I'm sorry, I completely neglected to mention material support for terrorism, but this was a provision of the REAL ID Act, which is that if you are found to have materially supported a terrorist organization, you are barred from asylum and any kind of protection is withheld. Material support under the U.S. definition—and this is recognized by U.S. officials—is any kind of support whatsoever. There is no duress and no de minimis exception to that.
One of the most pointed examples of the application of that has been the case of Colombian refugees. Guerrilla organizations, including the FARC in Colombia, often kidnap people and then extort from their relatives; that's how they raise their funds, by kidnapping people and then demanding that their family pay. The family, of course, has to pay the ransom or their relatives will be killed. But if they pay, they are now found under U.S. law to have materially supported a terrorist organization. The level of duress required by basic humanity, which everyone in this room would participate in, is a basis for an absolute exclusion under the material-support-for-terrorism bar. If you are a child and you live in a conflict area and you give a glass of water to an individual in that conflict, you will have supported that terrorist organization. That is where U.S. law stands.
A couple of weeks ago, authority was granted to immigration officials to exercise some discretion in allowing some refugees in under that authority. That discretion has been exercised for some Burmese refugees in overseas camps. It's not clear what it's going to result in, but discretion is completely unreviewable. I don't think the record we have so far indicates it's going to be sufficient.