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

翻译人员: Jinhao Ma 校对人员: Junrui Zheng

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

最近，我们总是会听到有人说 移民制度已经崩溃了。

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

但我今天要说，崩溃的 是我们关于移民问题的讨论，

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

并且我要介绍一些方法，通过 共同努力来构建更好的移民对话。

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

为此，我要提出

about immigration,

关于移民，

the United States

美国，

and the world,

和世界的一些新问题，

questions that might move the borders of the immigration debate.

这些问题可能会改变 移民争议的格局。

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

我不会在一开始就讨论 现在争论最激烈的话题——

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

即使现今移民的生命 和健康都在面临威胁，

at the US border and far beyond it.

而且不只是在美国的国界上， 在更大范围内也是如此。

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

我要先说说我在 90 年代中期的新泽西

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

读研究生时认真学习 美国历史的事情，这也正是

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

正是我目前以教授的身份 在田纳西州纳什维尔的范德堡大学

in Nashville, Tennessee.

所教授的课程。

And when I wasn't studying,

当我不学习的时候，

sometimes to avoid writing my dissertation,

有时候为了逃避写论文，

my friends and I would go into town

我和朋友会去镇子里，

to hand out neon-colored flyers, protesting legislation

发一些荧光色的传单， 以此抗议

that was threatening to take away immigrants' rights.

可能会威胁移民权利的法规。

Our flyers were sincere, they were well-meaning,

我们的传单很真诚， 也是善意的，

they were factually accurate ...

而且信息准确真实......

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

但我现在意识到，某种意义上说 它们本身也是种麻烦。

Here's what they said:

传单上写着：

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

“不要夺走移民接受教育、

to medical services, to the social safety net.

享受医疗 和社会保障网络的权利。

They work hard.

他们工作刻苦。

They pay taxes.

他们按规定缴税，

They're law-abiding.

他们遵纪守法。

They use social services less than Americans do.

他们占用的社会服务资源 比美国人占用的还少。

They're eager to learn English,

他们渴望学习英语，

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

他们的孩子也为 全球的美国军队效力。”

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

这些也是我们现在 经常能听到的观点。

Immigrants and their advocates use them

移民及其支持者们用这些观点

as they confront those who would deny immigrants their rights

来反驳那些否认移民权利，

or even exclude them from society.

甚至把他们排挤出社会的人。

And up to a certain point, it makes perfect sense

在一定程度上， 我们完全可以理解

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

为什么移民的支持者们 会使用此类观点。

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

但是从长远来看， 甚至从短期的角度考虑，

I think these arguments can be counterproductive.

我认为这些论点 都可能适得其反。

Why?

为什么？

Because it's always an uphill battle

因为这终归是场艰苦的战斗，

to defend yourself on your opponent's terrain.

因为你得在敌人的地盘上 守护你自己。

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

而且，在不知不觉中， 我和朋友发出去的传单，

and the versions of these arguments that we hear today

还有我们至今还能听见的 这些观点的不同版本，

were actually playing the anti-immigrants game.

正在玩一场反移民的游戏。

We were playing that game in part by envisioning

所以称作反移民的游戏，

that immigrants were outsiders,

是因为我们总想象移民是外来者，

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

而非在各个重要方面 都已经融入社会内部的成员，

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

这也是我希望在 接下来几分钟内详细介绍的。

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

那些对移民 持有敌对态度的本土主义者

who have succeeded in framing the immigration debate

已经成功地构建了移民议题的框架，

around three main questions.

主要围绕这三个问题：

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

第一，移民到底能不能成为实用工具。

How can we use immigrants?

我们如何利用移民？

Will they make us richer and stronger?

他们会不会使我们更加富强？

The nativist answer to this question is no,

本土主义者 对这个问题的答案是，不行，

immigrants have little or nothing to offer.

移民能对社会做出的贡献 微乎其微，甚至毫无用处。

The second question is whether immigrants are others.

第二个问题是， 移民到底是不是异己者。

Can immigrants become more like us?

移民能不能变得更像“我们”？

Are they capable of becoming more like us?

他们具不具备变成“我们”的能力？

Are they capable of assimilating?

他们能否被同化？

Are they willing to assimilate?

他们愿不愿意被同化？

Here, again, the nativist answer is no,

本土主义者的答案同样是否定的，

immigrants are permanently different from us and inferior to us.

移民永远与我们不同， 而且低我们一等。

And the third question is whether immigrants are parasites.

第三个问题是， 移民到底和我们是不是寄生关系。

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

他们对我们有没有威胁？ 他们会不会用光我们的资源？

Here, the nativist answer is yes and yes,

本地人的答案是不容质疑的肯定：

immigrants pose a threat and they sap our wealth.

他们认为，移民会对我们造成威胁， 且吸取着我们的财富。

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

我要说的是，这三个问题， 以及它们挟带的本土主义的仇恨，

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

已经成功地塑造了移民讨论的大框架。

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

这些问题的核心都是反移民、本土主义的，

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

而且构建了一种等级制度， 创造了本地人和外来者的对立、

us and them,

“我们”和“他们”的对立，

in which only we matter,

而且其中只有“我们”才重要，

and they don't.

“他们”不重要。

And what gives these questions traction and power

而且，在本土主义者的圈子外

beyond the circle of committed nativists

仍给予这些问题力量的，

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

是它们以一种极其平常、 看似无害的方式利用着

of national belonging

人们的民族归属感，

and activate it, heighten it

激起它，强化它，

and inflame it.

煽动它。

Nativists commit themselves to making stark distinctions

本土主义者们总是竭力将 本地人和外来者

between insiders and outsiders.

明确地划分开。

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

但是这种划分本质上取决于 一个国家如何自我定义。

The fissures between inside and outside,

所谓“内部”和“外部”之间的裂隙

which often run deepest along lines of race and religion,

常常延伸到诸如种族、 宗教的深层因素中，

are always there to be deepened and exploited.

而且总是被别有用心者 深化并利用着。

And that potentially gives nativist approaches resonance

这还给了本土主义方针 潜在的支持者，

far beyond those who consider themselves anti-immigrant,

其中远不只有自认为 是反对移民的人，

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

甚至还在很大程度上 涵盖了支持移民的人。

So, for example, when Immigrants Act allies

举个例子，在移民法案的支持者

answer these questions the nativists are posing,

回答本土主义者提出的问题时，

they take them seriously.

他们确实把这些问题当回事了。

They legitimate those questions and, to some extent,

他们会将这些问题合理化， 同时在某种程度上，

the anti-immigrant assumptions that are behind them.

将这些问题背后的反移民思想 也合理化了。

When we take these questions seriously without even knowing it,

当我们无意识地开始重视这些问题时，

we're reinforcing the closed, exclusionary borders

我们就把移民问题封闭、 排外的交流界限

of the immigration conversation.

进一步强化了。

So how did we get here?

我们是怎么走到这一步的？

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

这些又是怎么变成 我们讨论移民问题的主要方式的？

Here, we need some backstory,

这里，我们需要一些背景故事。

which is where my history training comes in.

这也是我的历史学科背景 发挥作用的时候。

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

美国在成为独立国家的第一个世纪中，

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

它几乎没有在国家层面限制移民。

In fact, many policymakers and employers worked hard

事实上，很多政策制定者 和老板都努力地

to recruit immigrants

吸收移民、

to build up industry

建立产业，

and to serve as settlers, to seize the continent.

以移民者身份做贡献， 充分利用美洲大陆的发展机会。

But after the Civil War,

但是在内战之后，

nativist voices rose in volume and in power.

本土主义的声浪渐渐增强， 变得更有分量。

The Asian, Latin American, Caribbean and European immigrants

来自亚洲、拉丁美洲、 加勒比地区和欧洲的移民，

who dug Americans' canals,

即便帮助了美国开凿运河，

cooked their dinners,

帮他们做了晚饭，

fought their wars

替他们打了仗，

and put their children to bed at night

悉心照顾了他们孩子，

were met with a new and intense xenophobia,

仍遭遇了新一轮 强烈的仇外心理。

which cast immigrants as permanent outsiders

这让移民变成了永远的“局外人”，

who should never be allowed to become insiders.

并且永远不能 成为这个国家的“局内人”。

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

1920 年代中期，本土主义者大获全胜，

erecting racist laws

建立了种族主义的法律，

that closed out untold numbers of vulnerable immigrants and refugees.

将不计其数的 弱势的移民和难民拒之门外。

Immigrants and their allies did their best to fight back,

移民和他们的支持者 尽了全力回击，

but they found themselves on the defensive,

但最后还是发现自己处于被动一方，

caught in some ways in the nativists' frames.

被困在本土主义者 所建立的话语框架中。

When nativists said that immigrants weren't useful,

当本土主义者说 移民者毫无用处时，

their allies said yes, they are.

他们的支持者说， 不，他们有用。

When nativists accused immigrants of being others,

当本土主义者指责移民 成为异己分子时，

their allies promised that they would assimilate.

他们的支持者保证 他们会被社会同化。

When nativists charged that immigrants were dangerous parasites,

当本土主义者指控移民是 危险的寄生虫时，

their allies emphasized their loyalty, their obedience,

他们的支持者又强调 他们的忠诚、恭顺、

their hard work and their thrift.

勤奋和节俭。

Even as advocates welcomed immigrants,

就算有倡导者欢迎移民，

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

很多人仍然把移民当作异己分子， 只能被可怜，被拯救，

to be uplifted

被激励，

and to be tolerated,

被忍受，

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

但是从未被平等地、 有尊严地完全接纳。

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

在第二次世界大战之后， 尤其是从 1960 年代中期至今，

immigrants and their allies turned the tide,

移民及其的支持者们 逆转了这股洪流，

overthrowing mid-20th century restriction

推翻了二十世纪中期的限制，

and winning instead a new system that prioritized family reunification,

并且赢得了优先考虑家庭团聚、

the admission of refugees

接纳难民、

and the admission of those with special skills.

接纳有特殊技能的人的新体制。

But even then,

但是就算如此，

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

他们还是没有从根本上 改变辩论的主题，

and so that framework endured,

导致讨论框架仍在延续，

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

而且随时会伴着 我们的惊骇被再次提起。

That conversation is broken.

关于移民问题的讨论已经破裂。

The old questions are harmful and divisive.

那些老旧的问题是有害的、分裂的。

So how do we get from that conversation

那么我们如何才能 从破裂的交流中走出来，

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

进入新的交流，好让我们 更有可能朝着一个更加公平、

that is more just,

更加正义、

that's more secure?

和更加安全的世界迈进一步？

I want to suggest that what we have to do

我想要说的是，我们现在要做的，

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

是任何社会都最难做到的事情之一：

to redraw the boundaries of who counts,

重新规划界限—— 重新决定谁重要，

of whose life, whose rights

重新决定谁的生命、权利

and whose thriving matters.

和繁荣发展重要。

We need to redraw the boundaries.

我们需要重新规划这些界限。

We need to redraw the borders of us.

我们需要重新定义“我们”的范围。

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

为此，我们首先需要 接纳一种被广泛采纳，

but also seriously flawed.

却有着严重缺陷的世界观。

According to that worldview,

根据这种世界观，

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

国家有国境线内部、国家内部，

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

即我们生活，工作 和过自己日子的地方。

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

然后国家有“外部”：所有其它地方。

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

根据这种世界观， 当移民跨境进入一个国家时，

they're moving from the outside to the inside,

他们从国家“外面”来到“内部”，

but they remain outsiders.

但他们也只是“外来者”。

Any power or resources they receive

他们获得的任何权力或资源

are gifts from us rather than rights.

都是我们给的礼物，而非权利。

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

我们不难理解为什么 这种世界观如此普遍。

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

它被我们日常 说话、做事和行动的方式所强化，

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

其中甚至还包括我们挂在教室里的、 划分了国境的地图。

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

这个世界观的问题是， 它与世界实际的运作方式，

to the way the world actually works,

还有其以前的运作方式

and the way it has worked in the past.

已经脱节了。

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

诚然，美国本土劳动者 在社会中积累了财富。

But so have immigrants,

但是移民也一样，

particularly in parts of the American economy that are indispensable

特别是在美国经济 一些不可或缺，

and where few Americans work, like agriculture.

而且少有美国人工作的领域， 例如农业。

Since the nation's founding,

自美国建国以来，

Americans have been inside the American workforce.

美国国民一直在 美国劳动人口的“内部”。

Of course, Americans have built up institutions in society

诚然，美国人已经建立了 可以保障权利的

that guarantee rights.

社会机构。

But so have immigrants.

但移民也是如此。

They've been there during every major social movement,

所有重大社会运动中 都有他们的身影，

like civil rights and organized labor,

例如争取公民权和工会的过程，

that have fought to expand rights in society for everyone.

为扩展每个人的社会权利而斗争。

So immigrants are already inside the struggle

所以，移民早已在斗争过程的“内部”，

for rights, democracy and freedom.

与其他人一起争取权利、民主和自由。

And finally, Americans and other citizens of the Global North

最后，美国国民和 北半球其他发达国家的公民

haven't minded their own business,

并未只关注自己的生活，

and they haven't stayed within their own borders.

而且没有只留在自己国家境内。

They haven't respected other nations' borders.

他们并未尊重 其他国家的边境线，

而是他们已经带着自己的军队 向这个世界进发；

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

they've taken over territories and resources,

他们已经接管了领土和资源，

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

他们从那些移民的原属国

获得了巨大的利润。

that immigrants are from.

从这种意义上说，许多移民 实际上已经在美国管辖“内部”了。

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

With this different map of inside and outside in mind,

只要我们心里有这种 展现不一样的“内部”和“外部”的地图，

问题就不在于国家

the question isn't whether receiving countries

会不会允许移民进入。

are going to let immigrants in.

They're already in.

他们已经进去了。

问题是，美国和其他国家

The question is whether the United States and other countries

are going to give immigrants access to the rights and resources

是否会允许移民们 获得本国的权利和资源，

that their work, their activism and their home countries

尽管移民们的工作、 对权利的积极争取，还有他们的祖国

在本国构建权利和资源的过程中 已经扮演了重要角色。

have already played a fundamental role in creating.

With this new map in mind,

心里有了这张新地图，

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

我们可以开始处理一系列艰难的、 迫切需要解决的新问题，

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

它们完全不同于 我们之前曾问过的那些——

questions that might change the borders of the immigration debate.

这些问题可能会改变 移民讨论话题的边界。

Our three questions are about workers' rights,

我们的三个问题 关乎劳工的权利，

about responsibility

关乎责任，

and about equality.

关乎平等。

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

首先，我们需要问有关 劳工权利的问题。

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

现有政策如何 增加了移民保卫自己的难度，

and easier for them to be exploited,

使他们更容易被剥削，

driving down wages, rights and protections for everyone?

还威胁了所有人的薪酬、 权利与应受的保护？

When immigrants are threatened with roundups, detention and deportations,

当移民面对着围捕、 监禁和驱逐出境的威胁，

their employers know that they can be abused,

他们的雇主知道他们可以被压迫，

that they can be told that if they fight back,

还可以告诉他们， 如果他们反击，

they'll be turned over to ICE.

就会被交给移民局。

When employers know

当雇主知道，

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

自己能以身份证明材料不足为由 恫吓移民劳工，

移民劳工便极易被剥削了。

it makes that worker hyper-exploitable,

and that has impacts not only for immigrant workers

而且，这不仅会影响到移民，

but for all workers.

更会影响所有劳工。

Second, we need to ask questions about responsibility.

其次，我们要问责任的问题。

像美国这样发达的国家， 在令移民难以乃至无法

What role have rich, powerful countries like the United States

played in making it hard or impossible

留在原属国的过程中，

for immigrants to stay in their home countries?

扮演了怎样的角色？

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

从自己的国家搬出来 是困难而危险的，

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

但是很多移民为了生存， 根本没有

if they want to survive.

留在家里的选项。

Wars, trade agreements

植根于发达国家的

and consumer habits rooted in the Global North

战争、贸易协定和消费习惯

play a major and devastating role here.

具有毁灭性作用，承担了主要责任。

What responsibilities do the United States,

像美国、欧盟和中国这样

the European Union and China --

世界主要的碳排放国家，

the world's leading carbon emitters --

在全球变暖迫使数以百万计的人

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

背井离乡的过程中 又应承担怎样的责任？

And third, we need to ask questions about equality.

第三，我们需要问有关平等的问题。

Global inequality is a wrenching, intensifying problem.

全球不平等的现象导致民不聊生， 而且这种情况还在加剧。

Income and wealth gaps are widening around the world.

收入和财富差距 在世界范围内都有所扩大。

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

在当今世界，决定你是 富人还是穷人的

more than anything else,

首要因素，

is what country you're born in,

是你出生于哪个国家。

如果你生在富裕国家， 感觉似乎不错，

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

But it actually means a profoundly unjust distribution

但这实际上意味着极度的不公平：

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

实现长寿，健康，充实的人生的 机会分布极不平衡。

When immigrants send money or goods home to their family,

移民向其家庭汇款、 邮寄生活用品的过程

在缩小这些差距上 起着重要的作用，

it plays a significant role in narrowing these gaps,

if a very incomplete one.

甚至是唯一的作用因素。

It does more than all of the foreign aid programs

它的作用甚至比世界上 所有移民帮扶项目

in the world combined.

加起来产生的作用还要大。

We began with the nativist questions,

我们最开始从本土主义的问题出发，

about immigrants as tools,

探讨了移民的工具性、

as others

异己性

and as parasites.

与寄生性。

Where might these new questions about worker rights,

而这些探讨了劳工的权利、

about responsibility

责任

and about equality

和平等的新问题

take us?

又把我们领向何处呢？

These questions reject pity, and they embrace justice.

这些问题拒绝怜悯，拥抱公平正义。

These questions reject the nativist and nationalist division

这些问题拒绝本土主义、民粹主义

of us versus them.

对“我们”和“他们”的割裂。

这些问题将帮我们 为即将出现的问题做好准备，

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

and problems like global warming that are already upon us.

也帮我们为全球变暖这种 已经存在的问题做好了准备。

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

摒弃我们长久以来所问的问题 并接受这些新问题

towards this new set of questions.

不会轻松。

It's no small challenge

挑战并扩大

to take on and broaden the borders of us.

“我们”的范围是个不小的挑战。

It will take wit, inventiveness and courage.

这个过程需要智慧、创造力和勇气。

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

我们在旧的问题上纠缠已久，

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

它们不会自行解决，

and they're not going to give way overnight.

也不会在一夜之间消失。

And even if we manage to change the questions,

即使我们设法改变了这些问题，

答案将会非常复杂，

the answers are going to be complicated,

且需要牺牲与权衡。

and they're going to require sacrifices and tradeoffs.

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

在不平等的世界里， 我们必须时刻注意

谁拥有参与移民讨论的能力，

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

and who doesn't.

而谁没有。

But the borders of the immigration debate

但是移民辩论的边界

can be moved.

可以被修正，

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

而修正它们的责任 就落在我们每个人身上。

Thank you.

谢谢。

(Applause)

（掌声）