long-term relationships across the globe. you only read about that on a daily basis areas long-term allies who question the support of the united states. he suggests we can go it alone. i don't think it is a case by any means. we have extraordinary power ourselves, but we need partners around the globe to achieve the goals we seek. announcer 1: join us for conversations with bob corker and niki tsongas saturday at 8:00 eastern on c-span and c-span.org or listen with the free radio app. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme

court and public policy events in washington, dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. bates. is adam he is with the international refugee assistance project. he is here to talk about a proposal by the administration when it comes to the refugee cap. tell us about the project, its purpose and who backs this. >> the international refugee assistance project was found in 2008 as a project of five yale law students. it was the iraqi assistance project and they were serving as providing legal services to iraqi refugees. over the past 10 years the mission statement has been brought to all walks of life, anywhere in the world. we provide direct legal services to refugees, litigate on behalf of refugees, and have a lot of

law student chapters and pro bono law firms who help us with our work. host: one of the topics that came up earlier this week was this idea of the united states when it comes to a refugee cap. can you explain what that is? guest: the basic model for our refugee program was begun in 1980 with the refugee act. and under that act, each fiscal year the president makes a , presidential determination, which is the cap on how many total refugees will be admitted to the united states for that fiscal year. over the past 38 years of the program, that average has been somewhere around 95,000. when president trump took office, his first presidential determination for last year was 45,000, which was the lowest determination and the history of the program. this new announcement is a cap for fiscal year 2019 of 30,000, which is obviously a one third reduction from the lowest cap in the history of the program. host: we have secretary of state pompeo talking about why he did

it, but before he did what goes , in to determining the number? adam: this is produced by the department of state, department of homeland security, health and human services, and they get together and decide what is in the national interest and what they think is in the strategic interest, what is in the military and interest of the united states -- humanitarian interest of the united states. this is really an executive process. the president is obligated to consult with congress about this. but it is really up to the prerogative of the administration to determine how and why they set the number where they do. host: 30,000 is the proposed number for fy 2019. here is secretary of state mike pompeo describing the justification of that number. pompeo: the total assistance worldwide was more than $8 billion in fy 2017, more than any other country. this year's proposed refugee ceiling must be considered in the context of the many other forms of protection and assistance offered by the united states.

moreover, the refugee ceiling number should not be reviewed in isolation from other expensive humanitarian programs. some will characterize the ceiling as the sole barometer of america's commitment to vulnerable people around the world. this would be wrong. host: adam bates, what do you get as far as a justification from what he said? adam: it sounds like the administration wants to turn the discussion away from the refugee question and more to other programs that are designed, at least ostensibly, to help people around the world. but it is important to note those programs have always existed. this is always -- the refugee program has always been part of a broader strategy to help vulnerable people around the world. so even in that context, we still have the history of the refugee program that we should be assessing this against, not just the other things that we are doing, but the refugee program in the context of the history of the refugee program. and that is where this is simply case historic low in the history

of the program. host: it sounds like he is casting this in economic terms as far as what the u.s. does spend in terms of helping refugees and those who seek asylum in the u.s. adam: sure. one of the arguments from the administration is that refugees have been a fiscal burden to the united states. that conception was rebutted by an economic study that was actually commissioned by the trump administration and done by the trump administration that found that the refugee program has netted the united states economy about $63 billion over the last 10 years. so the economic argument really doesn't work, even compared to the administration's own findings. host: so this is adam bates with the international assistance project, here to talk about this proposed refugee cap. it was announced earlier this week. if you want to ask him questions, it's (202) 748-8000 for democrats, republicans (202) 748-8001, and independents (202) 748-8002.

if you are a refugee in the united states and you want to give your perspective, it is (202) 748-8003, and you can also reach out to us via twitter at cspanwj. what is the process of negotiation from this cap announced by the administration to what has to go on with legislators on capitol hill? how does that work? adam: at the end of the day, the administration is required to consult with congress. congress does not have the veto power, congress does not have consent such as for supreme two court nominations or things like that. and we have heard from senator grassley and representative goodlatte, the chairs of the committee over this week, that they feel the trump administration not consulted with them at all. there has been some very strong language about the administration not meeting its statutory mandate. whatever the historical negotiation process is, it appears that at least as of secretary pompeo's announcement,

there hasn't been much at all. host: for those that get into that united states how are they , vetted and how does it affect the number of people that ultimately make it into the united states? adam: sure. it is important for people to understand. the program has operated quietly for many years. it was taken for granted are -- by republicans and democrats that the refugee program was beneficial to the united states in our strategic and humanitarian interest. not a lot of people know how the program works. for the typical refugee, they are first vetted by the united h.ions, by you and -- u.n. e.r., the high commission for refugees, and after all of that setting takes place, they are referred by the u.n. to the united states. once the referral happens, it triggers all of the security and health checks for the united states. so it is actually a long and laborious process. they are extensively vetted. they are the most vetted travelers to the united states out of any category of foreign traveler to the u.s. host: and what about for

sensitive countries like syria or anything else, is there enough vetting from countries especially of those type of countries? adam: one of the arguments from that --nistration is and i believe secretary pompeo made reference to it -- is that refugees represent an elevated security rest to the united states. the data simply runs the other way. the cato institute ran a study last year that found the chance of being killed by a refugee terrorist in the united states is about one in 3.6 billion. just for context, you have a better chance of being struck by lightning twice than you have a being killed by a refugee terrorist, or it is obvious that the setting works. what we see is that the vetting process, which was completely successful, is taking much longer. in the cases of many middle eastern countries, like syria, the process is centrally has ground to a halt. i believe since january 1, and

-- in calendar year 2018, we have admitted 20 syrian refugees. refugee crisis of our time, there are about 6 million syrian refugees and 27 have been admitted. host: and the web side, you want to check out their work. adam bates, who serves as the counsel for the project. the first call is from the independent line. this is from ohio, dave, you are on with adam bates. go ahead. caller: top of the morning to you. i have one statement and one question. we have a statute in new york that on the base of it that says give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free tempest lost to me. i lift my lamp beside my golden door. i think that mr. trump should make an executive order to

dismantle the statue of liberty and send it to canada. my question is, we are living in a time when it is abnormal amount of refugees are out there because of wars and famine and that. why is it that the united states cuts back on their refugees? it doesn't make any sense. host: ok, caller. thanks. adam: so i agree. i agree that it is difficult to make sense of what is going on right now. think your appeal to am a lazarus and the -- to emma lazarus and the poem on the statue of liberty is valid. this is a country from its inception that was founded as a refuge for people fleeing wars and disasters in other parts of the world. rather than dismantling the statue of liberty, and sending it to canada, which they have done a good job with refugees i , think we need to have a serious conversation about the refugee program. it is generally supported by the public. something like 57% of americans still believe that we should

accept syrian refugees. which for -- by comparison's sake is much higher than the number of people who thought we should accept jewish refugees during during the holocaust. ,so the public support is there. i think the legislative support is there. but what we have is an administration that is openly antagonistic toward immigration, legal and illegal, to the united states. so if you are looking for explanations for what has happened, it is really just the administration and its own prerogative that has, has really started to dismantle the refugee program. i think the popular support is still there. host: republican line from maryland, michael is next. hi. caller: hi, how is it going? you know i wanted to say , something about this too. you know, i have a question and a comment. first my question is, i mean the , people come here from the third world, they are trying to escape poverty, what they need to do is they need to fight in

their country for the freedoms that our ancestors fought here. they come here and they get half of what we get. they get all the same rights that we have, but our ancestors are the ones who fought for those rights for us to have them not these people who came here. , i think it is quite unfair to have these people come here and treat them just like everybody else here. the ancestors of the descendents of the people who actually fought for this system. host: thanks, caller. adam: so a couple points. ,one is somebody who is simply having a hard time economically cannot become a refugee to the united states. in order to be a refugee, you have to have a well-founded fear of persecution or actually have been persecuted in your country. people that are just having a hard time economically are not coming to the u.s. as refugees. to the bigger, to the broader, philosophical question, i would say that america was founded by people who fled europe. that is who came to the united states in the first place. that is where our ancestors came

from. and when they founded this country, they wrote in the declaration of independence that all men are created equal, our rights come from nature, they from nature's creator, they do not come from the government. so my, my response to that would be, these rights are universal. there are universal human rights, and it is not for us to cut off the only lifeline that people have when they are in a desperate situation. it doesn't make sense from a humanitarian perspective, from an economic perspective, or from a strategic effect appeared. host: when it comes to other digit perspectives mike pompeo , has an op-ed in usa today. he says we are putting a new focus on increasing assistance displaceds and other people as close to their home countries as possible. we can house, feed, provide medical care for refugees closer to their homes and do so more rapidly than we can possibly do here in the u.s. adam: for one, those goals are

not mutually exclusive. insofar as foreign aid can be used to help people in foreign countries, that is good. but i point out we do not receive the benefits of refugees who are housed in other countries. those benefits i talked about, the $60 billion that refugees have netted the u.s. economy, that doesn't happen if the refugees are not here. i would also point out we have a program called the special immigrant visa program that exist to provide visas for afghans and iraqis who serve with u.s. forces, mostly as interpreters. over the last year, admissions for those have dropped about 90%. those are people who are still in their country, and they can't be helped in their country. they need a safe third country to go to, and the administration has still made it very clear that those people are not welcome here. host: tacoma, washington, independent line. this is lee, hello. caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions and -- questions i wanted to run

past. i'm not sure how these programs are affected. first of all, i have heard that in the college system, that the colleges make an incredible amount of money off foreign students. that is one question. and why would that be that way in this country? second of all, the two programs, medicare and social security, that americans have worked for 40 years to pay into, is that going to be affected by all of these added people coming into this country? or you know how safe are those , programs when you are bringing in some many people? i think you have a lot of immigrants already here, and i think that that program needs to be tightened down, especially the craziness that is going on out there in the way of other

factions that want to come into this country and take it down. host: lee, thank you. adam: so, in terms of college, from my understanding some states have initiatives that allow people to get in-state tuition and things of that nature. in terms of colleges making money off of people, i think that is generally true of students at those universities across the board. in terms of the economic argument for refugees, i would first say that we are not bringing in so many people from other countries, that in fact we are at historic lows, especially in terms of the refugee program. but also again i would cite back to the study that the data we have suggests that the refugee program is a net gainer for the u.s. economy. the people who come into this country who are young, who work, who pay taxes, they actually help support programs like social security that may not be solvent on their own but are receiving this boost from having

young workers come into the united states. host: when it comes than to actual monetary support from the united states, what is a refugee get or entitled to once they make it to the united states? adam: they are given some initial assistance for about eight months from the office of refugee resettlement, through the department of health and human services. they receive about eight months or can receive eight months of support. after that point, if they still require it, they can transition into programs like temporary assistance for needy families and things like that. so it is not, it is not expensive, i think their budget over the last 10 years was somewhere around $600 million to $2 billion. the variation in that is largely down to how many unaccompanied children. because obviously children require more care. those unaccompanied children are not coming in as refugees. that is more of a problem at the border.

but so it is between $600 million and $2 billion a year , but that is not taking into account the benefits to the economy and the added tax base from the same people. host: what about health benefits? adam: health benefits, they are entitled to again eight months of medical care, and then depending on income level, they can transition over into federal , into federal programs for that. host: from alaska, independent line, this is matthew for our guest adam bates. caller: yes, sir. just a question, if 30,000 refugees is not the correct number or decreased, what is the correct number and why? thank you. i will hang up. guest: it's a good question. as i said, the historical average for the presidential determination is about 95,000. and historically, by and large, administrations have come close to that cap. the one exception -- there are basically two craters in the history of the refugee

admissions. one was 9/11. after 9/11, 27,000 were admitted but the cap stayed where it was. there was not production in the cap. this year, fiscal year 2018 that is just ending, there will be about 21,000 refugees admitted of that 45,000 cap. less than half the cap, but less than even what was admitted after 9/11. so the other big crater in our refugee program is the trump administration. 100,000 would be a good place to start. that is historical average. the united states can plainly accommodate that many people and has in the past. so in terms of upper limits, we are just trying to keep the program viable. and so much -- when the cap is drastically reduced, and the admissions are drastically reduced, resettlement agencies lose money. they lose jobs, and it becomes more and more difficult to process even the small number of refugees that we take. so at this point, getting back to our historical average would involve a three-time increase in the program.

host: you had mentioned canada earlier. we have two questions on twitter. this is jim. he is asking what canada's number of illegal immigrants are, and then ben asking if they required documentation to legally enter the country? adam: i am not exactly sure what canada's immigration numbers are like. i do know that canada has some refugee programs the united states doesn't have, and maybe should such as private sponsorship. canada has a pretty robust private sponsorship system that allows private citizens to come together and say, hey we want to , sponsor a refugee, and we want to provide support for that refugee. that can't happen in the united states currently. the other thing with canada, they have admitted somewhere around between 40,000 and 50,000 syrian refugees, i believe. that is about twice what the u.s. has admitted over the course of the syrian civil war. and as i mentioned earlier, the number of syrians this year in

the united states is about 27. canada is doing a good job, but obviously they are not capable of replacing what is being lost when the united states ebbs from its responsibility and global leadership on refugees. host: the state department talked about not only the reduction cap being proposed of route 30,000 but also -- of 30,000 but also there is 280,000 asylum-seekers to be processed, 800,000 already in the u.s. and 1.5 billion refugees and asylum seekers admitted since when it 2000. comes to generosity, we are still at the top when it comes to countries? adam: when it comes to refugee admissions, it has historically been the case the u.s. has admitted more than the rest of the countries combined. it is important to distinguish countries like turkey, lebanon, and jordan, which are the countries refugees flee to out of syria. turkey has something like 3.5 million, something like 20% of

the people in lebanon are refugees right now. but in terms of permanent resettlement, the u.s. typically has taken in more than the rest of the countries combined. last year was the first year that that had not happened. the rest of the world actually took in more refugees. i also think it is important to understand that in terms of the capacity to take in refugees, and as a percentage of economy, as a percentage of population, the u.s. is not the most generous. in terms of the faction of refugees as a percentage of the population. we have tremendous capacity to accept people. we have a $19 trillion economy, but in terms of absolute numbers, historically, the u.s. has been, has taken in more refugees than other countries. host: for adam bates, this is janice from florida, democrats line. go ahead. caller: my question is -- these organizations it's wonderful to , give people financial or where

they can get free lawyers and that, and free assistance, and free everything. what about the people right here at home? are they offering -- is his organization offering free trials, free economics, and that other people can get? they do it for all the immigrants. they have free medical, free everything to make sure they are safe healthwise to be in our country, but what is it costing us that the taxpayers are paying for? adam: so our organization provides legal services to refugees. we do not provide care on the backend. so we are not paying for their housing. we are not paying for their medical expenses. we are trying to help them navigate the very confusing and laborious process of becoming a refugee to the united states. so we don't offer to pay for their housing or four their

education or things like that. as i said, the overall economic impact of refugees in the united states is positive. so these are -- as a community of refugees, these are people who are paying more into our system than they are taking out of it. in terms of providing these things for for americans, sure , -- i am sure there are organizations out there who do that, but that is not the focus of irap. host: what are the common legal hurdles a refugee has to face coming to the country? adam: as i said the typical , refugee presents themselves to first the united nations, and then they are trying to have their status determined as a refugee. that can take months to years. once that happens, and they are referred to the united states, than they start with our vetting process, and that can take years once again. there are medical checks they have to go through that are time limited. there are security checks they have to go through. if the security checks take too long, the medical checks can expire.

people can have their refugee applications denied based on mistakes by the government or reasons where the refugee has not been told the reasons. when that has been revealed, they come to us and find out why they were denied and help them navigate the appeals process. the iraqi and afghan interpreters, they have to appeal. they have to prove to the united states government that they put in their two years of service with the u.s. mission in iraq or afghanistan. that program is rife with difficulties in terms of finding contractors to prove they worked for the united states, and those people are in country, under threat. it is important that people understand that refugees are under threat. by definition, these are people whose lives are at risk. and in the midst of all of this, they are being asked to check all of these boxes, jump through all these legal hurdles, and it is a harrowing and difficult process. so that is where we come in to

try to help them through. host: we have a viewer off of twitter asking about the vetting process -- if people flee a failed state, how do we get records from the state persecuting them? adam: that can be very difficult. sometimes -- for instance, syria is a police state. police states are generally pretty good at keeping records. but this is the job of the u.n. this is the job of the vetting process to, if we can get their records, verify who they are with extensive biometric checks and things of that nature, but it can be difficult. that is why the process takes so long. it has always taken so long. it is only with this administration that the process has basically ground to a halt for people from a whole raft of countries in the middle east. go ahead. host: go ahead. adam: it can be very difficult to get this information, but the u.n. and the u.s. refugee program has been doing this for quite a while. they have gotten pretty good at figuring out who people are. host: terry from florida on the

independent line. terry from flr independent line. >> good morning. thank you, mr. bates. i will get straight to the question. i want to add a slight comment after you and. howmany people -- sorry, many refugees that are coming -- i'm sorry, america is directly responsible for creating that situation of them being a refugee. how many of the refugees are coming into america? created with the war or whatever? host: call her, thank you. thet: yes, this is one of arguments in favor of refugees. u.s. interventions and a lot of countries have helped to create refugees. obviously, the iraq war and chaos that it and gendered iraq theh spilled into syria,

invasion of afghanistan, u.s. operations in places like somalia and yemen, the u.s. has its fingerprints in a lot of hot war zones in the world. and these wars create refugees. i do think there is a persuasive argument there that insofar as the u.s. government's foreign policy is helping to create refugees, we have a higher obligation to accept the people who are fleeing these conflicts. i will say our -- i do believe our humanitarian and strategic and economic interests supersede just limiting our refugee program to people that we think we have helped create. the u.s. has been defendant from refugees from completely organic complex that had nothing to do with u.s. foreign policy. host: one more call from republic -- from kentucky. this is sunny. >> i come from a unique perspective. i'm a latino and i have worked in the produce of business for

15 years. when the refugees come over, they have the same story. their life is in danger. which i happen to know for a lot -- for a fact is a lie. they always put down six dependence so they don't pay any taxes on top of that which i know because i am a warehouse manager. they get pregnant so they can have a kid here so they can get medicaid and housing from us. what do you have for that? well, by definition, refugee is someone who is facing cup -- some kind of threat of persecution or has been a victim of persecution or war or torture. it is not sent -- it should not be surprising that refugees have stories that involve them having been persecuted. that is what makes them a refugee in the first place. that is what allows them to come into the program. dependents, refugees tend to be young. they tend to be young and have families. that is just true of who

refugees are. i would go back to the data we have rather than just relying on antidotes that we hear. the data suggests that refugees are an economic benefit to the united states and of a pay more -- and they pay more in than they take out. i also think our responsibility to people fleeing war and persecution in the world should supersede the idea that these people are looking for handouts or things of that nature. or that if a refugee is pregnant, we should look up more harshly at her persecution or her need to find refuge simply because we are concerned about the potential of our using public benefit. host: adam bates, joining us for discussion on refugees and united states, thank you for your time. guest: thank you very much. shortly,: starting