Maureen good morning, everyone, and welcome. I feel like it is like school. We are waiting a for a few more people to sit down, and then we will get started. Thank you for coming. Immigration on the United States signed on march 6, the januaryplaced 27 executive order, whose implantation was halted in multiple federal courts. The new executive order is titled protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry. The new order is similar in butctive to the order involves clarifications. It was drafted far more carefully to avoid legal challenges. The new executive order still for travel for 90 days muslimmajority countries, but now, it is only six countries. Iraq has been taken off the list. Still suspends the Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days, and it still imposes a cap of 50,000 refugees for 2017 when the Refugee Admission Program begins. Again, it is stalled in the may in with hearings in the circuit courts of appeals. But the issues surrounding the executive order are not just legal ones. But whether it is constitutional under the establishment clause of the constitution, but there are also issues of equity and fairness. Does this executive order address Real National security threats . Does it make us safer . Is the treatment of refugees fair and just and consistent with American Values . These are just some of the issues that arise when we ponder the complications and the directives of the new executive order. We have with us today a very distinguished panel. Ikoff, who waslein a former tip pt high commissioner and is now with the institution at a school. George, chairman of world connect and a former executive Vice President of a rescue committee. Ano of themes caraf heritage foundation, and we have danielle, and we have the very knowledgeable and capable , margaret our friend warner. I turn it over to you, margaret. You, maureen. K and thank you to the panel for being here. Are a lot said, there of legal issues, but we are not looking deeply into the legal issues here. What we are really looking at are the Security Issues, the unitarian issue, and also i think the issue of americas responsibility, or do we have one, in just the world community, and i would like to start out probably with a question to all of you. Maybe i will start out with alex. I just decided that, because this condition question came up and was the basis for judges overturn or at least blocking it. do you want my legal conclusion . Margaret no, not legal, just do you really think that is it . Yes, i think the president made that very clear during the campaign. I think he repeated it in other comments, and i think it was to try to make the case that it was not, but he said he wanted to and all muslim immigrants from the United States. Do it bye could not simply banning muslims, so he tried to put it into a security context. Why for the courts, there were Security Issues here. There may be some countries you want to look at more closely because of possible security interests, but i do not see any change in the president s view on this from what he announced at the very start. The question is whether the initial taint of the first order, which the courts all beenuded was there, has purged by the rewriting in the second, if it truly is about security, and that will be an issue that the courts will have to sort out as a legal matter, but i do not think there is any doubt that the president during the campaign stood up and said i, donald j. Trump, once all muslims to stop coming to the United States, and he has never backed away from that. Jay, if so, what are the implications of that . It is not a muslim band, and the reason i know that is because i worked on the president s Transition Team. Not writing about a particular executive order. I worked on the Transition Team from the convention through the , nonprofitn nonpartisan activities, and i worked on both the foreign and domestic side. I did the foreign side because i ran the state department Transition Team up through the election and then from the election through the inauguration, i ran the Homeland SecurityTransition Team. To talkot supposed about what the Transition Team actually did, but if you look at what was actually produced, what came out after the inauguration, it was pretty much what the Transition Team focused on. There was never an antimuslim discussion. Not reflected in any actual policy. Lots and lotsfor of things. Religion never came up. See postwe inauguration reflects the work of the Transition Team, not necessarily whoever was on the campaign trail. Have a discussion about Campaign Rhetoric, what candidates say, and candidates say lots of things. Woodrow wilson said he was going to keep us out of world war i. To keep us was going out of world war ii. I thinkally, mr. Trump has withdrawn the statement that he wants to ban muslims from the United States, but that is all rhetoric. Now isicy is focused on six particular countries, and we all know there is a lot more muslim countries than six. There has been no effort at all for any kind of religious test of any form of immigration, so there is no reflection here. The president just had the president of egypt here who has Something Like 90,000 muslims. And the president just actually ordered an attack on a government in syria because of a attack, genocidal against people who are largely islim, and on top of that actually met with a number of Foreign Ministers and leaders from countries in the middle east who not only do not mind the president to be antimuslim but who actually think the president s policies are good for the region, so if you look actually at the substance of the policies, it is very, very difficult to argue that somehow this is a discriminatory practice based on religion. Want to get to that, but i want to jump to george on this question, and, if you would, address the point that jim made. George well, i think i cannot speak to the reality of what was intended, but there is is perception aspect, which real. The perception, and i think you have to look at that pretty seriously, which, as just look at it from a refugee angle. Three of the countries have some of the largest refugee populations in the world, syria, so if yourealia going to put a ban on the countries as well as an overall stop to refugee admissions, you are sending a signal to those populations who, very often, they are fleeing persecution and their law and for their lives for a variety of reasons, and when you increment a dam like this, it sends a signal to the community, whether you mean it or not. When you implement a band ban like this, it sends a signal. This happens to be in majority muslim communities. Margaret me go to danny, and we will come back. Danielle i think the way jim described it is correct. Ban is what it has come to be known. It is not a muslim ban technically, but we are sort of tour in here, because on the one side, and we were all chatting about this before we came down, on the one side, you have a genuine challenge that you face, which is that there are 11 million displaced people, 4. 5 million of them refugees from the conflict in syria, and so the question then becomes what do you do about this . So that is a rational foreignpolicy question. It comes down to that there are a lot of issues that you raised, correctly, moral issues, and our reputation, but there is also our security, so you can have a pretty straightforward conversation about this and try and balance the need for our security on the one hand and, you know, donald trump has a way with words. Whether you like them or not, he has a way with them, and the expression extreme vetting is meaningful to a lot of people. Is that the right thing to do . One and i think there is no who thinks there is an entitlement to come into this country for everybody. Do you have to go through a lot of screens . Yes, because the reward at the end of that is huge. It is hugely, an american. Ok, so we need to deal with that security issue. On the other hand, there is the exigency of that Global Leadership question and helping address the problem. Now, you know, at the end of the day, we can go back and forth and back. What they have done and put in rices too not think the level of offensiveness that rises to the level of offensiveness that the rhetoric suggested. 2013, and now i am going to get it wrong, and somebody is going to correctly, but i think the 36ted states to in in 2013 Syrian Refugees. Something like that. It was either 36 or 34, and, by were by noe numbers means a shining gold light around the Obama Administration. In 2015 to 2016, it was 10,000. And the total, total number was about 80,000, so we are really talking about a drop in the bucket, and that is under the Obama Administration. These are the issues at hand. Nobody expects that we are going to take in 4 million refugees. What is the number that is ,easonable that we can take in between everybody who needs it that,thing at all, and somehow, is the balance to be struck, and that is the intelligent conversation to be at. Trying to play a game of gotcha, is this a ban or not, it does not in any way serve the people who need so much our compassion, our humanity, our help, which is the Syrian Refugees. Margaret alex . Alex you asked the question. Margaret i provoked the conversation. Alex the question about humanitarian needs balanced with security. Interestingly, the courts will decide if this is a muslim ban, do, they willy declare it. , i thinker of policy we need to keep in mind here that i think when the administration goes through its 120 day plan, they will find their is extreme vetting in place. Extraordinary, and the proof of that is there has never been a single terrorist attack by any refugee that has come in. Never. Except for people who came in as very young kids and were radicalized, but certainly no others. So the vetting is working pretty well, and the vetting should be there. What i wonder about the Current Administration is i was thinking about this in terms of cuban refugees. We took almost one million cuban refugees over a 10year period, and we took it as a political matter because he wanted to make a statement, whatever anyone wants to think about that. Wondering, why does this administration see Syrian Refugees as that question what what i mean is that the president has now said mr. Assad is an enemy. He has said that isis is an enemy. These are people who are fleeing and why are we not doing that, like we did with the cubans . That is what i would like to see, that this administration could make that statement. I agree with you on the last administrations efforts being an adequate. I fully agree with you. They got 10,000. It was not enough. Canada, when the new Prime Minister of canada came in, he brought in 25,000 syrians in a matter of six months. Margaret do you want to jump in . Just want to back up and explain why the ,dministration took the course and it actually was not related to Campaign Rhetoric at all. Precedentsme court based on what president s say during a campaign. We will have interesting governing in the 21st century. So here is the administration of us yes thinking, administrations thinking, and to refugees, the only numbers we they are even though very small numbers, it is people who are brought here as very young kids and who were radicalized later. That is accurate. But the whole point is we had such a tiny radicalized population to begin with in the United States, and terrorists in america are a small data set. We are here with a very, very small population. And to address any policies to keep the terrorists out, you are being inefficient, because you cannot pick a group that is going to define terrorists for you, but here is some of the administrations thinking. Keepf the things we do is track of terror plots against the United States since 9 11, and it keeps changing. We are like in the 94 to 95 range. Years, all of them have been homegrown. And that was one of the criticisms. It does not reflect the threat, but that misses the point. That is not the threat the administration is looking at. Reactive, theing administration is actually trying to be proactive. What they the future, were concerned with is this. If tens of thousands of foreign fighters flying into the flowing into the conflict zone during the course of conflict, and as a base for isis shrinks, the remainder of them will likely outflow somewhere, and these countries were the ones where people believe they would be the most likely to outflow, and you have iran, a state sponsor of terrorism, and the question is how do you keep the people who might outflow from getting into a refugee line or immigration status . The odds of that are relatively small, because we have seen people do this. Not in the United States, but we have seen people in refugee lives get into western europe, so that was the concern, and the idea was we want to make sure that the vetting we have is adequate and appropriate to deal with that threat. Theadministration is not only one concerned about that. European countries are very concerned about people coming from these countries, the foreign fighters. Candidate is. United states is, the past ministration was, and the Administration Wanted to go the extra mile, and you actually saw what happened recently in syria. The day before the president decided to do the missile strike in syria, he was being widely criticized by many people, including people in the administration, because you are doing nothing on syria. Ok, so the last administration had years to come up with a viable policy. Office 11president in weeks or so, and all of a sudden, syria is all of his fall, and bad things are happening, children are dying, it is the president s fault, and it is because it is on his watch, and i think one of the concerns of the administration, a day after President Trump became president , he was going to be responsible if something happened at home, so if you had a refugee come into the country and have a terrorist attack, it would be on him. This was an element of due effort of risk mitigation, to make sure we have it right, and that is why when bans,k about bands they are not everlasting. Which raises the question. If the original one, taking a pause for 120 days, making we have it right, by the time the court is finished with this, it might all be moot. Margaret i am turning to george. Ready to say something, and i know you want to say something, but let me ask you this. Arent these countries, these six, countries that do not share the kind of information about that the United States wants to know before we accept them . That that a distinction has some validity to it . I pivot for one second, and then i will try . Couple of facts. Alex mentioned 3 million refugees coming into this country since 1980 after the refugee act was passed. No terrorist attacks by a refugee on u. S. Soil during that period. Granted, it is heightened by the Global Situation as it exists today, but i think one of the things that is really important to bear in mind is that after 9 11, there was a twomonth hiatus where it stopped, and the Bush Administration up to the protocols because they recognized lives were on the line. That is the thing about refugees. We have to humanize them. Ifhave to individualize you get to the syrian border, which i have been to several times, in lebanon, turkey, and jordan, and you meet with Syrian Refugees and meet with them who have fled horrific situations, your perspective is modified. I think if the president went out there, he would have a different opinion. If he was moved by the chemical attacks, there is a parallel for the sensitivity that i think needs to be brought to bear on this issue. Also, the Obama Administration spent time increasing the security vetting of refugees. They had increased vetting as the refugee process went forward. They did not stop it. They slowed it down, and it involved to 17 agencies working together, including the fbi. There are three interviews. Two fingerprint checks. There are biometric readings. It takes on average about two years to get here. The process is very intense. It cannot be compared to what happened in europe, where people walk across as asylum seekers. They were not processed abroad, checked out for two years, and then brought here, so you cannot compare them. I think what you do have to bear in mind is one half of the resettled refugee population globally, and, alex, you can correct me on this, it has been our greatest them in stray shantou our commitment to human rights. These people and individuals are the most vulnerable globally, and we have traditionally taken in one half of the globally resettled population. Maybe less than certain times, 80,000 out60,000 to of the 160,000, so a small percentage is resettled, and they are often the ones most on the line and are the most honorable. They are often women, children, people with acute medical needs, and we are positive that all of these people are terrorists, you have to remember that he minute is diverse. He minute he is complicated, and it is also very vulnerable, it is very complicated and very vulnerable. To bring refugees from syria and, and we also have the security factors and that agencies came together. We do not want to lose that momentum. Hand lead toban other delays, because then medical clearances can expire, and sometimes their lives depend on it, so i think that military in context and a couple of facts are something to land on. Margaret i want to dig deeper danielle . Daniela thing i find externally frustrating as we wind up talking about refugees. You say they are not humanized. All, we do not really recognize or seem to care very much about what their actual needs are. Some refugees do not actually want to come to the United States. Even though we are enormously attractive. Most people like to be where their parents are buried, where their jobs were, where they actually speak the language. 90 of refugees, i am told by people who know this issue much homer, they generally go postconflict, but this is the work we have to look at. Postconflict. At the end of the day, nobody is going to take all of syrias refugees. We have got 20 of jordan that is now refugees. We have got one quarter of lebanon that is now refugees. In turkey, sitting on the border. These are not solutions for these people, and this is what i notionustrating is the that the United States shows leadership by taking in half of the worlds refugee population. It is not leadership. Is like telling people they cannot find jobs. No, no, we want to up your unemployment, and you will go on welfare, food stamps. Not want that as a solution. People want to live their lives not been the object of our charity or humanity. They actually want to be their own success. We understand that. To right solution is not focus on whether or not we are taking 10,000 more or 10,000 less or whether the canadians are also because of their Prime Minister. We need to show leadership in the region, and that is where actually i am much less let down by the fact that barack obama took in more refugees from the democratic republic of congo last year than he did from syria then i am about the fact that this conflict started in 2011, and we have been sitting on our actually, the first government is thinking about what to do, and we have to watch this space. I will tell you that flat out, but god speed. If this is something the are going to bring strategy to, right thing is not to focus on the muslim ban. The focus should be on the middle east. There are the original driving thehat are global refugee crisis and how we address them, which i think is the more important issue. Just to kind of wraps up the discussion on vetting and everything, going back to the notion that this is obviously a muslim ban. I think what is very telling is the fact that when they were iraq washe list, dropped from the list, and the reason is very telling. They came back after the first list and said, dude, how do we get off of the list . And the Administration Made some demands, data sharing, and also about repatriating people we throw out of the country, and missed ration said, great, that is exactly what we are looking for. You are off of the list. Missed ration said,a lack of gy can make these kinds of guarantees, but the fact that you took a country off of the list, and you took it off because your security situation is met. That this is designed to be punitive. I think we need to get past this issue that this is a punitive action against muslims. That is not the most efficacious way to deal with the issue. Decisions about partisanship and about people hating muslims, i do not think it is about that. What is the best way to deal with the tragic situation that we have going on. A couple of fact checks here. 90 of refugees do not go home. The real problem today is that there are ongoing refugee situations. Very few went home, and the u. S. Does not take half of the worlds refugees and never has taken half. It is five or 10 of the overall amount. And also, margaret, just in things lets keep clear. There are two things in the executive order. One was a and of seven, now six, countries. And i think jim might be right. And the positive and the refugee admissions, these were separate programs, and we are talking about them together. The problem is it is not clear he is right. Not all muslim countries were thatted, but to a lawyer, i am, it seems like bees were chosen because they were previously chosen by obama and congress and were put on a visa , but when you look at where terrorists have actually come from, it is not these countries, and the countries that the terrorists come from were not on the list. Not rational even if the defense for security had that kind of rationale check. Prove that, and the standard is very low. The way, thes, by administration will win in the end, but it is still a question of whether this was purely security why these countries were chosen. And on the refugee side. There is a conversation about how money refugees we should take in, but president obama andlly listened to danielle said we have to go up. Year. For this current the executive order reduced from for refugees,000 with no explanation, none offered. To get or begin. It cannot be the security grounds, because i publicizing that the extreme vetting is in place, so what on earth is the justification with a lack of American Leadership . Why would the United States cut refugee admissions by 50 . I want to respond to both of those points, because i answered the first. The countries where the concern is, it is not just a u. S. Concern. It is broadly shared in the u. S. , and most governments where foreign flyers are most likely to go to, and that is why they were picked. That is why the Obama Administration focused on them. European nations focus on them. You are right. They are not the number one terrorist places. 20 of those plots, pakistan, butnd away the largest pakistan, by and large, 20 , is the foreign country that has the attacksnections to against the United States, so why is pakistan not on the list question because it is not appropriate. Dealing with concerns out of pakistan. That theto make sure refugee flows are screening those out. That was the logic. But the second point is 50,000 that is the law, and lets be honest. We have a moral argument. But from a quantitative standpoint whether the United States takes 50,000 or 100,000, that is not going to affect refugee flows at all or solve any refugee right crisis at all. Now, it might affect the cases you take, and there might be a argument, butand the difference between 50000 and 100,000 is really a drop in the bucket, and from my limited understanding, because i do not want to claim i am an expert on this, but when we were doing the transition, it was our sense had a system that was designed to process about 50,000, and it was straining to get to the higher numbers. And i think the question is where do you this administration lets go with a number that the system is designed to take care of as opposed to the maximum number that we can crank through. You shake your head, but the numbers have been consistently above that. But itme for jumping in, above. N consistently when trudeau wanted to bring and 25,000 syrians, above. They brought them in. We have the capability of doing that. That is really i do not have an opinion between the two of you, because i do think it is a moral argument, but i think your suggestion about give, having been on the end of this previously is manifestly untrue, actually. Tsa,e who has been through just take that and extrapolate how we managed to screen refugees. We do a job. We do a terrible job. Soup to nuts. Because we do not know what we are looking for. The reason we have not been attacked is mostly because we are lucky, not because our screening is margaret lets get george in here. I will come right back to you, danny. I could not hear you. I apologize. Margaret go ahead, danny. Danielle we should not lie to ourselves about our capabilities. So Many Political decisions. There are not 500 brilliant arab speaking people who are working for the government, sitting on their hands, saying i can watch a soap opera in the afternoon or go and work for the canadian government as a refugee, and the back story, not to simply speak the arab language but to ask the questions. Understand providence. Go through social media. To all of the things that need to be done, because at the end of the day, that is not true. Ofdo not do a great job this. Yes, there is extreme vetting in place, but the point that you may bet it is mostly luck is, in fact, true, and people do not want to talk about that. Most refugees we let in our people who want to be let in because they have an identified fear of persecution. But lets not pretend that situation is anything other than a political decision. Things andouple of never the care is to get jims take. From the slowdown occurred in the Obama Administration when i was working at the International Refugee committee, we had discussions what was the likelihood of the process moving quickly, collaboration among literally 17 u. S. Government agencies to vet an individual coming into the United States. These are not flybynight agencies. We are talking about the top of the various intelligence use in the United States government. I dont think it is quite as flybynight. I do agree. There is a moral aspect. It is critical in a number of fronts as we lead in multiple forums. There is a National Security component to this which is even though i like taking 50,000 more refugees and putting the number back about 100,000, it may not change the refugee flows globally because we have a situation where there are over 20 million refugees. Close to 65 million displaced people in the world right now, the most since world war ii. It shows americas commitment to be in solidarity with allies who are shouldering the burden of posting these refugees. Kenya, ethiopia, the three neighboring countries to iraq, jordan, lebanon and turkey. We are talking millions of refugees. If we say not for us, we are not taking them, what if kenya went through on its threat to expel all the somalis out of the camps . What would it mean to regional stability . What whitney for what happens inside of kenya . We know the pressure points on jordan, lebanon and turkey right now are profound and intense. Not to mention the syrians were are having a difficult time for obvious reasons. The parallel is a question as well. But cuts toelement, four and eight can have a huge impact as well. If we expect but cuts the foreign aid can have a huge impact as well. We have to make sure those governments get major support from the United States. And not just temporary relief support. Most of these crises last for years. It puts huge burdens on their infrastructure. Education, water supply, the ability to maintain an economy with the extra people. We have to match that with aggressive foreign aid strategies. That is not necessarily being linked to what we are reading in the budget. We will see how that turns out. I do think there is not just a moral aspect here. There is a critical National Security component tied to this in sending both real signals and solidarity signals to allies around the world and maintaining Regional Security as a result. I would like to agree with everybody. [laughter] i think danny is right. The decision to go from 50,000 to 100,000 is a political decision, not a humanitarian decision. This is one of the great ironies. The executive order gets attacked for being mean and mean spirited, and actually the criticism from people who know the decision which is what more can actually do . It is not that they would it terrible things. This is much i do about nothing. Ado about nothing. Understanding is they bought it, the own it. I understand why they want to put their stamp on it. We are willing to live with the negative consequence of that. What wass transition, the level of concern about people who have committed terrorist attacks in france and gium and germany see, that is where you kind of need to understand the process. Theave what is called vwp, visa waiver program. If youre from a country that has the visa waiver thing, you can come to the United States without a visa. That sounds a lot more risky than refugees. Well, the reality is we do a lot of data sharing with these waiver countries. Even though you get to come here these arefree, you go through esta. You fell at information to get to the government which is quite honestly substantial. Want a hammer or a saw . Do i want the right tool at the right time . Those tools are working. It depends on the country. This is the thing. It is not about the geography. Its about terrorist travel. You want to focus on the terrorist and how the terrorist might be trying to get from a to b. The answer is never just cut that off. If he cut off every way a terrorist travels, nobody can ever come to america. Everything conceivable, including shipping containers. The answer is not making a fortress wall around america. The answer is the different ways you can travel to the United States, having done Due Diligence to make sure you have done the right cost benefit analysis and minimize risk of that terrorist traveling. More importantly, introduce multiple points to intercept that terrorist. It is a bad idea to say we will stop in at the border. You dont pick one spot along the process. You want to have multiple introduction points, which is one of the things if youre doing it right, it is a pretty tough system to get through because you have to go through multiple screening points. If you have good data, which is one of the challenges where we dont, and you go through multiple screening points, it gets a lot harder. Refugee fraud is a big problem. We have to know was that. We have seen lots of examples of refugee fraud. It is something we have to be concerned about. Can i lob my hand grenade into this . Sure. Here is my concern. There is a movement that believes human migration is a human right. People should have the right to anywhere in the world that they want. One of my concerns is some of the vitriol against this is trying to link the refugee to this large reduction of people have a right to move anywhere in the world they want. In many ways and the public issues we are starting to deflate these things. Think we are losing the argument. Done and we have i do blame the Obama Administration we have done great violence to the processing of refugees because it has been politicized by both sides for their own political agendas. Tohink people have tried rise up the anger against it because they said if people except the notion that a refugee can go anywhere, thats one step the saying anybody can go anywhere. That is destructive because what it is doing is undermining our confidence in our commitment to the refugee program. We are putting a program that has real value to the united ace at risk because of a partisan debate that is wrapped around it and that is unhealthy. I am agreeing with jim. Let me rephrase. The refugee circles i travel in, this is not in terms of a Broader Campaign a free movement. I go back to my point about why accepting or cutting the refugee numbers is a political statement. I think the administration has a way to make a Strong Political statement by raising them up. Even if they want to keep very tough policies on the southwest border im not suggesting because they dont i dont agree with the policy, you can make a strong statement. We are taking people that there is something to be said about refugee mobility. We could have another discussion about what to do with these longstanding places and how we can help people oversees more. One could imagine a refugee regime where you sign the Refugee Convention and what you are adjudicated, a refugee the refugee can move to other countries in the regime. Maybe those countries have quotas and could allow them a bit more choice than locking them in the camps. The u. S. Will save you will take 50,000 or 100,000. Is wheretion we have people are stuck in countries for asylum. There was not an adequate system of global sharing. It is not the u. S. s job. We are doing more than our share. There should be dozens of countries that joined the global system of sharing the burden. I want to go to questions from the audience. Mic. Nk we have a roving while final question everyone gets ready to answer questions. Lets say nothing changes. Upheld. Y the ban is jordan is field where bursting, lebanon is full to bursting. Is that is continuing definitely . What happens . Thats the right question. At the end of the day the remedy conversation the refugee conversation is about us. No, we are not better people than that. Selfish, but if you want to come back to the National Security argument, which i think fundamentally this is the matter how you look at it, you have to understand we cant keep up. The number of countries that are now unstable, the number of countries that into which over al last eight to 10 years qaeda has spread is staggering. Lets not even talk about keeping people from those countries out. Lets not talk about whether they are generating refugees. Lets talk about the National Security risk to us from these places. We have been talking about travel bans and the rest. We did not talk about the ban on bringing Electronic Devices on aircraft in certain countries. Where does that come from . That comes from the fact that al qaeda on the arabian tenets of is trying to develop something that will Arabian Peninsula are trying to develop something that will take down an aircraft. No multiply those countries. Forget about refugees. Lets talk about the number of countries where this is going on. Are you have government the donor control over the entire territory, or you have warring groups providing space. This at the end of the day is what happens when you ignore foreign policy. This is what happens when you ignore American Leadership. 50,000 orabout 100,000 refugees. That is religious politics. This, this is leadership. That is what will post the threat. Not the one guy who slipped through the net. Lets go down the line. Alex . Refugeesn a spurt on you are an expert on refugees. The number of countries taking them now, is that infinitely expandable or is there a breaking point . The world has never had 70 from one region. This is an entirely manageable problem. I resist using the word crisis. Fence when one Million People showed up. Lebanon has one million refugees from a population of 4 Million People. Europe could have handled this if they had done it earlier in a measured way. There are 50 million refugees in the world. That does not include Palestinian Refugees in the population of 7 billion. That is easily manageable if you have equal responsibility sharing. I will be really quick. What happens if the ban is upheld . I want to keep separating that out. The ban applies to six countries. The major hosting countries i was trying to say immaterial of the outcome. Two points. I do think there is an important symbolic as well as critical humanitarian aspect to our commitment to what we do that a resettlement level. At the end of carter years we brought over 200,000 refugees annually. Southeast asians, russian religious minorities, dissidents, a host of people that came in including a large number of afghans. We have at times when there was a need stepped up in a big way. It sent a signal to those posting them. Of the solutions being discussed, obviously the refugee conversation population has swelled. There are new approaches to this. Not to burden sharing but the fact the Beauty Development assistance for these societies that are hosting them. Look at them not as burdens but as potential support mechanisms for the larger society. Job creation. There are new efforts in the private sector to think about actually investing in places where there are refugees where they can be used in concert with host populations to provide a viable good. Call centers are being discussed among Syrian Refugees. It takes time. And are are so cyclical not going to resolve themselves quickly, these populations are going to be where they are and the Global Community needs to think creatively how to manage that and the u. S. These to be an active player in foreign aid and direct assistance and resettlement, as well as the private sector can get involved at the same time. I dont think america is morally superior for taking 100,000 instead of 50,000. I talk to a lot of foreign officials from these countries. Nobody thinks because the Administration Want to take less numbers it will lessen our commitment. I think these countries understand there may be cuts in foreign aid, but it will not be to these countries. Administrations strategy the administrations strategy is to get a more peaceful middle east and you dont go by the stabilizing jordan or lebanon. Those are areas where the administration is not stupid. They are trying to stabilize the region. People run the numbers differently. A billion something to take care of. People make all kinds of numbers up. Lets say is 1. 5 billion or something, to take in another 50,000 refugees a year and sustain them. Who knows with the right numbers support 10 inan the region. From a u. S. Perspective i would much rather see us take that 1. 5 it and itnd invest places like lebanon and jordan as that of taking 50,000. I think for the United States can be a better example in terms of refugees is by taking more numbers. I dont think the world it makes the difference. Its what we do with our refugees. In makinga lot more refugees better Human Capital and set american independences making instead of making them dependents on the government. We should be a light for how you turn refugees in the Human Capital, not just make them a burden on society. I think there is a lot the u. S. Government can do. I think doubling the numbers is not it. Im sorry, everybody. A question right over here. If you would just stand and say your name. Im a student. My question is for jim. You said it is not a muslim ban, and its not based on religion. Why in the First Executive order there was a priority given to christians . Specifically when the numbers on refugees and the u. S. , there are about 38,000 Christian Refugees and 40,000 muslims. There is not much of a difference. Why was there a priority . That is a great question. That the this concern Administration Wanted to be seen as catering to the most oppressed and endangered populations in the region. I dont think anybody argues that christian minorities in the middle east have been increasingly persecuted. They wanted to send a signal they were concerned about that. From a practical perspective i agree it does not make a lot of sense. The way we are in permitting the refugee processing is not discriminating against christian minorities. We firmly concluded that. They dont need to come to United States. There are a lot of support groups in the region to take care of them. In some cases they are afraid to identify themselves as christian. Whatever reason, there are masses of Christian Refugees trying to flood the pipeline and get into the pipeline from these countries. There is an argument that doesnt need to be there and why there was a revised ban and i dropped it. Right back here. And then you sir. You know what. Either way. Hi. My question is for alex. Identify yourself please. My name is bill, im a student here. We hear its a muslim ban. I hear it from some professors as well, and you opened up by saying its a muslim ban. I take the points of the rhetoric and the rollout. It was not good. But if you look at the order itself, it is pretty clear it is not a muslim ban. All these reasons. Im kind of confused why it perceptions matter, and obviously they do, and we acknowledge that it was a veritable muslim ban how that it would be for international relations, recruitment for jihadists. My question is if you acknowledge all these things, why you insist on calling something that is not a muslim band and muslim ban . I answer the question. I agree with danny. This is not the issue. I think the president made it a muslim ba and he never ban and he never walked to the back. That is not how i talk about it. But the fact it doesnt cover all muslim countries you can and discriminatory policy that targets people based on race, even if not all people of race or of people with a religion are covered. The court has to decide if there is a legal issue in their mind. To me thats not the issue on the refugee side. One of the things i did in the Transition Teams work on the confirmation process for secretary kelly, who i think is a great american. An outstanding individual and the best guy to run this department. If you read his testimony in with the questions and answers, statingociferous in he is not antimuslim. He is not doing this based on religion. If there was a muslim ban he said it 1000 times. The number one guy and limiting this and i dont think any thehas undermined integrity of general kelly. Cans strange to see how you argue it is a muslim ban. Danielle wanted to jump in. The reason people persist in calling it a muslim ban is because their political and they want to apply this is a bigoted and antimuslim administration. While i think there are people in the administration who are antimuslim who shall go unnamed, and i think the president was loose with his rhetoric, at the end of the day the reason they persist in doing it is for solely political reasons. The gentleman right there. Im with the Bloomberg School at johns hopkins. There seems to be agreement on the panel that the decrease from 50,000 is political. What does that mean . It seems to me it is based on animus towards foreigners. The government said no Syrian Refugees in our state. The hostility towards Somali Refugees in minnesota. What do we mean . What do you mean when you say it is political . Is there any kind of moral justification for that political decision . It to you addressing anyone in particular . Yeah, thanks. I was hoping you were going to say was for them. [laughter] answer, this sort of mindless answer is every number you see issued by the u. S. Government is political. I hate to tell you. The budget, how much we spend on x you can build it and make the numbers look like anything you want. Name, trudeau, brings in a Syrian Refugees, it is political. One they cut the number to 50,000, it is a political choice. Do they cut it the 75,000 or 42,000 . That is how the decision is made. Isnt animus towards foreigners . Is it animus towards foreigners . That is a huge, huge question. What you see in any cyclical period like this one is there are attitudes towards other people that are wrapped up with your economic wellbeing. And that is a big part of these questions. People dont think the refugees are stealing their jobs. They feel insecure. Antitrade attitudes are wrapped up in all of this. If you try to tease one out and say its because, as some have said, republicans hate foreigners, they are bigots, that kind of thing, you are not really capturing what is happening in society as a whole. You are not really capturing what happens behind it. They are trying to answer a question which is we are concerned about refugees, you are concerned about refugees, why did you pick the number 50,000 out of 100,000 . Is that a scientific, intelligent way of doing business . It is the way we do business in the u. S. Government. I think the question was getting to the huge impact. These are 50,000 human beings. They are living in terrible conditions in these hosting states. It is not as if they are choosing between paris and new york city. The settlements the refugees are living in around are awful. And around the world. People go to these places. Peopleot as if one 500 are randomly taken. They are talking about women and children and people who are obviously vulnerable and in need. They have been victims of torture and jails and prisons. This is not a random situation. I agree entirely with jim. I think you are right. I am talking purely humanitarian. 50,000 lives that barack obama said we want to help. This administration for no reason except for political gain for a particular part of the party said they cannot commit. 50,000 to 80 ,000 to 110,000. Can i take one second more . Thing lait one ment one thing. Historicallyrogram has had more bipartisan support that any program that exists in the u. S. Government. I think its a real shame it has become so politicized. I dont know whether the 50,000 figure is a political number or not, but there are plenty of people across washington and across the United States. We got a surgeon volunteer applications that the irc when it was cut. People wanted to go out and help. I think if we can get beyond that and put a human face on this and get back to basics, because the president ial determination is approved by congress. Is a joint process. There is a collective decisionmaking element involved in this. He used to have people on two sides of the aisle. We had ted kennedy and we had sam brownback. They were supporting the refugee cause. One of them is no longer with us and the other has five he altered his reception on this and i feel that is a shame. We we used to hav have to get back to the bipartisan aspect of this issue. He relates the human beings supporting one another in a global context that is complex and there are risks associated with it. We dont want people who want to do harm in this country to come in, but we have a system where anything can be approved. It needs to be done in a way that doesnt harm people that have a chance to live a life in this country. I dont need to be disrespectful, but the tenor of the question truce to meet your not beating your wife. There is no evidence the implementation of any of these programs is racist or xena phobic. Phobic. There is no evidence there is anything that is racist. The problem is we have taken this issue and turned it into a political partisan issue. We have done exactly the wrong thing with it. And set of accusing each other of being racist, when you get back to policymakers who are sitting down and talking about what we can practically do in concert with our interests . But we forget is we have an absolute vital interest to see the middle east be at peace and stable. Its never going to turn to the land of milk and honey. I get that. We may not have palestinian state in the next 10 minutes. But not having wars iraq in the region were millions of people are displaced and people are running around the stabilizing governments, we should be against that. That is not in our interest to do that. I agree with ted. Is of ministries and investing in bringing peace and stability to the region which is something we should all support. We cant have an objective discussion if were just sitting around saying proved to me this administration isnt racist and xenophobic. [indiscernible] i actually did into that question, sir. This administration said what is a reasonable throughput we can support and a better allocation of those dollars and using them for the refugee system . I think your argument is 50,000 is a more sustainable number. If we are going to spend the next are 1 billion, we should be supporting the refugees in the region instead of trying to bring another 50,000 here. What all ofo partly us have said . The way to get back to the existsus that did not during the Obama Administration, the way to get back to a time before that perhaps is not for one side to say, if you guys could just stop being racist and then we can get back to the consensus we used to have. That is not building a consensus. Hi. This is addressed to jim. Racist ining the word context i think may not be appropriate. But be that as it may, the issue prejudice is complex. I started in 2003 myself. You need to get to the question. The issue is that had we not made false assumptions on certain things, i think we would not be here. Im wondering what do you foresee as a possible one or two steps in the middle east that you think would help to bring stability to the region . Just specifically. One, i think it is a strategy beyond taking a black flag down in iraq and mosul. We have to come to go beyond that. I think it will be a more sustained engagement in iraq. We will be engaged in a sustained way to try to help keep that country together. It will be a lot of support for the refugee populations in the region. Keeping them stabilized and safe is vital. It will be a lot of support for lebanon and jordan. We engaging egypt. Reengaging egypt. Is the largest population in the middle east. Its an important country for the United States. Egypt is an important part of the process of bringing stability to the region. Syria ishink unsolvable. If we are lucky you will get a frozen conflict. Everyone acknowledges we cant just ignore olivia, somalia bia, somaliaia ly and yemen. Im semihopeful about libya. A lot of people want to see libya the a success. If we can agree on what we are doing, i think its a place where we can make some real progress. I would love to see a more proactive u. S. Libya policy. We also need a somali policy and a yemen policy. Question . Writer. Right here. If you just wait for the mic. If you would just say your name and affiliation what your question is, we have a lot out here. Hi. Human rights first. I want to shift gears. Efugee vetting you hear wildly different claims about the system. Some say its nonexistent and others say its extreme. Systemcking the vetting political or a goodfaith effort . And if you disagree that the system is working, what are the improvements . What conversations are being held around that . I hear no substantial points being made as to how that could be better or how they can be improved. I am at a loss. I unfortunately dont have a security clearance to know how those agencies operate. All i know is there was a concerted effort. Im giving you what i am told by the government under the Obama Administration that the intelligence agencies wanted to continue the program, one of it to be robust wanted it to be robust. When you have an inc interdepartmental effort it becomes obligated. That behindthescenes effort, citizens outside the security process dont know. We know with the system was tightened under obama significantly due to an incident , apparentlyreen there was Great Success in agreeing on a system that was tight and more secure. Beyond that i cant answer it. Do you have to shut the whole thing down in order to improve it . I dont think you do. I think you can continue to admit Vulnerable People and know they are not terrorists. The problem with answering that question is you have to go in behind the door and he cant do that. My sense is there was some marginal improvements that can be made in terms of training and information sharing that would make the process better. You have to shut the program done to do that . I think its a largely political decision. I think the administrations argument is something that happens and we are responsible for it. We think the risk of keeping somebody out is balanced with the risk of somebody waiting longer. You can disagree, but thats the logic. It makes for on satisfying public debate. On satisfying public debate unsatisfying public debate. As soon as you move to a new refugee population, you reset the whole thing. You might be great at getting the rack down cold, but you move down cold aq somebody sitting near you, the gentleman behind the. And then take the two together. I am matt wilkes with the u. S. Congress of catholic bishops. I have a brief statement, but i really appreciate the call for bipartisan support and also for conference of elements comprehensive elements of the refugee elements overseas. The third for sure is a root cause of migration and trying to address that. My question goes back to one you asked earlier and i was about the countries, those six countries providing information for people who want to come into the habit dates United States. Isuess one of the concerns it becomes a blanket rule that certain countries are banned would be for refugees coming from those countries. From some of those countries, the countries themselves are the ones persecuting the refugees. I just wonder if that can be addressed in a way and how the first part of the executive ban isthe 90 day connected to the refugee ban. It is not a permanent ban. It is a review. People share your concerns. My name is ramon and im an intern at the embassy of ecuador. Talking about syria in middle eastern refugees, america is also suffering from conflicts. Sir. We cant can you say that again . Slow down a little. We are only talking about syria and the middle eastern refugees. Because that is the topic of todays discussion. Were not going into other parts of the world. If theyld like to know can talk about it, like mobilization of people in the Latino American area. What can we do about them . That is mostly about asylum which is a different process. U. S. Led by secretary kelly and secretary tillerson are interested in doing more in Central America to help bring stability in Central America. That is the real solution for our borders. I think you will find this administration will be really engaging inested in Central American countries to address some of those issues. That is my guess. To have others . Do we have others . We did. Over there and then that will be the last two. Unless you want to ask a question and we can do all three. Hi. With the voice of america. You discussed the issue of migration, danny. Isration in the refugee flow caused by larger issues than just actual migration. Migrants isn the not really a leadership the u. S. Should or should not have shown. How do you think the u. S. Should address this leadership issue . Both domestically and internationally . Domestically we see whats happening with congress. Internationally things are kind of shaky as well. How exactly do you see that establishment of that leadership . I will go ahead and have everybody who wanted to ask a question, if we can just get the mic to them. Somebody over here and we can take all three together. Im a student studying conflict management here. I have two questions in and brief. The first one is for mr. James. You said time and again rhetoric does not matter and there is a need to move beyond it. I dont understand what you mean rhetoric does not matter when its coming from the president of United States. People connect intellectual discussions about how to break up policies, but what goes to the general public is a message and a signal. Could you please clarify what that is . I fail to see with that conveys. Number two is to danielle. Again, there were a lot of questions about how this administration is not doing enough. You went back to how the Obama Administration did not do as much as they should have. How was the Previous Administration not doing enough . If you could throw some light on that. When were over here. You talkdering about getting bipartisan support and is being made into a political issue is not supposed to be a political issue. Prejudicesgrained that do exist throughout the electorate and representatives. An advisor called islamic cancer. Islam a cancer. How can we overlook this prejudice ingrained in the party . There seems to be two very similar they seem to very similar. Of aan public rhetoric candidate or his advisers be separated from this discussion . President and every presidency has a balance of rhetoric and action. I think president ial leadership is determined more by action than rhetoric. I dont think anybody would remember fdrs speech on december 7 if the United States had not actually gone out and fought world war ii. Evelyn for members obama gave a speech in cairo. Nobody remembers what he said. The reason is because there was very little connection between that speech and action. He did little to save the arab spring, very little to bring peace and stability to the region. We forget the rhetoric. Is thellenge i see living hyper partisan political environment today, which is as toxic as its ever been. If all you do is focus on the rhetoric, then you will be swept up in this hyper toxic, hypercritical, hyper angry talk. You will never see the forest for the trees. This is me personally, you can do whatever you want, i tend to ignore the rhetoric. I focus on what the government is actually doing. I dont listen necessarily to peoples criticism of what they politics or their attitudes towards religion, i look at what they do. With the administration is doing is trying to find a way to defuse the middle east. And lower the temperature on some of these conflicts and stabilize the population. And to be honest i think bolster many of the countries in the region against the influence of iran. I think they are right. This is one of the destabilizing influences. They are an aggressive country despite the iran deal. I think they are one of the problems. Getting rid of isis and al qaeda and ending conflicts in pushing back in iran, that is the administrations formula for peace and stability. That together from listening to the president s Campaign Rhetoric . No. Is that my problem . No. Im not getting into rhetoric versus action. I think rhetoric has a profound impact and thats just the reality. It paints the situation. Lets talk about refugees. You want to get beyond the rhetoric, lets talk about the good things people never seem to discuss. They do come in at 2000 per capita assistance, but they have to be employed within three or four months to survive. They become taxpayers immediately. They are Small Business owners. Calledttled a remedy andy who started a covenant called intel. He founded one of the most successful countries and the United States. Celebrate refugees. Dont make them out to be that people. [applause] the action rhetoric is an exercise interesting one. I think people are responsible for the implications of their rhetoric. Tim, i think you are not hearing you think anybody who says the rhetoric has hurt my community is saying the administration is racist. There are things that opened up the door to hateful speech and hateful actions that assaults that insults them as americans. The Latino Community has been terrorized by things that in set by the administration and by their actions, quite frankly. You have to hear that and realize you cant just say lets talk about action. These are real things people are feeling in their communities. As much as we have to look back one final thing. One way to merge rhetoric with other countries have private sponsorship of refugees. This may be an idea whose time has come. You take your 1 billion and let people bring it in. Danny . Reconcilell trying to that latinos in this country are proud to be here or terrorized to be here. How do you address the problem of leadership . You do taken refugees take in refugees. I said taken 100,000 refugees that im not the president. Im not eligible to be president either. How do you address the problem of leadership . There are lots of different ways of showing leadership. One of the biggest the services barack obama did is the notion ways are only two of doing foreign policy. We have it on his federal government that has tons of expertise that enables us to do lots of things, to both preempt the kind of dissent in the violence and also to address those issues once they become a problem. We do need a resource our budget to do that. That is a legitimate question. On rhetoric, some people should just shut up. [laughter] there are things that should not be said. There is a special burden on you when you are the president of the United States. Anyone of us who says that is not recognize that, is frankly not understanding how momentous the office is. Thats one of sosa when he failed to use the power of his office to send a for people who deserved to be stood up for and the power of this country to santa for people who deserve it. Goes both ways. Some people should shut up. Recognizing the manifest failure of the Previous Administration is a justification for this administration, but i think the it was a paragon of virtue on any issues and not help deliver us from the rotten situation we are in now is also wrong. By the way, islamic cancer. From sykes. It is wrong to say islamic cancer, and pretend it has nothing to do with muslims. One of the biggest terrorist problems we have is called islamic state. Is islamic and have the pretenses of being a state. Those are real issues. We deny the facts on the ground for me dont suggest there is an issue related to islam that everyone of our era allies arab allies would agree with. I wanted this to be lively and it was. I wanted thank my panelists. Thank you all. [applause] [and distinct chatter chatter]t heres a look at the primetime schedule on the cspan networks. Starting at 8 00 eastern, neil gorsuch is sworn in as associate justice of the Supreme Court at a white house ceremony. On cspan 2, the communicators on expandingle broadband in the west. On cspan 3, American History tv with programs and events on the founding fathers. Discussion that, a on how conservative viewpoints represented in film, television and popular culture. Eastern ont 8 20 cspan. Todays white house meeting with press secretary sean spicer. He talked about the palm sunday terrorist attacks in egypt, the u. S. Airstrikes against syria, and the relationship between trumps senior advisers. This morning the president was honored to host the swearingin of associate justice neil gorsuch. s confirmation was the culmination of a thoughtful and deliberate of process deliberative process that president started a year ago. In september he release a