Revenue stream on the american economy. Flew with the rest of this discussion here. You can see it in its entirety on cspan. Org. Life for discussion on the Trump Administration and u. S. Immigration and refugee policy. Johns Hopkins University of advanced international that he is the host. [inaudible conversations] good morning, everyone and welcome. I feel like a schoolteacher. Waiting for a few more people to sit down and then we will be able to start. Thank you all for coming. As you know, a new executive order on travel and immigration to the United States was signed on march 6. The order replaces the january 27th executive order, this implementation was halted in multiple federal courts. The new executive order is entitled detecting the nation from entry. The new order a similar and object is to the original, but it contains revisions, qualifications and clarifications. It was far more careful to avoid legal challenges. The new executive order still bans travel for 90 days for muslim majority countries but now its only six countries, iraq has been taken off the list. It still suspends the Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days and still imposes 50,000 refugees for 2017 when the program was him. Again, it is sold on the court. Due in may and the fourth and 19th circuit courts of appeal. 50 issues surrounding investigative order are not just legal one. Whether its kind to shuttle 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 that make us safer . Is the treatment of refugees fair and just inconsistent with American Values . These are some of the issues that arise when i ponder complications and direct is that the new executive order. We have with us today very distinguished panel. We have alex l. A. Knockoff with a former deputy high commissioner and is now with the institution of migration and mobility at the new school. We have doris biddle, who is chairman of world connected and former executive Vice President of the International Rescue committee. James carroll bono at the Heritage Foundation and danielle of the American Enterprise institute. And of course we have the very knowledgeable and capable moderator, our friend margaret warner. And a turnover terror. Thank you, marine. Thank you for being here. As marines said, there are a lot of legal issues, but we are not looking deeply into legal issues here. What we are really looking not our security issue, humanitarian issue and also an issue of americas responsibility or do we have one in the world community. I would like to start out with a question probably to all of you. Maybe ill start with alex. Because this issue came up consistently in both legal cases nospace this circuit judges overturning or at least blocking that. If its a monthlong ban. You on my legal conclusion on it . Not legal. Do you really think thats what its . Idea. The president made that very clear during the campaign. I think he repeated it and other comments. I think it was stressed to appear to make a case that it wasnt, but he said he wanted to ban all muslim immigrants from the United States. He knew he couldnt do it by simply banning muslims, so he tried to put it into security context. The reason that may ultimately succeed in the courts as there are Security Issues here and there may be particular countries you want to scrutinize more closely because of possible security interests. I dont see any change in the president s view on mess for what he announced at the very start. The question is whether the initial first order which most of the courts concluded with there has been purged either rerating and the second order so it truly is now about security. That will be an issue the courts will have to sort out as a legal matter, but i dont if theres any doubt they set up inside i donald jay trump on all muslim immigrants to stop coming to the United States and hes never backed away from the statement. Let me turn to you. Do you think muslim been at its essence and if so what are the implications . Its actually be categorically state its not a muslim ban. The reason i know that is because i worked on the president ial Transition Team. I didnt work on the writing of that particular executive order. I worked on the Transition Team from the convention through the inauguration is trained nation is the bipartisan nonpartisan, nonprofit activities. I worked on both the foreign and domestic side because i ran the state department Transition Team up through the election and from the election through the moderation i ran the Homeland Security Transition Team. We are not supposed to talk about what the Transition Team actually dead, but if you look at what was produced, what came out after the inoculation, you can see with the Transition Team focused on. There was never an antimuslim discussion not reflected in any of the actual policies. I was in the room for lots and not the things. Religion never came up. What you see postinauguration reflects the work of the Transition Team. Not necessarily the rhetoric of the campaign trail. They are firewall between each other. We can have a discussion about Campaign Rhetoric and what candidates say. Woodrow wilson said he would keep world war i. Fdr said he would keep world war ii and mr. Trump im pretty sure was actually withdrawing the statement that he wants to ban muslims from United States but thats all rhetoric. The actual functional policy is focused on six particular countries and we all know theres a lot more muslim countries being fixed. Theres been absolutely no effort at all to any kind of religious test on any forms of immigration. Theres no reflection there. The president of egypt only has 9,017,000,000 muslims than it and the president declared his absolute friendship and support. The president just actually order an attack on government in syria is a heinous genocidal attack against people who are largely muslim. On top of that coming out, i met with a number of Foreign Ministers and leaders from countries in the middle east who not only dont find the president to be antimuslim, but think the president s policies will be good for the region. If you actually look at the substance of the policy, it is very, very difficult to argue somehow this is based on religion. I want to get back to back, but let me get to George Biddle on this question and if you would address the point she made. Well, i cant speak to the reality of what was intended that there is a perception aspect which i think is real. You have to look at that pretty seriously which is lets look at it from a refugee angle. Read the countries have the largest populations in the world to syria, sudan and amalia. If youre going to put a ban on travel from those countries as well as over arkansas, you send a signal to populations who very often are wellfounded persecution and pledge their lives for a variety of different reasons. When you implement a ban like this, it sends a signal to the Global Community. There is a facet of it you do not way to assert an extent seen as less than charitable in the way it perceives humankind suffering in different parts of the world, many of which happened to be muslim majority countries. With the implication of that . In the Foreign Policy aspects of this. Let me come back. Its not a muslim ban. The region described it as correct. The muslim ban has become a popular way to describe it. Were all reasonably lazy and how we think of these things and it sounded good so that the expression weve embraced. Its not a muslim ban technically. But you know, we are torn near because im the one side we were chatting about this before we came down. Im the one side you have a genuine challenge that you face, which is that there are 11 million displaced people. 4. 5 million refugees from the conflict in syria. The question then becomes what you do about this . So that is a rational policy question that comes down to a lot of issues that you raised correctly. This moral issues, American Leadership in the world of the issue of reputation, but also the issue of security. You can have a pretty straightforward conversation about this and try and balance the need for security on one hand and again, donald trump has a way with words. Whether you like them or not, he has a way with them. The expression of extreme dieting is meaningful to a lot of people. Is that the right thing to do . Yes, absolutely. I dont think anybody thinks theres an entitlement to come into this country for anybody. Im an immigrant here there is no entitlement they are. They reward at the end of that is huge. Its huge to become an american. So we need to have that security issue. On the other hand, there is the exigency of the Global Leadership question and helping address the problem. At the end of the day, we can go back and forth and forth and back. What theyve done and put in place, i dont think brings us to the level of offensiveness that the rhetoric suggested. Just remind everybody, we have a tendency to talk about what ill begin with donald trump in 2013 i saw this number, but i think the United States took in 20 teen 36. Refugees. Something like that. And by the way, the numbers in the subsequent years were by no means a shiny gold might around the humanity of the Obama Administration. It was 10,000. Total, total number from the beginning was about 18,000. So we are talking about a drop in the bucket here. That was under the Obama Administration. Nobody said anything nasty, they just didnt actually care. These are the issues at hand. Nobody expects will take in 4 million refugees. What is the number that is reasonable we can take in that is between everybody who means that and nothing at all. That somehow if the balance that needs to be struck or not its intelligent conversation to be had. Trying to play game of caught you, this is a muslim ban, this event and by the way does not in any way serve the people who need so much compassion, humanity, health, which is Syrian Refugees. I actually agree with that. You asked the question. I want to provoke the conversation. We need to have a discussion about humanitarian needs balance the security interests. The course will actually decide whether or not its a muslim ban because of the courts on the initial language of the candidate is enough no matter what, they will declare the violation of the constitution. As a matter of policy, what we need to keep in mind here is the administration goes through a 120 day plan. There already was extreme dieting in place. As the refugees, the vetting is extraordinary in the proof is there hasnt been a single terrorist attack by any refugee that is coming out of her. Except for people who came as young kids and the radicalized. Certainly no Syrian Refugees, the recent cases. The vetting is working pretty well and should be there. But im wondering about with the Current Administration is thinking about this in terms of cuban refugees. We took almost a million cuban refugees over as a political matter because we wanted to make a statement. Whatever one thinks about the longago political fight that we are finally over. What im wondering about is why does the administration sees herein as cubans . What i mean by that is the president has not said mr. Assad is an enemy. Why are we embracing serious way we did cubans as a people who are fleeing our enemies as a political matter. Thats how i would like to see this administration make that statement. The administration didnt do that either . I agree with you is inadequate. I fully agree with that. They got the 10,000. Not enough candidates in the new Prime Minister of canada Cayman Company brought in 25,000 syrians and another six months. I fully agree with you on this. Did you want to jump in . I want to back up and take a minute to explain why the administration took the course that it did and it actually wasnt related to the Campaign Rhetoric at all. Work 100 Supreme Court precedents based on what president ial candidates say in campaigns, well have an interest in government in the 21st century. Heres the administrations thinking. To your point about refugees being terrorists, youre absolutely right. The only numbers we have and even those are very small numbers are people who were brought here as young kids and radicalized later. Thats absolutely accurate. The kind of misses the whole point, which we have such a tiny radicalized population in the United States, terrorists in america are a small subset, so we are actually dealing with very small populations. If you craft a new policies per se to keep the terrorists out or stop a terrorist, youre been inefficient. That will find terrorists for you. It is that the administration is thinking. They werent looking at the present threat. One things to do at heritage is look at terrorist plots against united days since 9 11 and forgive me if i dont get it right, we are in 94, 95 range. Overwhelmingly in the last two years, almost all of those have been homegrown. So heres the point. I was one of the criticisms because it doesnt reflect the threat. That misses the point. Thats not the threat the administration was looking at. Rather than looking at the present threat, the administration is trying to be a and what they were concerned with his base. Tens of thousands of foreign fighters flowing to the conflict zone in iraq and syria over the course of the conflict. As the spacebar a sister and cannot disappears, and the remainder could likely outflow somewhere in these countries were the ones where people believed they were most likely outflow to and of course iran which is a statesponsored terrorism. The notion is how do you keep the people from getting into a refugee line or an immigration status, even though the odds of that are relatively small because we have seen people do that. We actually have seen people through visa and refugee lines get into western europe in other places. So that was the concern. The idea was we want to make sure the vetting would have vetting we have isnt this an adequate to deal with that threat which we see us coming. The administration isnt the only one concerned about that. European countries are concerned about people coming from these countries and foreign fighters, canada and the United States. The administration wanted to go the extra mile. Heres the logic for that. You actually saw it reflected what happened recently in the area. The day before the president decided to do the missile strike in syria, he was criticized by many people including the administration because youre doing nothing on syria. The last administration had years to come up with a viable syrian policy. The president 11 weeks or so in all the sudden syria is all his fault and if bad things are happening, as the president s fault. There is a fairness to that because its on his watch. One of the concerns of the administration was the day after President Trump he came president , he was responsible if something happen at home. If you did have a refugee do a terrorist attack, everyone would point and save Donald Trumps all. With the same refugee policy at the last administration. This was an element of Due Diligence. Im not part of Risk Mitigation to make sure we have it right. Thats why we talk about dance, but none of these are permanent and everlasting. Which raises the interesting question, if the original ban was we want to take a pause for 120 days to make sure we have it right, by the time the courts finished with this, we may be past 120 days. Im turning to george but im also ready to Say Something and i know you want to Say Something, but let me ask you this. Arent these countries, the six countries that do not convey, do not share the kind of information about their past that the United States wants to know before we accept them . Isnt that a distinction that has some validity to it . I pay that for one second . A couple of facts. Alex mentioned 3 million refugees coming to this country since 1980 after the refugee act was passed. 3 million a terrorist attack on american soil by refugee in that. Good credit risks are heightened taste on the Global Situation as it exists today. One of the things thats really important to bear in mind is after 9 11 there was a two month hiatus or refugee processing stopped in the Bush Administration worked very hard to up the security protocols around not because they recognize lies there on the line very often. Best thing about refugees. We have to humanize them. Lets not think of them in simple class. You have to individualize and understand it and to the Syrian Border which ive been too many times in lebanon, jordan and turkey and it is searing refugees and women and children that a flat horrific situations, and your data is altered by that reality. If the president went out there, he would have a different and he was moved by what happened on the Chemical Attacks in a parallel type of sensitivity that needs to be brought to bear. The Obama Administration also spent time increasing security vetting of refugees. In their case, they did the increased security vetting of the refugee process meant outward. They slowed it down and it involves 17 agencies working intensively with each other. Many intelligence agencies from dod cia, fbi as well as others in the states. Three interviews. To fingerprint checks. By amateur greeting could it takes on average two years to get here. The process right now is intense. It cant be compared to what happens in europe where people walked across continents and arrived asylum seekers. They were not processed abroad, checked out for two years and brought here. You cant compare security risks of europe and the United States senate. What we do have to bear in mind as one half of the resettled refugee population globally on average and alex can correct me if im normally brought in by the United States. It has been in my opinion our greatest demonstration of our commitment to human rights globally. These people and individuals are the most vulnerable globally and we have taken in one half of the globally resettled population. In the last fewyears and 60,000 to 80,000 out of 160. A very small percentage is resettled in general. Maintaining commitment, they are often the ones whose lives are most on the line in the most vulnerable. Women, children and disabled people with acute medical needs, and battery. When we think and posit these people potentially are all terrorists because they come from regent terrace, humanity is diverse beauty amenities complicated complicated and also very vulnerable. This program and the reason i advocate that the refugee advocate i was equally as frustrated with the Obama Administrations movement so slowly to bring refugees from syria and we also dont want to see a path now that the process got going, the security factors in agencies came together. The fact is that 120 day band can lay too much longer delays because medical clearances run out and various other systems that people can be put on hold another year or two and sometimes their lives depend on it. A couple facts are important to land on. Feel free to talk about the humanitarian sectors even now, but i want to dig deeper into that. The one thing that i would say about this that i find enormously frustrating as we do end up talking about refugees. As you rightly say, first of all they are not humanize. Second of all, we dont really recognize or seem to care very much about what their actual needs are. Most refugees dont want to come to the United States even though we are obviously enormously attracted to everybodyon the face of the earth. Most people like to be where their parents are buried, whether jobs were, where they actually speak the language. 90 of refugees i am told by people who know this issue generally go home post conflict. We have to look at post conflict. At the end of the day, nobody is going to take all a serious refugees. 20 of jordan is now refugees. A quarter of lebanon as refugees. 2. 5 million turkeys sitting on the border. These are not solutions for these people. This is what i find frustrating is the notion the United States chose leadership by taking in hot worlds Refugee Program. Its like telling people who cant find jobs. But no, no. We want to up your unemployment. You could go on welfare. People dont actually want that as a solution. People actually want to live their lives not been the object of her charity or humanity. They want to actually be their own success peers so if we understand not, the right conversation is not to focus intensely on whether or not we are taking 10,000 more per 10,000 months, whether canadians are awesome because their Prime Ministers are handsome. Is actually to focus on the fact we need to show leadership. In the region. That is where i am much less let down by the fact that barack obama took in more refugees than the democratic republic of congo last year than he did from syria and much more depressed about the fact that this conflict started in 2011 and weve been sitting on our hands. Actually, the first government thinking about what to do. The Trump Administration. I will tell you flat out. The godspeed. This is something to bring strategy to, the right answer is not to focus on the muslim band. Its to focus on the middle east. I do think danny on the more important issue, which is the regional challenges that are driving the global refugee crisis and how we address them. I do think it more important real issue. Just a kind of wrap up the discussion on betting on everything and going back to the notion that this is obviously a muslim band, what really i think its very telling is the fact that when they reissue the list that iraq was dropped from the list. The reason iraq was dropped is very telling. They say how do we get off this list . The Administration Made some demands certainly on data sharing, but also in terms except its about repatriating people would throw out of the country and the administrations agree, thats exactly what we are looking for. Youre off the list. Its unlikely other countries have a lack of government with a set of guarantees that the fact you took a country off the list i was on the list and top it off the reasons because security concerns were met. That underlines the notion that somehow this is designed to be punitive. I do think we have to get past this notion which is a partisan political debate that this is a punitive action against muslims. Is this the most efficacious way to deal with the issue . Im all for that. We have to get over the notion this is about partisanship in people hating muslims. I dont think its about that and i do think its about the best way to deal with the tragic situation we have going on. A couple of fact checks here. 90 of refugees dont go home. The real problem today is there are these ongoing refugee situation they dont get solved. Very few went home and the u. S. Doesnt take half of the world refugees. They take half of those resettled which is 5 or 10 of the overall number. [inaudible] but also just in terms of lets terms of lets keep these things clear. Two Different Things that happen in the executive order. One was the band for the seven, now six countries from obvious as. To be temporary. The other is the pause in the refugee admissions. And these are separate. Kind of talking about them together. It is not clear why hes right. Mom all the muslim countries were good, but to a lawyer that i am, and looks like these were chosen because they been previously chosen by a bomb and congress to put this together in the Visa Waiver Program so is convenient. But when you look at where terrorists have actually come from, its not these countries in the countries were not on the list. The courts will have to test whether or not this is actually a rational, even if the defense for security with that kind of rationality check. Maybe they can prove that. My guess by the way is the administration will win these lawsuits in the end. But it still goes to the question of why this is a purely security by these countries are chosen and theres never been the Administration Never put that forward. Last point i raise on the refugee side. I agree to have a conversation of how many we should take in. President obama finally listening to danny said we need to go much more in our admissions and well go to 110,000 for this fiscal year. The executive order reduced from 110,000 to 50,000 emissions of refugees in the United States. With no explanation under the law, the president is required to go to congress and give an explanation. It cant be the security ground because were already hypothesizing the security is fixed in extreme betting in place. So what on earth is the justification at the time of huge need, lack of American Leadership. I would administration cut by more than 33 . A point of personal privilege i want to respond to both of those points because they answer the first question. Those are the countries where the concern is, is widely shared throughout the west for intelligence communities in most government. Those are the spaces were foreign fighters are more likely to float two. That is why the Obama Administration is focused on it focused on a common european country focused on it. Youre right its not the number one tourist of foreign terrorism in the United States. If you look at our plotless, 20 of those thoughts have a connection in pakistan by a large, far and away the largest which has pakistan by and large a 20 is far and away the foreign country that has the most connection to islamist terrorist threats. Life in pakistan on the list . Via different mechanisms dealing with concerns come in the foreign that you want to make sure they refugee flows are screening those out. That was the logic. The second point is 50,000 is the number in the law. Lets be honest. We can have a moral argument, but from a quantitative standpoint of the United States makes 5,100,000, that will not affect global refugee flows at all and solve any global refugee crisis. It might increase the number of truly deserving cases and there might be a real humanitarian argument for that, but from a strategic standpoint, the difference between 50 and 100,000 is a drop in the bucket. From my limited understanding because i dont want to claim im an expert on this, but when we were doing the transition, it was arson that we really had a system that was designed to process about 50,000. He was straining to get to the higher numbers. The question is where do youcome you know, this Administration Says lets go with the number that the system is designed to take care of as opposed to the maximum number. You shake your head. Numbers have been consistently above. And not a floor excuse me for jumping, but the florida statutes are consistently above. When trudeau wanted to bring in 25,000 series coming he flew 500 to the region who brought them in. I think that that is really i dont want to go in an opinion between the two of you because i do think its a moral argument, but i actually think your suggestion about capabilities having been on the end of this in previous instances is manifested untrue actually. Anybody who has been through tsa, just take that and extrapolate how we manage to screen refugees. We do a lucky flat job. Im sorry. We do a terrible job soup to not because we dont know what we are looking for. The reason we have it attacked is mostly because we are lucky, not because theyre screening is so rigorous as 3 billion refugees. [inaudible] i want people to hear you. Im sorry. Ill come right back to you. I couldnt hear you. I apologize. And its not quite done. The point i am trying to make is that we should not lie to ourselves about our capability. Trudeau made a solely political decision. There are not 500 million arabic speaking people working for the canadian government who have been sitting on their hands, thinking to themselves i could watch a soap opera in the afternoon or go work for the canadian government can actually know that story to not simply speak the arabic language, but also ask the correct question, understand providence, go through social media, to all the things that are to be done is at the end of the day that is just not true. We dont do a great job with this. Yes, there is extreme betting in place, but the point that you make of this is mostly luck is in fact true and that should tell us something that most people dont want to target a terrorist attack. Most refugees are people who want to be let in because they are clean and have a justified era persecution were fleeing persecution. That is fine, but lets not pretend to ourselves this is a situation that is anything other than a political decision. Thats what i want to say. A couple things id be curious for you to take on the Transition Team. When the slowdown occurred in the Obama Administration when i was working at the International Rescue committee, we had conversations with dhs and others to discuss the likelihood of the process moving quickly, collaboration among literally 17 u. S. Government agent needs to that an individual in the United States. These are not flybynight agencies. Were talking about the top of the various intelligence groups, so i dont take it as quite as flybynight as you might posit, danielle. I agree there is a moral aspect and its obviously critical on a number of friends as we lead in multiple forums. But there is a National Security component to this which is even though they take even though they taken 50,000 more refugees than putting the number back up to 100,000 that may not change the refugee globally because we havent seen a situation like this with his 20 million refugees and 40 million internally displaced. What does show is the commitment to be in solidarity with allies around the world shouldering the burden of hosting most of these refugees. Kenya, ethiopia, the three neighboring countries to iraq. Gordon, lebanon and turkey. Were talking a million of refugees. None for us, we are not taking them. What if china actually went through on its threat to expel all the somalis out of the camps and other places. But what they mean for regional stability the pressure points that are occurring not to mention the syrians in their who are having a difficult time. The parallel to that essay question as well with a different element. Cuts to foreign can have a huge impact as well. If we expect those governments to maintain commitment to regional stability and humanitarian concern, we have to make sure those governments get major support from the United States and not just support. They last for years and put huge burdens on infrastructure, education, water supply, ability to maintain an economy. The u. S. Also has to match that with aggressive foreign aid strategies and thats not necessarily been linked right now through what we lead in the budget. We will see how that turns out. I think there is not just a moral aspect here, there is a critical National Security component tied to this impending rail signals in solidarity signals around the world in maintaining regional stability. I would like to agree with everybody. Go from 50 to 100,000 wasnt a humanitarian decision. One of the great ironies is a get attacked for being meanspirited and Everything Else and the criticism from people who know the system is what more can they actually do. Its not that they are going to be terrible, horrible additional things. This is what you do about nothing because when they are done with the review in the same space. I understand why they put it want to put their stamp on it they would all miss processes and we are willing to live with the negative consequences. Can i ask you on this transition, what with the level of concern of people commit terrorist attacks in france and belgium and germany who can be free. Is that right . That is where you kind of need to understand the processes. For example, we have a Visa Waiver Program. If you are legitimate country that has the visa waiver saying you can come to the United States. That sounds a lot more risky than the refugee. The reality is we do a lot of data sharing with visa waiver country. You go through something where you fill out a whole bunch of information that you get to the u. S. Government which quite honestly is pretty substantial and we have lots of databases. Do i want a hammer or soft . The right tool at the right time. Those tools are working. Depends on the country. It is not about the geography. Which you want to do is focus on the tariffs and how they might try to get from a to b. The answer is never will just cut that off. If you caught off everywhere terrorist has traveled, basically no one can ever come to america. Everything conceivable including including the answer is into snake in a fortress. The answer is for the different ways you can travel to the United States, have you done Due Diligence to make sure you done the right cost benefit analysis and minimize and more importantly his tab view introduce multiple points. Its always a bad idea to say we will stop them at the border. You dont pick one stop along the process. You want to have multiple interdiction points which is one of the things if you do refugee screening right, its actually a pretty tough system to get through because you do have to go through multiple screening points. If youve got data, which is one of the challenges, but if you have good data, it gets a lot harder. Refugee fraud is a big problem. With the knowledge of her many decades. It is something we have to be concerned about. Can i watch my hand grenade in now. Sure, please. Here is my concern over and above all this, which is there is a movement that believes human migration is a human right. The people should have a right to move anywhere in the world that they want. One of my concerns is some of the vitriol in this is trying to link the refugee to this larger notion of people have the right to move anywhere in the world they want. In many ways, we start to complete all of these things. They are not. We are losing the sense of the argument. I think what weve done and they do blame the Obama Administration. Weve done great violence to the processing of refugees because its been politicized by both sides for their own political agendas. People have tried to rise at the anger against us. If people accept the notion of refugee can move anywhere, its one step to saying anyone can move anywhere. It is undermining our confidence and commitment to the Refugee Program and putting a program that has real value at risk because of a partisan debate wrapped around it. You are nodding. I am agreed with jim on this. I havent heard the refugee circles i travel with, these are not put in terms of a Broader Campaign at the right of free movement. I go back to my point about why accepting the cut was a political statement. The administration now has to wait to make a Strong Political statement by raising him. Even if the administration wants to keep tough policies you can actually have other ways. Im not suggesting because they dont agree with the policies, but on the refugee site if you want and make a clinical statement, you can make a statement to raise numbers because we are taking people who are victims. I think there is something to be said about refugee mobility following way and we cannot another discussion about what to do with longstanding places and how it can help people overseas more. One could imagine a refugee regime where you sign the Refugee Convention did when stuart adjudicated a refugee, the refugee might have the ability to move to other countries in that regime and maybe the countries end quote is, but you could allow refugees about more choice than locking them into camps once or refugee in the u. S. Could say will take 50 or 100,000 guys who show up comment that her comment that her. Right on the situation we have poor people are stuck in their countries and there is not an adequate system of global sharing. It is not the u. S. s job to do this. We do more than our share. Dozens of other countries around the world join in a global system of sharing up these refugees to reduce burden on the frontline. I want to go to questions from the audience. The thinking of your questions. I think we have a roving mike. Just a final question while everyone gets ready to ask a question. What are the humanitarian lets just say whether or not the ban is upheld. Out in the field where someone died the turks have taken millions. Is that just continue indefinitely . What happened . That is the right question. At the end of the day, it does send a being a lot about what lovely people we are and every better people than not. Back and forth. That is first of all is usually selfish way to think about it. If you want to come back to the Social Security argument, which i think fundamentally this is no matter how you look at it, you also understand. The number of countries that are now unstable. The number of countries into which over the last eight to 10 years al qaeda, forget isis. Al qaeda has spread is staggering. Thats not even talk about keeping people from those countries out and whether they are generating refugees. They talk about natural security risks. Weve been talking about the ban on bringing Electronic Devices onto aircraft in certain countries. Where does that come from . That comes from the fact of al qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is trying to develop something that will take down an aircraft and these are the countries that dont have adequate screening are we dont feel confident enough about in terms of their screening. Multiply those countries. Forget about refugees. Lets talk about the number of countries where this is going on, or you have government that dont have worrying groups that are providing states. At the end of the day this is what happens when you ignore Foreign Policy. This is what happens when you ignore American Leadership. Its not about 50 or 100,000 refugees here that is not leadership. That really is just that is what is going to pose a threat to us. Not the one guy who slipped through the net. Go down the line. Alex. You are an expert on refugees. The number of countries taking them now . Is that infinitely expandable or is there a breaking point . Weve never had so many from one region. This is entirely manageable problem. Im resisting the word crisis. They hit the couch when a Million People showed up at the million refugees. Europe couldve handled this and they did it earlier in a measured way. A very large number doesnt include palestinian refugees. That is easily manageable if you have in place a global responsibility. Can i go back to one other point you raise . Ill be really, really quick. What happens if the ban is upheld. I want you to keep separating it out. All visas for six countries. Most countries are not is basically trying to say in material of the outcome of this. Just two points. I do think there is an important symbolic as well as critical humanitarian aspect to our commitment to what we do at a resettlement level. In the reagan years have brought over 200,000 refugees annually. Southeast asians, russian religious minorities. There were dissidents. A whole host of people that came including large numbers of afghans because the war had just begun there. We have at times, when there was a neat, stepped up in a big way. I think there is an important point that out. In terms of solutions discussed, obviously the refugee population has swelled in the last 10 years to one of its largest numbers in a long time since prior to the war. There is new approaches that are not just burden sharing. The fact you need Development Assistance to the society is hosting an amateur refugees not as burdens of potential support mechanisms to the larger society. Job creation, new efforts in the air to think about investing or they can use in concert with affiliations actually provide a viable could be a manufacturing or other things versus call centers being discussed among Syrian Refugees. Obviously that takes time. If the crazies are so cyclical am not going to resolve themselves quickly, populations will be where they are in the Global Community needs to think creatively how to manage that in the u. S. Has to be an active player in foreign aid and direct assistance as well as resettlement, as well as with the air can get involved at the same time. I dont think america is morally superior for taking 150,000. Again, i talked to a lot of foreign officials. Nobody thinks because the administration wants to take less numbers that would lessen our commitment and actually these countries understand it may be because of foreign aid but it will not be to these countries. At the end of the day, the Administration Strategy to get to a more stable and peaceful middle east and you dont do that by destabilizing jordan or lebanon. I actually think for some of the other refugees states. They are trying to stabilize the region. You know what, yeah, people run the numbers differently, but a billion something to take care of refugees to come here. If you want to double the number i know, people make all sorts of numbers out. Lets say that alien and a half or something to take another 50,000 refugees a year to sustain them and all that. Again, who knows what the right numbers are, but you can maintain his support 10 refugees are so in a region where the price here. From a u. S. Perspective i would much rather see us take the billion and a half and invest it in places like lebanon and jordan then i would take 50,000 can do about market. Where the United States can be a greater example in terms of refugees is not by taking more numbers because i dont think the world that makes a difference, but in what we do with our refugees. Done that. There are about 38000 christian refugee and 40000 muslim so there wasnt much of a difference. Thats a great question. There was a concern that the administration wanted to be seen as catering to the most oppressed and endangered population in the region. I dont think anyone argues that christian minorities in the middle east have been increasingly persecuted and they wanted to send a signal they were concerned about that. From a practical perspective i agree, it doesnt make a lot of sense. The way we are implementing the processing is not discriminating against christian minorities. We did research on that. In many cases they dont need to come to the United States. There are many support groups to take care of them and in some cases they are dont want to identify themselves as christian. There are masses of Christian Refugees trying to get into the pipeline. That is why in the revised bma dropped it. My question is for alex. My name is bill. Im a student here. We hear all the time that its the muslim bay on. I hear it all the time even from some professors as well and you opened up by saying its a muslim band, and i take the points of the rhetoric and all of that was not good, but if you look at the reason itself, its pretty clear that it is not. If perceptions matter, which obviously they do, we acknowledge that if it was a muslim ban, how bad it would be for our international relations. Can you get your question. My question is, if you acknowledge how bad a real muslim ban is, why do you insist on calling this a muslim ban when it is it. I think the president made it a muslim ban and he never walked it back. He put it on the agenda, not me. Thats not how i talk about refugee protection. The fact that it doesnt cal cor all muslim countries, you can have discriminatory policies that target people based on race even if not all people of that race or religion are covered. To me thats not the issue on the refugee side. One of the things i did as i worked on the confirmation process for secretary kelly y think is an outstanding individual and largely responsible for incrementing the spirit if you look at his testimony, he stated he is not anti muslim. He is not doing this based on religion. There was, if there was a muslim date man he would not support it. He said it like a thousand time. If he is doing this and he doesnt see it as a muslim ban, its strange to see how you can argue that it is. I just wanted to answer your question. The reason people insist on calling it a muslim ban is because they are political and they want to imply that this is a bigoted and anti muslim administration. While i think there are people in the administration who are anti muslim and i think the president would lose with his rhetoric, at the end of the day the reason they persist in doing so is for political reasons. The german writer. I am with the Bloomberg School and johns hopkins. There seems to be agreement on the panel that the decrease from 10000 to 50000 is political. I would like you to unpack that. What does that mean. The governors a few years ago said no refugees are no Syrian Refugees in our state. The hostility toward somalia refugees in minnesota, what do we mean . What do you mean when you say its political and is there any moral justification for that decision. Are you addressing this to anyone in particular . All of us . Okay. The short answer is that every number you see issued by the u. S. Government is political. I hate to tell you. The budget, how much we spend, you can build it and make the numbers look like anything you want. When Justin Trudeau brings an extra Syrian Refugees its political. When they cut the number from a hundred thousand to 50000, its a political choice. Could they have cut it to 75 . Thats how the decision is made. Its such a huge question because what you see in any cyclical. Is that there are attitudes toward other people that are wrapped up with your economic wellbeing. That is a big part of these questions. People dont think the refugees are stealing their jobs but they feel insecure. Some have said republicans hate foreigners. Jennifer lopez, bigots, that kind of thing. Youre not really capturing what is happening in society as a whole and youre not really capturing what happens behind it. We are concerned about refugees and we have a cause. Why did they picked 50 . Because its half of 100. Is that a scientific intelligent way . Thats pretty much the way we do a lot in the government. There is a huge impact on this. There are 50000 human beings that are not brought to the United States. They are living in terrible conditions. The settlements the refugees are living in and around syria are awful. When people go, its not when they are randomly taking them off the street. They are talking about women and children and people who are obviously vulnerable and in need. People that have been turned over and victims of torture and jails and prisons. These are not random situations. I agree, i dont buy the strategic argument 50 100, they said we want to help in this administration, for no reason except political gain of their party said they are not coming in. That has huge human cost. [inaudible] it took them time to get there but we have reached a consensus in this country and its a shame. Can i take one second. I would say that the Refugee Program historically has probably enjoyed the most bipartisan support of almost any aid or humanitarian program that exists in the United States government. I think it is a shame that it has become so politicized. I dont know if the 50000 is a political number or not, but the fact is there are plenty of people across washington and the United States that we have a surge in volunteer applications when the number was cut. People wanted to go out and help people they knew who were vulnerable, at risk and had been persecuted. I think if we can get beyond man put a human face on it and get back to basics, the president ial determination, when it set at the beginning of the year is approved by congress. Its a joint process. There is a collective decisionmaking element involved and you use to have people on two sides of the aisle. We had a dinner ten years ago with ted kennedy and sam brownback. They were up there supporting the refugee cause. One of them is no longer with us and the other has altered his perspective and i feel thats a shame. We have to get back to the bipartisan aspect of this particular issue because it relates to human beings support one another in a global context that is complex and risks associated. Obviously we dont want people who want to do harm to come in but we have a system that anything can be improved, but it needs to be done in a way that it doesnt harm people that would have a chance to live a safer life in this country. I dont mean to be disrespectful, but the question is similar to prove to me that youre not beating your wife. Your argument is proof that they are not racist because i hear people say racist things. I cant, but all i can tell you is there is no evidence in the implementation of the policy that there is anything that is racist. I just, the problem is weve taken this issue and weve turned it into a political partisan issue and weve done exactly the wrong thing with it. But we need to do is instead of it accusing people of being racist, we need to have policymakers sitting down and talking about what we do to do the most good for the most number. What we forget is we have an absolutely vital interest to see the middle east be at peace and stable. Okay. Its never going to turn into the land of milk and honey. I get that. We may not have a palestinian state in the next ten minutes, i get that, but generally not having wars are wrapped in a region where millions of people are displaced and where people are running around destabilizing governments, we should be against that. It is not in our interest to do that. In this administration, many of us are slightly surprised, this administration is investing in bringing peace and stability to the region which is something we should all support. We can have the debate about the refugee process and whats the right balance, but we cant have an objective escutcheon for just saying prove to me this administration isnt racist. [inaudible] what i said was i think this administration said whats reasonable that we can support and whats a better allocation of those dollars and using it for the refugee system. I think their argument is 50000 is a more sustainable number and were going to spend an extra billion dollars we would be much better spending it on supporting the refugees in the region than we werent trying to bring in another 50000. Can i echo partly what all of us have said which is the way to get back to the consensus that didnt exist during the Obama Administration when we were bringing in the right number of refugees, but the way to get back to a consensus from a time before that is not for one side to say, you guys could just stop being racist and then we can get back to the consensus we used to have. Thats not really consensusbuilding. We have a question i hear. This question is addressed to jim. We are using the word racist somewhat in a context that may not be appropriate, but be that as it may, the issue that i see is that the prejudiced is pretty complex. I think it, you know jim, i started in 2003 myself on the. You need to get to the question, im sorry. The issue is, had we not made false assumptions on certain things, i dont we would be here. Im wondering, what do you foresee as one or two possible steps in the middle east that you think would help bring stability to the region . I think its a strategy beyond taking the flag down in mosul but we have to go beyond that. I think there will be a more sustaining engagement in iraq, whether than telling them we are going to withdraw, but that we are going to be engaged in a sustained way to try to help keep the country together. Obviously there will be a lot of support for the refugee populations in the region because keeping them stabilized and safe is absolutely vital. There will be a lot of support for that. I think re engaging with egypt and egypt has human rights issues all its own but at the end of the day this is the largest population in the middle east. Its an important country and its important for the United States have a construction of relationship in the process of bringing stability to the region. I think syria is in solvable. I get that. I think everybody acknowledges that we just cant ignore libya, somalia and yemen and let those fester and become launching pads for more bad things so we have to engage in a constructive way. I am semi hopeful about libya. I think there are a lot of people who want to see libya be a success and if we agreed on what we were doing, i think libya is a place where we could actually make progress. I would love to see more proactive libya policy but we need a somalia policy and yemen policy thats beyond connecticut. I hate to have to admonish people so please say your name, your affiliation what your question is. Joe jenkins, im a refugee advocate, humans rights first. I want to talk about refugee vetting. You hear wildly different claims about our system. Some say its nonexistent others say its already extreme. Just want to get on the same page, is the vetting system also political to attack that or is it a good faith effort. If you disagree that the system is working, what are the improvements . What is the conversation being had around that. I see no substantial points being made as to how that can be better or how it can be improved. Unfortunately i dont have the security clearance to know how those agencies operate. All i know is there was a concerted effort, im just giving you what i was told by the government when we were pushing under the Obama Administration that the intelligence agencies wanted to continue the program, wanted it to be robust and eventually came up with the mechanism because when you have an interdepartmental effort, it does get more complex. That behindthescenes effort, citizens outside of the security process dont know, but we do know when the system was tightened under obama significantly due primarily to an incident in Rolling Green to iraqis who had problems in iraq, apparently there was Great Success in agreeing on a system that was tight and more secure. Beyond that, i cant answer it. The question is do you have to shut hoping down in order to improve it . I dont think you do. I think you can continue to admit Vulnerable People and they are not terrorists, while you tighten up for more risky populations. The problem with answering your question is that you do have to go into behind the door and you cant do that. My sense is there are some marginal improvements that could be made in terms of training and information sharing that would make the process better. You have to shut the program down a notch to do that. I do believe its largely political. As i said before, i think the administrations argument is we on this now, something that happens we are responsible and we want to make sure it runs right. We think the risk of keeping terrorists out is balanced with a risk of someone waiting longer. You can disagree, but that is the logic. It makes for a very unsatisfied public debate. We had two or three questions over here. Can i say one thing real quick. It also doesnt matter because its going to change. As soon as you move to a new situation, you set the whole thing again. My suggestion is, two people ask a question and somebody sitting near you, maybe the gentleman behind you, and then they could take the two together because we are almost out of time. I am matt with the u. S. Conference of bishops. I have a very brief statement, we really appreciate the call for bipartisan support and also for comprehensive elements of the refugee Protection System overseas, lifesaving resettlement. The third that we would add would be root causes of migration and to try to address that. My question goes back to a question that you asked earlier margaret, and that was about those six countries providing information for people who want to come into the United States, and i guess one of the concerns we had had about that is a blanket rule that certain countries are banned for refugees coming from those countries because from some of those countries, the countries themselves are the ones persecuting the refugees. I just wonder, could that be addressed as the first part of the executive order, the 90 day ban connected with the refugee band. Thank you. Its not a permanent band. It is just to review. People share your concern. Thats why it wasnt a permanent band. The german right behind you. Good afternoon. Im from the embassy of ecuador. Talking only about syria and our middle eastern refugees. [inaudible] my question is that we are only talking about syria and middle eastern refugees. Thats the one the band applied to and thats the topic of the discussion. We are not going into other parts of the world. Yes, but i would like to know if the panelist can talk about mobilization of people and issues in the latin american area, what about these refugees and what can we do about them. So you are asking about asylum which is a different process. I will say, what the u. S. Response will be, i think the u. S. Led by secretary kellyanne secretary tillerson are very interested in doing more in Central America to help bring stability. That is a real solution to having less asylumseekers at our border. I think youll find this administration will be keenly interested in engaging with Central American countries to help address some of those issues. Do we have others . Im with the voice of america. You discussed the issue of migration, the migration and refugee flow is caused by a larger issue than the actual migration. Is taking in the immigrants a leadership that we should or shouldnt have shown. How do you think they should have addressed this issue domestically and international internationally . How do you see that establishment of that leadership . I will ask everybody who wanted to ask a question to get the microphone to them. There was a young woman over here and someone there and then will take those three altogeth altogether. I am a student studying conflict management here. I have two questions. I will keep them brief. You said time and again that there is a need to look beyond it, but i dont understand what you mean that it doesnt matter when its coming from the president of the United States. You mean his statements have no implications . People here could have very intellectual discussions about how to breakdown policy and breakdown the specifics but what goes out to the general public is a message. [inaudible] next again, there was a lot of questions raised about how this administration is not doing enough and you diverted back to the obama a administration didnt do as much as they should have. My question is how is the administration not doing enough a justification for the Current Administration . And we have one more over here. I was wondering to play off of that, you talked a lot about adding bipartisan support and not being made into a political issue when its not supposed to be a political issue, but when there is obviously ingrained prejudices that do exist throughout our electorate, as told by the representative or advisor who called it islamic cancer, how can we ignore, how can we overcome this as a political issue if it is a prejudiced thats ingrained in the party . There seems to be very similar, which is how can public rhetoric of a candidate or his advisors be separated from this discussion. Every president , every presidency has a balance of rhetoric and action. I actually think president ial leadership is determined by action than rhetoric. I dont think anybody would remember fdrs speech on december 7, the day of infamy if the United States hadnt gone to fight world war ii. Every remembers that obama gave a speech in cairo but no one remembers what he said. There was very little connection between the speech and action. He did very little to save the arab spring. He did little to bring peace and stability to the region so we forget the rhetoric. The challenge as i see it is we live in a hyper partisan political environment which is as toxic as maybe 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 and you will never see the forest through the trees. What i do, you dont have to do this, but i tend to ignore the rhetoric and i tend to focus on what the government is actually doing. I dont listen to peoples criticism of what they say in their politics or their attitudes toward religion, i look at what they actually do. What they are actually doing is trying to find out a way to defuse the middle east, and lower the temperature on some of these complex and stabilize the competition. To be honest, i think bolster many of the countries in the region against the influence of iran which i think this administration is one of the destabilizing influences of the region, they are an aggressive country and i think they are one of the problems. Getting rid of isis, getting rid of al qaeda, ending conflicts and pushing back in iran, that is the administrations formula for bringing peace and stability. That is the reality. Now, can you put that together from listening to the Campaign Rhetoric. Now. Is that my problem. No. Okay my problem is i have to wrap this up. Okay im not going to get into the rhetoric versus action. I think the rhetoric has a profound impact and thats just reality. It does taint a situation. But lets talk about refugees. When we talk about all the good things about refugees that people dont ever seem to discuss in this country. One of the things is there not an economic burden. But they have to be employed within three or four months to survive. They become taxpayers immediately. They are Small Business owners. Refugees have done a lot of great things. Have you heard of intel . He went on to found one of the most successful countries in the United States. Celebrate refugees. Dont make them out to be bad people. [applause] the action rhetoric line is an interesting one. I think people are responsible for the implications of their rhetoric, and jim, i think youre not hearing, you are thinking that anybody who says this rhetoric has hurt my community is calling the administration racist. I dont think theyre saying that. I think theyre saying very painful things have been said that have opened up the door to hateful speech and hateful action that insults them as americans. The same thing is true about the rhetoric on immigration. The Latino Community in this country has been terrorized by things that have said i the administration and by actions, quite frankly. You have to hear that and realize you cant just say lets talk about action. These are real things that people are feeling in their communities. One final thing, i do want to say. One way to merge with actions here, other countries have private sponsorship of refugees. This may be an idea because it will take your billion dollars and spend it overseas and let people bring it in. Im still reconciling whether latinos are proud americans who are happy to be here or if they are terrorized and unhappy to be here. Let me try to answer the two questions that were addressed to me. How do you address the problem of leadership. First of all you do taken refugees. Ive said we should take in 100,000 syrians and im standing by that. But im not the president. And im not eligible to be the president either. How do you address the problems of leaderships, theres lots of different ways. One of the biggest the services that i think barack obama did for us is to pause with the notion that theres only two options. Military intervention or doing nothing. The reality is we have an enormous federal government that has tons of expertise that actually enables us to do lots of things to both preempt the kind of descent into violence and gray areas and also to address those issues once they become a problem. We do need to Research Resource our budget to do that. On rhetoric, yes, some people should shut up. Lets just say it. There are things that shouldnt be said and there is a special burden on you when you are the president of the United States. Anyone of us who says that he doesnt recognize that, is frankly not understanding how momentous that office is. Thats why i was upset when the president failed to use the power of his office to stand up for people who deserve to be stood up for and use the power of this country to stand up for people overseas who deserve it. It cuts both ways and yes, i stand by that. Some people should shut up. I dont think that recognizing the manifest failure of the Previous Administration is a justification for this administration, but i also think the pretense that the last administration, and didnt help deliver the rotten situation that were in is also wrong. By the way, islamic cancer, middle east, he finally asked a question that i was prepared for. It is wrong to say islamic cancer. Its also wrong to pretend this has nothing to do with muslims. One of the biggest terrorist problems we have is a group called the islamic state, and guess what, it is islamic and it has the pretenses of being a state. Those are real issues and we deny people the facts on the ground when we dont suggest there is an issue relating to islam overseas that everyone of our allies would agree with. On that note, we have to end it. I wanted this to be lively and it was. I think all my panelists. Thank you all. [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] tonight on the tv in prime time, a look at the 2016 president ial campaign with Rolling Stone writer on his book insane clown president. A look at the Hillary Clinton campaign in game of thorns. Marine on her book the year of voting dangerously former Trump Campaign advisor record stone is interviewed on his book about the kin campaign. He talks about his book, how the hell did this happen, the election of 2016. It is book tv in prime time at 830 eastern. Coming up this afternoon, we will go live to a discussion on the summit between President Trump and chinese president she. The Stinson Center will focus on the potential Economic Security and strategic implications of the asiapacific region. That will be live today starting in about 20 minutes. 1 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan2. Tonight, on the committee caters, pennsylvania congressman mike doyle, Ranking Member of the key house subcommittee on communications and Technology Talks about privacy, Net Neutrality and expanding broadband in the u. S. He is interviewed by allie fremont, Technology Reporter for the hill. When you and democrats sit down at the negotiating table, will the public outcry over broadband privacy be a point of leverage for democrats to use . I think this is all part of it. I think because the reclassification affects both and i think obviously, if this is to come to pass, and again, i think the public will have something to say about this, what we want as democrats on the committees strong consumer protections. More and more, the handheld device and your laptop, your whole life are on these devices now. Your medical information, your financial information, personal and family information, information about your children, people want a sense that the Internet Service providers and the people handling this data, are not using this data strictly to make money for themselves. Watch the communicators tonight at eight eastern on cspan2. The l. A. Times has been putting on the festival of books for more than 20 years, and it has become an institution that is part of the community. It is a way that we can celebrate with the readers of the paper and with the city as a whole, the very notion of reading. Today when the idea of there being something called fake news is out there, i think that books help us celebrate the way that words and facts are grounded in storytelling and in history. Watch our live coverage of the l. A. Times festival of books all weekend april 22 and 23rd on the tv on cspan2. The deans of three Public Diplomacy programs, american university, Georgetown University and the university of Southern California talked about the Academic Program they operated and about the future of Public Diplomacy education in the u. S. They also discuss the impacts of various immigration policies on International Student recruitment. This is about 30 minutes
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.