Please focus. Obama is gone. We are now dealing with a treasonous President who is threatening our Constitutional protections piece by piece. We have more than one Constitutional crisis brewing, and that Constitution is the basis of all we teach. If the courts or Congress don't act to stop this soon, all will be lost. The Constitution is not self-executing; it depends on the actions of officials who have pledged to defend it. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 30, 2017, at 4:46 PM, Kurt Schulzke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> John,
> 
> Whether you view it as nonsense isn't the issue. If you've read the sources cited in support of the proposition and you disagree with some assertion made by those sources, the customary "legal" response is to identify specific problematic assertions and explain why you find them problematic. A blanket "nonsense" doesn't fly.
> 
> Do you agree that "Trump’s 50,000 stands roughly in between a typical year of refugee admissions in George W. Bush’s two terms and a typical year in Obama’s two terms"? That President Obama identified these countries as terror risks? That he signed legislation identifying them? That he suspended immigration from Iraq for six months? 
> 
> Do you disagree that "Trump is improving security screening and intends to admit refugees at close to the average rate of the 15 years before Obama’s dramatic expansion in 2016"? If so, on what grounds?
> 
> Do you disagree that "While the Syrian Civil War was raging, ISIS was rising, and refugees were swamping Syria’s neighbors and surging into Europe, the Obama administration let in less than a trickle of refugees"? Or that "Only in the closing days of his administration did President Obama reverse course — in numbers insufficient to make a dent in the overall crisis"?
> 
> How about "federal asylum and refugee law already has a built-in religious test."? True or false? 
> 
> What about any of this is "nonsense"?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Kurt
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Allison" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: "Academy of Legal Studies in Business" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 6:37:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Why the Trump EO may be good policy
> 
> Trump’s immigration EO is in no way comparable to anything Obama did. Frankly, Kurt, I view that as nonsense.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
> 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Kurt Schulzke <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 1/30/17 4:45 PM (GMT-06:00)
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Why the Trump EO may be good policy
> 
> The Trump immigration EO appears consistent with the Obama administration's own immigration moves over the years.* Like the roll-out of Obamacare, the roll-out of this EO was awkward and badly timed. Yet, on substance it is pretty much warmed-over Obama.
> 
> That said, John and Terrence raise interesting points. John says that the EO finds "no rational basis" in the risk of Islamist terror attacks. Yet, Obama's own EOs and signed bills are evidence that Obama saw such risks as real and serious.* Terrence points to a Cato blog post that purports to catalog "foreign-born people who committed or were convicted of attempting" terror attacks on U.S. soil, 1975-2015. It's not clear what inference Terrence intends readers to draw, but he calls the data "startling."
> 
> What startles me--apart from the unverified status of the Cato data--is that the post's author thinks we should predict terror attacks in 2017+ using pre-2010 terror data. Nate Silver argues persuasively that such thinking lost Hillary Clinton the 2016 election.** Clinton committed a fundamental violation of the Great Book of Data: she extrapolated. She assumed that pre-2016 data would tell her how voters (in, e.g, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania) would behave in 2016.
> 
> The Cato blog post duplicates Hillary's predictive malpractice by extrapolating from *very old* terror data to predict a dynamic, rapidly evolving risk. (If only it were just one black swan!) Any POTUS would rightly be ridiculed for relying on data from 2005 (not to mention 1975!) to manage the risk of terror attacks in 2017 and beyond. This is especially true given the recent rash of Jihadi terror events in places like Boston, Orlando, Paris, Berlin, and San Bernardino. These recent attacks should be given far more weight in assessing and managing this risk than any collection of stale data points from 1975-2010. Our jihadis are not our grandparents' jihadis.
> 
> The Trump EO's security concerns are based on facts which, to rational observers, should signal heightened risks associated with the entry of nationals from the target countries. Whether this EO (and its attendant process) was the best response to Orlando, Berlin et al. is a fair question. Its rationality, however, seems pretty hard to argue.
> 
> * See http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/01/trumps-immigration-order-myths-and-realities.php and http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2017/01/29/separating_fact_from_hysteria_on_trump_refugee_order_401367.html.
> 
> ** Nate Silver, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-electoral-college-blind-spot/.
> 
> Kurt S. Schulzke, JD, CPA, CFE
> Associate Professor of Accounting & Business Law
> Director - Law, Ethics & Regulation
> Corporate Governance Center
> Kennesaw State University
> + 1-470-578-6379 (O)
> + 1-404-861-5729 (C)
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtschulzke/
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Allison" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: "Academy of Legal Studies in Business" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 9:29:27 PM
> Subject: Re: lawful choice v. good policy
> 
> There is no rational basis between the EO and public safety or the risk of terrorism. None.
> 
> John
> 
> John R. Allison
> The Spence Centennial Professor of Business, and
> Professor of Intellectual Property Law
> McCombs School of Business
> University of Texas at Austin
> 
> From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Terence Lau
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 7:59 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: lawful choice v. good policy
> 
> 
> Since the immigration ban is predicated on the policy of public safety, I tried to find out how many terrorist attacks have been carried out in the United States by nationals of the seven countries affected. Turns out the Cato Institute already did the research,  from 1975 to 2015. The results are startling.
> 
> https://www.cato.org/blog/guide-trumps-executive-order-limit-migration-national-security-reasons
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 4:00 PM John Allison <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> Oh my, I just misread--I'm so sorry. I say Australia for some reason when your clearly wrote Canada.
> 
> Sigh..... I am truly into geezerdom.
> 
> That said, I do think that Canada's approach makes sense for them.
> 
> John
> 
> John R. Allison
> The Spence Centennial Professor of Business, and
> Professor of Intellectual Property Law
> McCombs School of Business
> University of Texas at Austin
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Kurt Schulzke
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 1:51 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: lawful choice v. good policy
> 
> Interesting policy argument. But I asked about legal differences.
> 
> But along policy lines, what do you think of the Canadian immigration model? I understand it's pretty much identical to Australia's and has worked famously for Canada:
> 
> http://www.immigration.ca/who-qualifies-for-canadian-permanent-residence-skilled-worker-immigration/
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Allison" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> To: "Academy of Legal Studies in Business" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 2:40:54 PM
> Subject: Re: lawful choice v. good policy
> 
> And I find it curious, Kurt, that you would view the two actions as equal. This does not calculate.
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly didn't agree with everything Obama did, but this action was a change from a policy that had given Cuban immigrants a free pass just for the purpose of opposing of opposing the Castro regime by siphoning off Cuba's best and brightest. The previous policy had continued long after it made any sense. And Obama's change was part of the larger objective of beginning to normalize relations with Cuba long after our attempts to isolate the nation made any sense.
> 
> 
> John
> 
> John R. Allison
> The Spence Centennial Professor of Business, and Professor of Intellectual Property Law McCombs School of Business University of Texas at Austin
> 
> 
> 
> I assume that Michael meant that what is lawful does NOT depend on who is President. Speaking of which, how does President Trump's ban compare legally to President Obama's buzzer-beater on Cuban immigration, which Prof. Volokh called a "cruel policy reversal."*
> 
> 
> 
> I find it curious that no one on this list questioned Obama's ban. Is this a double standard? Or are their legal distinctions to be made?
> 
> 
> 
> *See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/14/obamas-cruel-policy-reversal-on-cuban-refugees
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> From: "Michael O'Hara" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
> 
> To: "Academy of Legal Studies in Business" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>>
> 
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 11:29:13 AM
> 
> Subject: lawful choice v. good policy
> 
> 
> 
> ALSBTALK:
> 
> 
> 
> Executive over reach is an unlawful choice.  A very different question is whether the choice is good policy.
> 
> 
> 
> President Jefferson multiple times concluded the pressures of the moment on the office of the President urged as good policy acts he previously (when he did not occupy the office) had publicly categorized as executive over reach (e.g., act of war).  Other Presidents were primarily different in that they had not spoken so publicly on the limits of the office prior to occupying the office.
> 
> 
> 
> Judicially, Justice Frankfurter famously observed that the altitude affects the attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> In short, a person's good faith perceptions might vary materially when the context of one's perception changes materially.  Critically, what once was viewed as an unambiguously unlawful choice might come to be perceived as such a good policy as to be transformed into a lawful choice.  At the same time and in the same context another observer might hold an invariant good faith observation of the range of lawful choices from which good policy choices are constrained to be selected.
> 
> 
> 
> Lawful does depend on who is President.  Whatever criteria of lawful executive  action is used for the 44th President ought be used for the 45th President:  and visa versa.  What does depend on who is President are (1) the viewer's array of preferred policy choices; and (2) the viewer's trust of the President in question.
> 
> 
> 
> I recommend legal analysis focused on the law rather than policy and person.  Once the range of lawful choices is identified, to my view, only then can "good" policy be chosen since unlawful choices, in my experience, are not good policy.
> 
> 
> 
> Michael J O'Hara:  from phone
> --
> ______________
> Terence Lau
> Associate Dean Undergraduate Programs
> School of Business Administration
> Tel: 937-229-4556; Fax: 937-229-3301
> 
> “Never give in. Never, never, never. Never yield in any way, great or small, large or petty, except to convictions of honor and good sense.” -- Winston Churchill