Our immigration conversation is broken -- here's how to have a better one | Paul A. Kramer

Translator: Vera Vasiljevic Reviewer: Nika Kotnik

We often hear these days that the immigration system is broken.

Zadnje čase pogosto slišimo, da se je zrušil imigracijski sistem.

I want to make the case today that our immigration conversation is broken

Danes želim pokazati, da je spodletela debata o priseljencih,

and to suggest some ways that, together, we might build a better one.

in predlagati nove načine, na katere lahko skupaj ustvarimo boljšo.

In order to do that, I'm going to propose some new questions

S tem namenom bom predstavil nekaj novih vprašanj

about immigration,

o priseljenstvu,

the United States

Združenih državah Amerike

and the world,

in svetu.

questions that might move the borders of the immigration debate.

Vprašanja, ki bodo morda premaknila meje debate o priseljencih.

I'm not going to begin with the feverish argument that we're currently having,

Ne bom začel z vročo debato, ki se odvija trenutno,

even as the lives and well-being of immigrants are being put at risk

medtem ko so življenja in blaginja priseljencev v nevarnosti

at the US border and far beyond it.

tako na ameriški meji kot drugod.

Instead, I'm going to begin with me in graduate school

Raje bom začel s svojo zgodbo s podiplomskega študija

in New Jersey in the mid-1990s, earnestly studying US history,

v New Jerseyju, kjer sem sredi 90-ih študiral ameriško zgodovino,

which is what I currently teach as a professor at Vanderbilt University

ki jo zdaj poučujem kot profesor na Univerzi Vanderbilt

in Nashville, Tennessee.

v Nashvillu, Tennessee.

And when I wasn't studying,

Ko se nisem ukvarjal s študijem,

sometimes to avoid writing my dissertation,

včasih da bi se izognil pisanju disertacije,

my friends and I would go into town

smo s prijatelji odšli v mesto

to hand out neon-colored flyers, protesting legislation

in delili letake v neonski barvi, s katerimi smo protestirali

that was threatening to take away immigrants' rights.

proti zakonodaji, ki naj bi priseljencem odvzela pravice.

Our flyers were sincere, they were well-meaning,

Naši letaki so bili iskreni in dobronamerni,

they were factually accurate ...

navedena dejstva so bila točna ...

But I realize now, they were also kind of a problem.

Vendar se zdaj zavedam, da so bila tudi sporna.

Here's what they said:

Na letakih je pisalo:

"Don't take away immigrant rights to public education,

"Ne odvzemite priseljencem pravice do javnega šolstva,

to medical services, to the social safety net.

do zdravstvenih storitev, do mreže socialne varnosti.

They work hard.

Trdo delajo.

They pay taxes.

Plačujejo davke.

They're law-abiding.

Spoštujejo zakone.

They use social services less than Americans do.

Socialnih storitev se poslužujejo redkeje od Američanov.

They're eager to learn English,

Zelo radi bi se naučili angleščine

and their children serve in the US military all over the world."

in njihovi otroci služijo v ameriški vojski po vsem svetu."

Now, these are, of course, arguments that we hear every day.

Takšne argumente slišimo seveda vsak dan.

Immigrants and their advocates use them

Priseljenci in njihovi zagovorniki se jih poslužujejo

as they confront those who would deny immigrants their rights

pri soočanju s tistimi, ki bi radi kratili pravice priseljencem

or even exclude them from society.

ali jih celo izključili iz družbe.

And up to a certain point, it makes perfect sense

Do določene mere je popolnoma smiselno,

that these would be the kinds of claims that immigrants' defenders would turn to.

da zagovorniki priseljencev uporabljajo takšne in podobne argumente.

But in the long term, and maybe even in the short term,

Vendar mislim, da imajo takšni argumenti

I think these arguments can be counterproductive.

dolgoročno, morda tudi kratkoročno, nasproten učinek.

Why?

Zakaj?

Because it's always an uphill battle

Ker je obramba sebe na nasprotnikovem ozemlju

to defend yourself on your opponent's terrain.

vedno težka bitka.

And, unwittingly, the handouts my friends and I were handing out

Tako so bili naši letaki, ki smo jih delili,

and the versions of these arguments that we hear today

in tako so različice omenjenih argumentov, ki jih slišimo danes,

were actually playing the anti-immigrants game.

nehote dejansko usmerjeni proti priseljencem.

We were playing that game in part by envisioning

Do nasprotnega učinka smo delno prišli

that immigrants were outsiders,

zaradi dojemanja priseljencev kot outsiderjev,

rather than, as I'm hoping to suggest in a few minutes,

namesto da bi jih videli kot ljudi, ki so že pomemben del družbe,

people that are already, in important ways, on the inside.

kar bom poskušal predstaviti v naslednjih minutah.

It's those who are hostile to immigrants, the nativists,

Tistim, ki so sovražno nastrojeni proti priseljencem, ksenofobom,

who have succeeded in framing the immigration debate

je uspelo debato o priseljencih omejiti

around three main questions.

na tri glavna vprašanja.

First, there's the question of whether immigrants can be useful tools.

Prvo vprašanje se nanaša na to, ali so priseljenci uporabni.

How can we use immigrants?

Kako lahko priseljence izkoristimo?

Will they make us richer and stronger?

Nas bodo naredili bogatejše in močnejše?

The nativist answer to this question is no,

Ksenofob bo na ta vprašanja odgovoril nikalno --

immigrants have little or nothing to offer.

priseljenci nam lahko ponudijo le malo ali nič.

The second question is whether immigrants are others.

Pri drugem vprašanju gre za to, ali so priseljenci drugačni.

Can immigrants become more like us?

Lahko priseljenci postanejo bolj podobni nam?

Are they capable of becoming more like us?

So zmožni postati bolj podobni nam?

Are they capable of assimilating?

So se sposobni asimilirati?

Are they willing to assimilate?

Se želijo asimilirati?

Here, again, the nativist answer is no,

Tudi na ta vprašanja bi ksenofob odgovoril nikalno -

immigrants are permanently different from us and inferior to us.

priseljenci so nespremenljivo drugačni od nas in manjvredni.

And the third question is whether immigrants are parasites.

In tretje vprašanje se glasi, ali so priseljenci paraziti.

Are they dangerous to us? And will they drain our resources?

So nevarni za nas? Bodo izrabili naše vire?

Here, the nativist answer is yes and yes,

V tem primeru bo ksenofob odgovoril pritrdilno --

immigrants pose a threat and they sap our wealth.

priseljenci predstavljajo nevarnost za nas in črpajo naše bogastvo.

I would suggest that these three questions and the nativist animus behind them

Menim, da so ta tri vprašanja in sovražen odziv ksenofobov na njih

have succeeded in framing the larger contours of the immigration debate.

postavili glavne okvire za debato o priseljencih.

These questions are anti-immigrant and nativist at their core,

Ta vprašanja so sama po sebi usmerjena proti priseljencem in etnocentrična.

built around a kind of hierarchical division of insiders and outsiders,

Nastala so na podlagi hierarhične delitve na insiderje in outsiderje,

us and them,

na nas in njih,

in which only we matter,

pri čemer smo pomembni samo mi,

and they don't.

oni ne.

And what gives these questions traction and power

In poleg kroga zavzetih etnocentrikov

beyond the circle of committed nativists

daje tem vprašanjem moč in zagon

is the way they tap into an everyday, seemingly harmless sense

način, na katerega prodirajo v vsakdanjik kot navidezno neškodljiv občutek

of national belonging

nacionalne pripadnosti,

and activate it, heighten it

ki se aktivira, krepi

and inflame it.

in nazadnje razvname.

Nativists commit themselves to making stark distinctions

Etnocentriki se zavežejo k močnemu razlikovanju

between insiders and outsiders.

med insiderji in outsiderji.

But the distinction itself is at the heart of the way nations define themselves.

Takšno razlikovanje je v osnovi način, kako se narodi definirajo.

The fissures between inside and outside,

Razkol med insiderji in outsiderji,

which often run deepest along lines of race and religion,

ki je pogosto najmočneje povezan z raso in religijo,

are always there to be deepened and exploited.

se lahko vedno še bolj poglobi in izkoristi.

And that potentially gives nativist approaches resonance

In tako se lahko vpliv etnocentričnega pristopa razširi

far beyond those who consider themselves anti-immigrant,

ne samo med tistimi, ki se imajo za protipriseljensko nastrojene,

and remarkably, even among some who consider themselves pro-immigrant.

temveč presentljivo tudi med nekaterimi, ki ne zavračajo priseljencev.

So, for example, when Immigrants Act allies

Ko denimo zagovorniki pravic priseljencev

answer these questions the nativists are posing,

odgovarjajo na vprašanja, ki jih postavljajo etnocentriki,

they take them seriously.

se jih resno lotijo.

They legitimate those questions and, to some extent,

To pomeni, da ta vprašanja sprejmejo in s tem do določene mere

the anti-immigrant assumptions that are behind them.

tudi protipriseljensko naravnanost, ki se skriva za njimi.

When we take these questions seriously without even knowing it,

Ko resno obravnavamo ta vprašanja,

we're reinforcing the closed, exclusionary borders

nevede podpiramo ozke in izključujoče okvirje

of the immigration conversation.

debate o priseljencih.

So how did we get here?

Kako smo prišli do tega?

How did these become the leading ways that we talk about immigration?

Kako je to postal glavni način pogovora o priseljenstvu?

Here, we need some backstory,

Za to je treba poznati ozadje,

which is where my history training comes in.

pri tem nam bo pomagalo moje znanje iz zgodovine.

During the first century of the US's status as an independent nation,

V prvem stoletju ameriške neodvisnosti,

it did very little to restrict immigration at the national level.

je država naredila zelo malo pri omejevanju priseljevanja.

In fact, many policymakers and employers worked hard

Pravzaprav so se številni politiki in delodajalci

to recruit immigrants

močno trudili, da bi zaposlili priseljence,

to build up industry

ki bi zgradili industrijo

and to serve as settlers, to seize the continent.

in delali kot naseljenci ter prevzeli kontinent.

But after the Civil War,

Po koncu ameriške državljanske vojne

nativist voices rose in volume and in power.

pa so bili vedno glasnejši in močnejši glasovi etnocentrikov.

The Asian, Latin American, Caribbean and European immigrants

Priseljenci iz Azije, Latinske Amerike, s Karibov in iz Evrope,

who dug Americans' canals,

ki so kopali ameriške kanale,

cooked their dinners,

kuhali Američanom večerje,

fought their wars

bojevali njihove bitke

and put their children to bed at night

in zvečer spravljali njihove otroke spat,

were met with a new and intense xenophobia,

so bili soočeni z novo in intenzivno ksenofobijo.

which cast immigrants as permanent outsiders

Ta je zaznamovala priseljence kot stalne outsiderje,

who should never be allowed to become insiders.

katerim ni dovoljeno postati insiderji.

By the mid-1920s, the nativists had won,

Do srede 20-ih let 20. stoletja so etnocentriki dosegli zmago

erecting racist laws

s sprejemanjem rasističnih zakonov,

that closed out untold numbers of vulnerable immigrants and refugees.

ki so izobčili ogromno število ranljivih priseljencev in beguncev.

Immigrants and their allies did their best to fight back,

Priseljenci in njihovi zavezniki so se branili na vso moč,

but they found themselves on the defensive,

vendar so naleteli na odpor

caught in some ways in the nativists' frames.

in se na nek način ujeli v etnocentrično mrežo.

When nativists said that immigrants weren't useful,

Ko so ksenofobi trdili, da so priseljenci neuporabni,

their allies said yes, they are.

so zagovorniki priseljencev trdili nasprotno.

When nativists accused immigrants of being others,

Ko so ksenofobi obtožili priseljence, da so drugačni,

their allies promised that they would assimilate.

so zagovorniki obljubili, da se bodo asimilirali.

When nativists charged that immigrants were dangerous parasites,

Ko so ksenofobi označili priseljence za nevarne parazite,

their allies emphasized their loyalty, their obedience,

so zagovorniki poudarili lojalnost in poslušnost priseljencev,

their hard work and their thrift.

njihovo trdo delo in njihovo gospodarnost.

Even as advocates welcomed immigrants,

Tudi ko so zagovorniki odprli vrata priseljencem,

many still regarded immigrants as outsiders to be pitied, to be rescued,

so jih številni imeli za outsiderje, ki jih je treba pomilovati in rešiti,

to be uplifted

jih postaviti na noge

and to be tolerated,

in tolerirati,

but never fully brought inside as equals in rights and respect.

nikoli pa niso bili enakovredno vključeni v pravice in bili spoštovani.

After World War II, and especially from the mid-1960s until really recently,

Po drugi svetovni vojni, predvsem od sredine 60-ih do danes,

immigrants and their allies turned the tide,

so priseljenci in zagovorniki spremenili tok dogajanja,

overthrowing mid-20th century restriction

s prekinitvijo omejitve iz sredine 20. stoletja

and winning instead a new system that prioritized family reunification,

in vzpostavitvijo novega sistema, ki postavlja na prvo mesto

the admission of refugees

združitev družin, sprejem beguncev

and the admission of those with special skills.

in sprejem priseljencev s posebnimi kompetencami.

But even then,

A kljub temu

they didn't succeed in fundamentally changing the terms of the debate,

jim ni uspelo bistveno spremeniti toka debate,

and so that framework endured,

zato je ostala vpeta v istem okviru,

ready to be taken up again in our own convulsive moment.

pripravljena na ponovno obravnavo, ko pridemo do kritičnega trenutka.

That conversation is broken.

Ta debata je spodletela.

The old questions are harmful and divisive.

Stara vprašanja so škodljiva in razdiralna.

So how do we get from that conversation

Kako bomo torej naredili korak naprej od te debate

to one that's more likely to get us closer to a world that is fairer,

do takšne, ki nas bo morebiti popeljala v svet, ki je bolj pravičen,

that is more just,

bolj pošten,

that's more secure?

bolj varen?

I want to suggest that what we have to do

Menim, da moramo narediti

is one of the hardest things that any society can do:

eno najtežjih stvari, ki jih lahko naredi družba:

to redraw the boundaries of who counts,

premakniti moramo meje tega, kdo velja,

of whose life, whose rights

čigavo življenje, čigave pravice

and whose thriving matters.

in čigavi uspehi štejejo.

We need to redraw the boundaries.

Premakniti moramo meje.

We need to redraw the borders of us.

Premakniti moramo meje nas.

In order to do that, we need to first take on a worldview that's widely held

Da bi to dosegli, moramo najprej vzeti pod drobnogled pogled na svet,

but also seriously flawed.

ki je široko razširjen, a izredno pomanjkljiv.

According to that worldview,

V skladu s tem pogledom na svet

there's the inside of the national boundaries, inside the nation,

obstaja notranjost znotraj državnih meja, znotraj naroda,

which is where we live, work and mind our own business.

kjer živimo, delamo in se brigamo zase.

And then there's the outside; there's everywhere else.

In obstaja zunanjost -- to je vsepovsod drugod.

According to this worldview, when immigrants cross into the nation,

V okviru takšnega pogleda na svet se priseljenci, ko pridejo v državo,

they're moving from the outside to the inside,

premaknejo iz zunanjosti v notranjost,

but they remain outsiders.

vendar ostanejo outsiderji.

Any power or resources they receive

Vsaka pravica ali sredstva, ki jih priseljenci prejmejo,

are gifts from us rather than rights.

se štejejo kot darovi od nas, in ne kot pravice.

Now, it's not hard to see why this is such a commonly held worldview.

Zlahka ugotovimo, zakaj je takšen pogled na svet tako razširjen.

It's reinforced in everyday ways that we talk and act and behave,

Krepi se v našem vsakodnevnem načinu govora, delovanja in obnašanja,

down to the bordered maps that we hang up in our schoolrooms.

da ne omenjam zemljevidov z označenimi mejami v šolskih učilnicah.

The problem with this worldview is that it just doesn't correspond

Težava takšnega pogleda na svet je v tem, da ne ustreza načinu,

to the way the world actually works,

na katerega svet dejansko deluje

and the way it has worked in the past.

in na katerega je deloval v preteklosti.

Of course, American workers have built up wealth in society.

Neoporečno je, da so ameriški delavci zgradili bogastvo v družbi,

But so have immigrants,

a so ga tudi priseljenci,

particularly in parts of the American economy that are indispensable

predvsem v nepogrešljivih sektorjih ameriškega gospodarstva, v katerih

and where few Americans work, like agriculture.

je zaposlenih le malo Američanov, kot je kmetijstvo.

Since the nation's founding,

Od ustanovitve ZDA

Americans have been inside the American workforce.

so bili Američani del ameriške delovne sile.

Of course, Americans have built up institutions in society

Ustanovili so seveda družbene institucije,

that guarantee rights.

ki zagotavljajo pravice.

But so have immigrants.

A tudi priseljenci so del tega.

They've been there during every major social movement,

Bili so prisotni pri vsakem večjem družbenem gibanju,

like civil rights and organized labor,

denimo za državljanske pravice in združevanje delavcev,

that have fought to expand rights in society for everyone.

katerih cilj je bil razširiti pravice v družbi za vsakogar.

So immigrants are already inside the struggle

Tako so priseljenci že vključeni v boj

for rights, democracy and freedom.

za pravice, demokracijo in svobodo.

And finally, Americans and other citizens of the Global North

In nenazadnje se Američani in drugi prebivalci razvitih držav

haven't minded their own business,

niso brigali zase

and they haven't stayed within their own borders.

in niso ostali znotraj svojih meja.

They haven't respected other nations' borders.

Niso spoštovali meja drugih držav,

They've gone out into the world with their armies,

temveč so vkorakali v njih s svojo vojsko,

they've taken over territories and resources,

zasedli teritorije in vire

and they've extracted enormous profits from many of the countries

ter izvlekli ogromne dobičke iz številnih držav,

that immigrants are from.

iz katerih prihajajo priseljenci.

In this sense, many immigrants are actually already inside American power.

Potemtakem so priseljenci dejansko že del ameriške moči.

With this different map of inside and outside in mind,

Pri tej delitvi na notranjost in zunanjost v naših glavah

the question isn't whether receiving countries

ne gre za to, ali bodo države, ki sprejemajo priseljence,

are going to let immigrants in.

odprle vrata v notranjost.

They're already in.

Priseljenci so že del notranjosti.

The question is whether the United States and other countries

Gre za to, ali bodo ZDA in druge države

are going to give immigrants access to the rights and resources

priseljencem omogočile dostop do pravic in sredstev,

that their work, their activism and their home countries

pri ustvarjanju katerih so delo in aktivizem priseljencev

have already played a fundamental role in creating.

ter njihove domovine igrali ključno vlogo.

With this new map in mind,

S takšnim novim pogledom na svet

we can turn to a set of tough, new, urgently needed questions,

se lahko lotimo skupka novih, težkih in nujno potrebnih vprašanj,

radically different from the ones we've asked before --

ki so popolnoma drugačna od prejšnjih.

questions that might change the borders of the immigration debate.

Ta vprašanja bodo morda premaknila meje debate o priseljencih.

Our three questions are about workers' rights,

Nova tri vprašanja se nanašajo na delavske pravice,

about responsibility

na odgovornost

and about equality.

in na enakopravnost.

First, we need to be asking about workers' rights.

Glede delavskih pravic se lahko vprašamo sledeče:

How do existing policies make it harder for immigrants to defend themselves

Kako obstoječa politika priseljencem otežuje obrambo

and easier for them to be exploited,

in dopušča izkorščanje,

driving down wages, rights and protections for everyone?

jim niža plače, odvzema pravice in zaščito?

When immigrants are threatened with roundups, detention and deportations,

Ko delodajalci priseljencem grozijo z zbori, pripori in deportacijami,

their employers know that they can be abused,

vedo, da jih lahko izkoriščajo,

that they can be told that if they fight back,

da jim lahko grozijo z izročitvijo migracijskemu uradu

they'll be turned over to ICE.

če se bodo pritoževali.

When employers know

Ko se delodajalci zavedajo,

that they can terrorize an immigrant with his lack of papers,

da lahko terorizirajo priseljence, ker so brez osebnih dokumentov,

it makes that worker hyper-exploitable,

postanejo le-ti glavna tarča izkoriščanja,

and that has impacts not only for immigrant workers

kar vpliva ne samo na priseljenske delavce,

but for all workers.

temveč tudi na ostale zaposlene.

Second, we need to ask questions about responsibility.

Drugo vprašanje se nanaša na odgovornost.

What role have rich, powerful countries like the United States

Kako so bogate in vplivne države, kot je ZDA,

played in making it hard or impossible

priseljencem oteževale in onemogočale,

for immigrants to stay in their home countries?

da ostanejo v svojih domovinah?

Picking up and moving from your country is difficult and dangerous,

Pobrati svoje stvari in zapustiti domovino je težko in nevarno,

but many immigrants simply do not have the option of staying home

vendar številni priseljenci enostavno ne morejo ostati doma,

if they want to survive.

če želijo preživeti.

Wars, trade agreements

Vojne, trgovinski sporazumi

and consumer habits rooted in the Global North

in potrošniške navade, zakoreninjene v razvitih državah,

play a major and devastating role here.

igrajo kjučno in uničevalno vlogo pri tem.

What responsibilities do the United States,

Kakšno odgovornost imajo Združene države,

the European Union and China --

Evropska unija in Kitajska --

the world's leading carbon emitters --

največji onesnaževalci z ogljikom - do milijonov ljudi,

have to the millions of people already uprooted by global warming?

ki so zaradi globalnega segrevanja že zapustili svoje domove?

And third, we need to ask questions about equality.

In nenazadnje si moramo zastaviti vprašanja glede enakopravnosti.

Global inequality is a wrenching, intensifying problem.

Globalna neenakost je mučen in rastoč problem.

Income and wealth gaps are widening around the world.

Razlike v prihodkih in bogastvu so vedno večje med ljudmi po celem svetu.

Increasingly, what determines whether you're rich or poor,

Odločilni faktor pri določanju, ali je nekdo bogat ali reven,

more than anything else,

je bolj kot karkoli to,

is what country you're born in,

v kateri državi je nekdo rojen.

which might seem great if you're from a prosperous country.

To se zdi odlično, če smo rojeni v bogati državi.

But it actually means a profoundly unjust distribution

V resnici pa pomeni izredno nepravično razdelitev

of the chances for a long, healthy, fulfilling life.

možnosti za dolgo, zdravo in izpolnjeno življenje.

When immigrants send money or goods home to their family,

Ko priseljenci pošljejo denar ali dobrine domov družinam,

it plays a significant role in narrowing these gaps,

igrajo pomembno vlogo pri manjšanju teh razlik,

if a very incomplete one.

četudi to ni dovolj.

It does more than all of the foreign aid programs

A naredijo več kot vsi

in the world combined.

tuji svetovni programi pomoči skupaj.

We began with the nativist questions,

Začeli smo z etnocentričnimi vprašanji,

about immigrants as tools,

ki so zaznamovali priseljence kot predmete,

as others

kot drugačne

and as parasites.

in kot parazite.

Where might these new questions about worker rights,

Kam nas lahko odpeljejo nova vprašanja, ki se nanašajo

about responsibility

ki se nanašajo

and about equality

na odgovornost

take us?

in na enakopravnost?

These questions reject pity, and they embrace justice.

Ta vprašanja zavračajo usmiljenje in vodijo v pravičnost.

These questions reject the nativist and nationalist division

Ta vprašanja zavračajo etnocentrično in nacionalistično delitev

of us versus them.

na nas in njih.

They're going to help prepare us for problems that are coming

Pomagala nas bodo pripraviti na prihajajoče težave

and problems like global warming that are already upon us.

in težave, ki nas že pestijo, kot je globalno segrevanje.

It's not going to be easy to turn away from the questions that we've been asking

Ne bo lahko ignorirati vprašanj, ki so bila prisotna do zdaj,

towards this new set of questions.

in se usmeriti k novim.

It's no small challenge

Gre za veliko spremembo

to take on and broaden the borders of us.

in širitev mej v nas samih.

It will take wit, inventiveness and courage.

Potrebni bodo razum, iznajdljivost in pogum.

The old questions have been with us for a long time,

Stara vprašanja so nas dolgo spremljala,

and they're not going to give way on their own,

zato ne bodo kar tako izginila

and they're not going to give way overnight.

in ne bodo izginila čez noč.

And even if we manage to change the questions,

Tudi če nam uspe spremeniti vprašanja,

the answers are going to be complicated,

bodo odgovori na njih zapleteni,

and they're going to require sacrifices and tradeoffs.

zahtevali bodo požrtvovalnost in kompromise.

And in an unequal world, we're always going to have to pay attention

V svetu neenakosti bomo morali vedno biti pozorni na to,

to the question of who has the power to join the conversation

kdo se lahko pridruži debati

and who doesn't.

in kdo ne.

But the borders of the immigration debate

A meje debate o priseljencih

can be moved.

se lahko premaknejo.

It's up to all of us to move them.

Na nas je, da jih premaknemo.

Thank you.

Hvala.

(Applause)

(Aplavz)