law of Ireland, a person under 21 years of age is a minor and marriages in that age group are regarded as under aged, which they would not be in the US.  Ireland allows marriages with legal provisions down to 16, which is actually a higher age than most US states ultimately have (I don't know what it is in my state, but at least according to a sign that was once up in the courthouse it was something like down to age 15 with parents permission.)

Indeed, my own family is somewhat of an example of this as my parents, who both had Irish heritage, didn't marry until they were both in their 30s.  They'd fit in nicely with the current Irish statistics.  I'm not sure how old my mother's parents were, but I know that they were more or less engaged as a couple for an extremely long time while my grandfather worked to get his feet on the ground economically.  I think, therefore, that they were likely around 30 when they were married.  I was 31 at the time of our wedding.

 

Kingdon Gould, Sr,, age 30, the son of legendary railroad man Jay Gould, married Italian born Annunziata Camilla Maria Lucci, then age 27, in Manhattan in 1917.  The marriage was rather obviously outside of his ethnicity, something that would have been uncommon for a man of his position at the time, but note that the ages are fairly contemporary.  The marriage was a successful one.

Well what about the opposite, "young" marriages? Are there cultures in the United States where this is common?  Well, not really any mainstream ones really.

There are some where the ages are slightly younger than the average, but they're only slightly younger.  Mormons, for example, marry statistically younger, but the median ages are only a couple of years younger than the national average.  By observation, this makes sense as we tend to see Mormon couples in fact be a couple of years younger than what we'd otherwise find.  While, by observation, Mormon dating practises are dramatically different than the American cultural norm, that isn't translating into really young brides as some people sometimes tend to think it does.

Some recent immigrant cultures do tend towards young marriages, particularly young brides, but those amount to statistical outliers and may not be statistically significant.  If they are, they are something that has existed throughout American history and have probably pushed the average marriage ages down, statistically, for a long time.  Some American Hispanic cultures had very young marriage ages, compared to the overall population, at one time for example.  The same is true of Italian Americans.  Marriages down into the teenage years were not uncommon in either culture, at one time, but they are now.  As the overall percentage of the population such groups represent is always a minority, the impact on overall statistics would be small.  Having said that, I've known at least one deceased New Mexican person who was married at about age 14 to a husband who was only a couple of years older, in the 1930s, and an Italian American couple that was 16 years old, in the 40s, when they they were married. FWIW, the marriages worked and were successful.

So what about the ones that are always the source of myth and rumor? You know, 30 year old guy marries 14 year old girl. That type of thing.

Well that was never common.

And it was particularly not common for a male "first" marriage.

Which takes us to second marriages, or rather a marriage where one of the two participants had been married previously. This is, I suspect, where we pick up these stories more often than not.

A real factor in the story of marriage in prior centuries was female mortality.  The female death rate was very high, often due to death giving birth.  Women wanted to be married, but at the same time its notable that the basic incidents of marriage could be lethal to women, and frequently were. 

What that meant was that the number of widowers was once very high. For that matter, there were once a lot of widows was very high as well.  The dynamics of this had a real impact on "second" marriage ages.

Today, there are more women than men, as male mortality is higher.  That's always been true to a degree, but if we go back prior to the mid 19th Century we'll find that this was not always the case. Female mortality was quite high.  As a result of this, it's not uncommon at all to find examples of men who were married three or so times and never due to divorce. Their prior wives had just all died.

None of that had an impact on "first marriages", and it didn't always have an impact on second marriages either.  Generally, given a choice, men tend to marry at or near their own ages, or within a decade of it (going down, usually, not up).  But for second marriages, this does begin to break apart.

For one thing, some men will simply look down towards first marriageable age no matter what.  Its not hard to find examples of that now, and I can think of at least one such example readily myself.  But beyond that, if a man had means at all, and his spouse died, he likely was in the position of having to hire female assistance to take care of his young children, and that assistance ends up explaining a lot of young brides.

As we've already discussed, women, prior to the mid 20th Century, normally worked in their parents homes until they married.  This wasn't the case for those who were forced to work outside the home for economic reasons, however.  Some women worked their entire lives as "domestics".  But some just started off their lives that way.  That is, they were surplus labor at home in a home that was better off with them employed outside the home.  Often these women were in fact girls.

 

We've had Delia Kane, age 14 at  The Exchange Luncheon, Boston up several times recently.  Her photograph illustrates a point, however.  At this age, she's employed where it'd be illegal to employ her now, and chances are she wasn't employed for her own pocket change.  Girls like her found work everywhere, including as domestics in houses in which they were effectively the mother substitute for a dead parent.

Employed, as they sometimes were, in the home of a widower, who likely wasn't really all that old, and taking care of his children, at some point, practicality and familiarity took over.  This wasn't exactly a love match per se.  The man probably needed the labor, but probably also had some affection for the subject bride. The bride had a family that benefited from her leaving home, and what she'd be doing in the household of her new husband wasn't dramatically different from what she was doing otherwise, but somewhat more stable.

Indeed, you can find lots of examples, sometimes upset examples, of older children being really upset by a father "marrying down".  I can think of one such example of that myself in which a highly educated  man had been married to a highly educated woman, who died. The second wife was one of the maids.

Young couple of typical marriage age in the 1920s, from our prior thread "Courting".

Another example of this, although not a good one due to the conditions, is that of the parents of T. E. Lawrence, i.e. Lawrence of Arabia.  Lawrence's father was Sir Thomas Chapman and was married to a woman of equal rank who was one year older than he was. But Chapman took up with the governess of his children with his wife, who was fifteen years his junior. A better historical example, although still obviously rather problematic, would be that of Sally Hemmings, who became the mistress of Thomas Jefferson after the death of Jefferson's wife, and her half sister, Martha (who herself had been married prior to Jefferson but who had been widowed.  Of interest here, Martha had been 18 years old at the time of her first marriage, her husband had been 22, but Sally was in her mid teens when she became the enslaved mistress and perhaps near spouse of Jefferson (the dynamics of this are, suffice it to say, rather odd and problematic).

This is only one variant of that, of course. Poverty and security, in an age before any social welfare system existed at all, forced some people into relationships that were not only extreme in our view, but likely were extreme at the time.  They'd not arise now, however, as the economic pressures that gave rise to them just don't exist.

Rural African American couple in the 1920s.

Which I suppose takes us up to the odd outliers we see in the news now and then today.  When we hear things like the Roy Moore story, or read about another Duggar getting married in a nearly arranged marriage, these are not only unusual, but in fact cross over into odd.

So, what's the overall story here? Well, there is one, but it's not the one that people expect.  Average marriage ages have changed, in fact, not hardly at all.  Where we think we see some change it's often because of economic and statistical factors that we don't quite appreciate.

  Yes, this is the third (now fourth) time I've run this photo.  I just like it.  Two young couples.  Migrant farm workers in Louisiana and their children, 1939.

So there's a story here, to be sure.  But maybe a lot less of one than we'd suppose, and its influenced by factors that we often don't really grasp, while we analyze ones that perhaps get more attention than they deserve.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Related threads:

Courting

Et Ux*: A legal and societal history of marriage

Today In Wyoming's History: February 2: Common Law Marriages

For First Time in Modern Era, Living With Parents Edges Out Other Living Arrangements for 18- to 34-Year-Olds. Generations: Part Three of Three

A few random thoughts about recent assaults

Mad dogs and other pondering.

A few random thoughts about the recent terrorist attack in New York City.
___________________________________________________________________________________

President Trump has gone after the fact that the terrorist came in on a "diversity visa".  Well, while Trump will now be attacked for mentioning that, visas for the purpose of achieving diversity are flat out odd, particularly for the United States which is the most diverse nation on Earth.

What's a diversity visa?

Well, according to the US:

Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides for a class of immigrants known as “diversity immigrants,” from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States. A limited number of visas are available each fiscal year. The DVs are distributed among six geographic regions and no single country may receive more than seven percent of the available DVs in any one year.

Why do we need to do this?  We don't.  It's not the business of the United States to try to make immigration "diverse".  A sane approach would be to base immigration on something else, which we've already discussed.  That may cause diversity to occur accidentally, as in when refugees are taken in, or people with particular needed skills, and that's fine. But to decide that "gee, nobody comes here from there, and we got to address that" isn't an immigration policy.  It's just a feel good, and naive, social policy.

___________________________________________________________________________________

The New York policeman that hit the suspect fired nine time.

The press has been quick to declare the policeman a hero, and he may very well be, but I have to wonder, why do big city policemen exhibit such crappy marksmanship?  Nine times and he hit a man sized target once?  Not that this is unusual.  The New York City Police Department some time ago infamously shot a Haitian man nineteen times after firing forty one times.  Pretty bad.

Now, I may not know a lot about his shot.  Maybe it was at long range, which with a pistol is tough.  Maybe the target was seeking to evade skillfully.

But it seems to be the case that any time we read about New York City policemen using their firearms, they shoot a lot but hit little.  That would frankly not occur in most of the Western states in the same circumstances (I wrote this, I'll note, before the recent incident in Texas).

___________________________________________________________________________________

On the last item, while I don't know the circumstances so I'm commenting only in general, the modern definition of hero has become so loose that simply being subjected to violence causes somebody to be branded a hero.

The last big Eastern city to be attacked by deluded Muslim terrorist who hailed from a former Soviet republic was Boston, and the entire city was branded as "heroic" for that. But the city basically holed up for a day while the police eventually found the guilty parties.  That's not cowardly, and it may be wise, but it's not heroic.

It's also likely not the result the authorities would have received in most localities West of the Mississippi, FWIW. That might not be heroic either.

Anyhow, this policeman might be a hero.  I don't know.  Or he may have just been doing his job which, as harsh as it is to say, doesn't make you a hero.

On this, by the way, there was a situation back East where a policeman being held at gunpoint begged for intervention from a passerby who was armed and who shot the hostage take (it didn't take him nine shots either).  That strikes me as heroic, but I haven't heard it proclaimed to be.  Maybe it has, however.

Last night when I turned on the news, I saw where later Entertainment Tonight was going to have an expose on how easy it is to rent a truck.

Seriously?

This is a bit of a revelation as it shows the same mindset that tends to go into ever instance of there being a shooting.  A truck used in a crime? Gosh, we have to do something about the lack of truck rental policies in this nation!

Like what?

Fill out a form where you promise not to use a pickup in an attack?

As a local wise sage I'm related to closely pointed out, if you can't rent one. . . you can probably steal one.

Sheesh.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Okay, I know that this is an ISIL/ISIS inspired attack and I've been quick to point out again and again that Islam has a problem with violence, but as I noted the other day, when you are at this level I think you are forfeiting your Holy Warrior card.  That is, no matter what Mohamed thought about jihad, I'm pretty sure he didn't have this in mind.

__________________________________________________________________________________

On Islam having a problem with violence, I'd note that it seems well established that some of the people who attended Islamic services with this fellow thought he was a really unhinged radical. They said nothing to anyone.

Nor can we expect them to.  Violent extremists of every stripe are very rarely exposed by their ethnic fellows.  Most Sicilian immigrants were not in the mafia but it took forever to crack the mafia.  Criminal organization from Boston Southies has been hard to expose forever even though most Southies are not in criminal organizations.  Strong ethnicities, particularly recent arrivals, generally will not reveal problems amongst their own. They just won't.

__________________________________________________________________________________

And some random thoughts on the assault in Texas.
__________________________________________________________________________________

This dude had a violent domestic assault on his record, had escaped from a mental health facility in 2012 after he was caught sneaking guns onto an Air Force base and had been regarded by the USAF as having attempted to carry out death threats towards his military superiors.

Given all of that you'd think that the USAF would have made sure that he ended up in the records for criminal searches so that he was ineligible to purchase a firearm, right?

Nope. They didn't managed to get that done.

Not that this is really uncommon.  It isn't. We pretty much let loonies be loonies until they do something really bad. And that's nuts.

We'll have lots of talk now about banning instrumentalities, but the fact of the matter is, this guy should have been in prison or a mental institution already.

___________________________________________________________________________________

I wonder how many shots the armed citizens, who hit this guy twice, took?
___________________________________________________________________________________

The Texas assailant wouldn't have been stopped as soon as it was but for two civilian Texans, one of whom was armed.

Of course, you can argue that if the assailant didn't have access to arms, the attack wouldn't have happened (although you really can't be sure).  But then, he wasn't supposed to have access as he was in the category of people that can't legally own firearms.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Some Takeaways:

We live in the least violent era in history, ever.

That's easy to forget due to stuff like this, but we do need to remember it. Of course, that doesn't mean that we have license to ignore real problems.

But not having license to ignore real problems also means actually analyzing the problems.

And what would that teach us?

Maybe somethings that are true, but which don't fit the cuddly view we in the west have of the world.

One thing it would teach us is that even if most of the world is in its least violent period ever, some big patches of the world, characterized by a lack of development and close adherence to the Islamic faith, remain in the 7th Century more or less, in terms of their world outlooks and willingness to be violent.  There's really no reason for everyone else to participate in that by importing it.

Immigration can be to aid the oppressed, but its more properly to aid the country where people are immigrating to, in most of the world. As the world isn't infinitely large, taking that approach, with allowance for humanitarian reasons to other goals, is the sensible policy.  Taking in radical nutjobs in the name of diversity is stupid.

People can talk about gun control all they want, but what you have at the end of the day, in regards to the type of violence we still have, is control of a really violent element.  Islamic radicals are some, but people who are just flat out nuts and violent are another.  Waiting until they become unglued before anything is done is really not very smart.

Both of these acts could have been entirely avoided.  One by leaving the disgruntled Islamic radical in his home of origin to be a pest there.  The other by putting a violent mental deficient in the stockade for years. 

Related Threads: 

 Peculiarized violence and American society. Looking at root causes, and not instrumentalities.

President Wilson's Veto of the Immigration Act overturned.

On this date in 1917 Woodrow Wilson's veto of the Immigration Bill was overturned and the Immigration Act of 1917 became law. The act is remembered for its sweeping exclusionary provisions.

It barred the entry of people with undesirable characteristics, in the view of the drafts, which included alcoholics, anarchists, contract laborers, criminals and convicts, epileptics, the feebleminded, "idiots", "illiterates" over 16 years of age, "imbeciles", "insane persons", "paupers", "persons afflicted with contagious disease", "persons being mentally or physically defective", "persons with constitutional psychopathic inferiority", "political radicals", "polygamists", "prostitutes" and "vagrants".

The most controversial part of the bill, in people's memories, was the creation of the "Asiatic Barred Zone" which banned immigration from much of Asia and the Pacific, excluding Japan and the Philippines.  

Interestingly, Mexican temporary labor was excluded, although they were ineligible for permanent immigration.   A per capita tax was imposed on immigrants, but again Mexican temporary laborers were excluded.

World War One era Liberty Bond poster somewhat ironically using immigrants in its pitch.

Rumor, misunderstanding and bad reporting. Law, the Press and the Interenet

As everyone knows, but which I've been slow to really look at President Trump issued an executive order regarding Middle Eastern immigrants, or rather entrants, recently, and that's resulted in a firestorm of controversy.

Here's what I thought happened, based upon the stuff that I belatedly picked up from the Net.

Trump barred entry by those from a selection of Middle Eastern nations, but not from all (Saudi Arabia, remarkably, was off the list).

That isn't what happened.

What actually happened is that he ordered a sweeping review of immigration, and that he did bar entrants from a selection of Middle Eastern nations, but not all, for 120 days.  

Warning its long.

PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows: 

Section 1.  Purpose.  The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States.  Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans.  And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.

Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States.  The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism. 

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.  The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.  In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation. 

Sec. 2.  Policy.  It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes. 

Sec. 3.  Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern.  (a)  The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.

     (b)  The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order.  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.

     (c)  To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

     (d)  Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.

     (e)  After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.

     (f)  At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.

     (g)  Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

     (h)  The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.

     Sec. 4.  Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs.  (a)  The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.

     (b)  The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.

     Sec. 5.  Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017.  (a)  The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days.  During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures.  Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures.  Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.

     (b)  Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality.  Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

     (c)  Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.

     (d)  Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.

     (e)  Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

     (f)  The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.
     (g)  It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees.  To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.

     Sec. 6.  Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility.  The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.

     Sec. 7.  Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System.  (a)  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

     (b)  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section.  The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order.  Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.

     Sec. 8.  Visa Interview Security.  (a)  The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.

     (b)  To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.

     Sec. 9.  Visa Validity Reciprocity.  The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment.  If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.

     Sec. 10.  Transparency and Data Collection.  (a)  To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:

(i)   information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;

(ii)   information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iii)  information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iv)   any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.

     (b)  The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.

     Sec. 11.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

     (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

     (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

                             DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
    January 27, 2017.

Okay, that was long.

What's it do?

Well a bunch of things, but the part that is causing criticism is the 120 day ban on people entering, for any reasons, from certain regions.

The story was that it banned entrants.  It did not.  It puts the entire policy under review. Beyond that, it bans entrants for 120 days while certain things occur, with exceptions. The exceptions are for oppressed religious minorities

Is it legal?

Darned if I know.  I know that it would be but for Congressional action that sets out specific criteria this may be contrary to. Or at least that's how the law has been interpreted in the past.  But if it is illegal, that's why.

The commentary by some that's its Unconstitutional on a broad basis is incorrect, at least according to the interpretations that currently exist.  Immigration policy can hardly ever be Unconstitutional, as the U.S. Supreme Court has previously stated, as immigrants aren't citizens.  That's why, for example, the removal of due process for deportation, which occurred back in the 1990s, was not Unconstitutional.

It's a charming notion, I'll note as an aside, that everyone on the planet is subject the rights and privileges extended by the U.S. Constitution.  But they aren't. That only applies to Americans and permanent residents.  As this did impact permanent residents, it might have been Unconstitutional as to that aspect, but only narrowly.  Resident aliens, as opposed to non resident aliens, do have rights under the U.S. Constitution.

In other words, the US is actually free to only admit people from certain races, religions, and ethnicities into the country, or nobody at all.  I'm not saying that it should select immigrants on that basis, only that its not Unconstitutional.  Once they're in, however, it can't discriminate as to those people on that basis.  So, you could say that no Asians can come in (and the U.S. has actually done that in the past, as we'll be seeing next month), but it can't say that Asians it admits in can't do this or that.  Again, I'm not saying that's a good policy, that is I'm not saying keep Asians out, I'm only saying that Congress has done that in the past and arguably could in the future.  It won't, but it wouldn't be Unconstitutional if it did.  And, of course, that addresses what Congress can do.  The question here really is what can the President do to restrict immigration Congress has allowed.

Apparently (and I haven't studied this) there may be a statutory enactment prohibiting certain types of discrimination in regards to immigration and this might be contrary to it.  I don't really know, but the question has been now raised.  The fact that it was raised doesn't mean that it will prevail, in spite of the peculiar rejoicing that the ruling of a single judge has done that.  No, it hasn't.

A New York Federal judge, US District Judge Ann Donnelly, has put a halt on enforcement of the order.  That's within her authority, but only barely if the statute wasn't there.  As it is, its squarely within her authority, however.  Her ruling was on an interlocutory order, which is just temporary, and which has standards that apply to temporary issues to be later taken up by the court when it can.  The status quo is the goal with interlocutory orders.  Her order stated:

The petitioners have a strong likelihood of success in establishing that the removal of the petitioner and other similarly situated violates their due process and equal protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution,

***

"There is imminent danger that, absent the stay of removal, there will be substantial and irreparable injury to refugees, visa-holders, and other individuals from nations subject to the January 27, 2017, Executive Order.

Classic analysis, actually, for just such a motion.

Pity, by the way, poor Judge Donnelly. She's new to the Federal Bench having served for some time on the New York Court of Claims prior to that. What a way to get in the national spotlight.

Anyhow, there was widespread rejoicing in some quarters about Judge Donnelly's order. But its' just an interlocutory order.  I.e, its just temporary.

And beyond that, it only applied to people stuck in limbo at ports of entry.

That's it.

So, while you can find all this out by reading or listening to the appropriate news outlet, for the most part everyone is thinking that something other than what happened, happened.  Note, I'm not commenting on what should or should not have happened, only what did.

Judge Donnelly did not rule that anything was legal or illegal.  She only ruled on a limited basis impacting a limited number of people for a temporary time period.  She was, in her order, trying to maintain the status quo until she can get to the merits of the case and used the classic analysis.

Nearly all of which is something that will tend to be missed.