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

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Sunny Zhou

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

我們現在常聽說， 現在的移民體制已經出問題了。

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

而今天我想要說明的是， 我們的移民對話出現了問題，

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

然後我想透過一些方法 來建立更好的移民對話。

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

為此，我會提出一些新問題，

about immigration,

關於移民、關於美國，以及世界，

the United States

and the world,

questions that might move the borders of the immigration debate.

這些問題可能會移動 移民辯論的界線。

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

我並不打算從我們 目前的熱門話題談起，

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

雖然移民的生命和安康

在美國國界及國界之外 仍然受到威脅。

at the US border and far beyond it.

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

但我反而要先談談研究生時期的我，

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

我在 1990 年代中期的 紐澤西州認真地研讀美國歷史，

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

現在是一名教授，任職於田納西州 納什維爾的范德堡大學。

in Nashville, Tennessee.

And when I wasn't studying,

當我不學習的時候，

sometimes to avoid writing my dissertation,

有時是不想寫我的論文，

my friends and I would go into town

我會和朋友到鎮上去，

to hand out neon-colored flyers, protesting legislation

去發顏色鮮艷的傳單，去抗議那些

威脅說要剝奪移民權利的法律。

that was threatening to take away immigrants' rights.

Our flyers were sincere, they were well-meaning,

我們的傳單很真誠，立意良好，

they were factually accurate ...

傳單上的事實也都很準確……

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

但我現在意識到， 這些傳單也算是一種問題。

Here's what they said:

傳單上寫著：

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

「不要剝奪移民 接受義務教育的權利，

to medical services, to the social safety net.

以及獲得醫療服務 和社會安全網的權利。

They work hard.

他們工作很努力。

They pay taxes.

他們有繳稅。

They're law-abiding.

他們守法。

They use social services less than Americans do.

他們使用的社會服務比美國人少。

They're eager to learn English,

他們很渴望學英語，

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

他們的孩子在世界各地的 美國軍隊服役。」

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

當然，這些是我們天天聽到的說法。

Immigrants and their advocates use them

移民者和他們的擁護者 會利用這些說法

as they confront those who would deny immigrants their rights

來反駁那些否認移民權利，

or even exclude them from society.

甚至想將移民群體 從這個社會中排除的人。

And up to a certain point, it makes perfect sense

從某種程度上來說，這非常合理，

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

這些主張的確是 捍衛移民權利者會使用的。

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

但從長期來看，也許短期也是，

I think these arguments can be counterproductive.

我認為這些說法會產生反效果。

Why?

為什麼？

Because it's always an uphill battle

因為，這一定是一場硬仗，

to defend yourself on your opponent's terrain.

因為要在敵方的領地上為自己辯護。

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

在不經意間，我和朋友 那時候所發的傳單

and the versions of these arguments that we hear today

和現在我們所聽到的這些說法，

were actually playing the anti-immigrants game.

其實是在玩反移民的遊戲。

We were playing that game in part by envisioning

我們玩這個遊戲在某個層面上 是把移民當作外來者，

that immigrants were outsiders,

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

而不是如我稍後會建議的方式，

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

人們已經把移民視為重要的自己人。

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

那些敵視移民的人，即先天論者，

who have succeeded in framing the immigration debate

很成功地把移民辯論

around three main questions.

用三個主要問題框住了。

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

第一個問題，移民 能否成為有用的工具。

How can we use immigrants?

我們能怎樣利用移民？

Will they make us richer and stronger?

他們能讓我們變得 更富裕、更強大嗎？

The nativist answer to this question is no,

先天論者對此的答案是「不」，

immigrants have little or nothing to offer.

移民無法提供給我們什麼， 就算有也非常少。

The second question is whether immigrants are others.

第二個問題，移民是否 是「其他人」。

Can immigrants become more like us?

移民能不能變得更像我們？

Are they capable of becoming more like us?

他們有能力變得更像我們嗎？

Are they capable of assimilating?

他們能夠被同化嗎？

Are they willing to assimilate?

他們願意被同化嗎？

Here, again, the nativist answer is no,

先天論者對此的答案仍然是「不」。

immigrants are permanently different from us and inferior to us.

移民永遠跟我們不同， 而且低我們一等。

And the third question is whether immigrants are parasites.

第三個問題，移民是否是寄生蟲。

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

他們對我們來說危險嗎？ 他們會用光我們的資源嗎？

Here, the nativist answer is yes and yes,

對此，先天論者的 兩個答案皆為「是」。

immigrants pose a threat and they sap our wealth.

移民是種威脅， 他們會吸光我們的財富。

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

我認為，這三個問題 及其背後先天論者的敵意

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

已經成功勾勒出了一個 更大的移民辯論的輪廓。

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

這些問題的核心，是反移民的、 是先天論者的，

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

建立起等級分化，

將人分為自己人和外來人，

us and them,

分為我們和他們，

in which only we matter,

只有我們才重要，

and they don't.

而他們不重要。

And what gives these questions traction and power

這些問題仍然有影響力和力量，

beyond the circle of committed nativists

即使是在虔誠先天論者的圈子外，

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

因為它們能夠利用

日常中看起來無害的國家歸屬感，

of national belonging

and activate it, heighten it

然後觸發它、增強它，

and inflame it.

再點燃它。

Nativists commit themselves to making stark distinctions

先天論者致力於明確

between insiders and outsiders.

將自己人與外來人區分開來。

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

但這種區別本身是 各國定義自己的關鍵。

The fissures between inside and outside,

內部與外部的分歧，

which often run deepest along lines of race and religion,

通常在種族和宗教方面最嚴重，

are always there to be deepened and exploited.

且總是可以再被加深、被利用。

And that potentially gives nativist approaches resonance

這可能會引起先天論者的共鳴，

far beyond those who consider themselves anti-immigrant,

且影響範圍遠超過那些認為 自己是反移民的人，

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

很驚人的是，就連一些自認支持 移民的人也會產生共鳴。

So, for example, when Immigrants Act allies

所以，比如當移民法的盟友

answer these questions the nativists are posing,

回答先天論者提出的這些問題時，

they take them seriously.

他們會很認真地看待。

They legitimate those questions and, to some extent,

他們會將那些問題合法化， 並在某種程度上，

the anti-immigrant assumptions that are behind them.

將問題背後的反移民假設合法化。

When we take these questions seriously without even knowing it,

當我們在不知不覺間 認真看待這些問題時，

we're reinforcing the closed, exclusionary borders

就是在加固封閉、具有排他性的

of the immigration conversation.

移民對話的界線。

我們怎麼會走到這一步？

So how did we get here?

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

這些問題怎麼會變成 我們談論移民時的主導方式？

Here, we need some backstory,

這裡我們需要些背景訊息，

which is where my history training comes in.

我的歷史知識也就此派上用場了。

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

在美國成為獨立國家的 第一個 100 年裡，

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

美國幾乎沒有對移民採取 任何國家層面的限制。

In fact, many policymakers and employers worked hard

事實上，許多政策制訂者和僱主——

to recruit immigrants

都很努力去招募移民，

to build up industry

去建立產業，

and to serve as settlers, to seize the continent.

以移居者的身份占據這塊大陸。

But after the Civil War,

但在內戰之後，

nativist voices rose in volume and in power.

先天論者的聲音 不論是音量或強度都提升了。

The Asian, Latin American, Caribbean and European immigrants

亞洲人、拉丁裔美國人、 加勒比海地區和歐洲地區的移民

who dug Americans' canals,

為美國人挖隧道，

cooked their dinners,

為他們煮晚餐，

fought their wars

為他們打仗，

and put their children to bed at night

哄他們的孩子上床睡覺，

were met with a new and intense xenophobia,

在此時卻遇到了 新的、強烈仇外情緒，

which cast immigrants as permanent outsiders

這種情緒令移民被視為 是永遠的外來者，

who should never be allowed to become insiders.

永遠都不能允許他們成為自己人。

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

直到 1920 年代中期， 先天論者贏了，

erecting racist laws

建立起了種族主義的法律，

that closed out untold numbers of vulnerable immigrants and refugees.

排擠走了數不盡的

無力抵抗的移民和難民。

Immigrants and their allies did their best to fight back,

移民和他們的盟友盡力反擊，

but they found themselves on the defensive,

但他們卻發現自己只能防守，

caught in some ways in the nativists' frames.

被先天論者構造的框架控制著。

When nativists said that immigrants weren't useful,

當先天論者說移民沒有用處時，

their allies said yes, they are.

移民的盟友說，移民是有用處的。

When nativists accused immigrants of being others,

當先天論者指控移民是「其他人」，

their allies promised that they would assimilate.

移民的盟友保證移民會被同化。

When nativists charged that immigrants were dangerous parasites,

當先天論者控訴移民 是危險的寄生蟲時，

their allies emphasized their loyalty, their obedience,

移民的盟友強調移民的忠誠、

their hard work and their thrift.

順從、辛勤和節儉。

Even as advocates welcomed immigrants,

就連支持者在歡迎移民的時候，

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

許多人仍然將其視為外來者，

且需要被同情、拯救、

to be uplifted

鼓勵、

and to be tolerated,

包容，

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

但從來沒有完全將他們帶進來，

給予他們同等的權利和尊重。

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

在二戰後，特別是 從 1960 年代中期到最近，

immigrants and their allies turned the tide,

移民和他們的盟友扭轉了局勢，

overthrowing mid-20th century restriction

推翻了 20 世紀中期的限制，

and winning instead a new system that prioritized family reunification,

贏得了一個新體制， 這個體制優先讓家庭重聚、

the admission of refugees

接納難民，

and the admission of those with special skills.

以及接納有一技之長的人。

But even then,

但即使這樣，他們也沒有成功地

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

從根本上改變辯論的條件，

and so that framework endured,

所以，那個框架仍然存續，

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

準備在我們自己的失控時刻 再次被拿來使用。

That conversation is broken.

那個對話出現了問題。

The old questions are harmful and divisive.

舊的問題是有害的，會造成分裂。

So how do we get from that conversation

所以我們要如何從那樣的對話

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

轉變成另一種對話，讓我們的世界

更公平、更公正、

that is more just,

that's more secure?

更安全？

I want to suggest that what we have to do

我建議我們需要做的

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

是對任何社會都最困難的事情之一：

to redraw the boundaries of who counts,

重新畫出界線，包括誰來做決定、

of whose life, whose rights

誰的生命、誰的權利、

and whose thriving matters.

誰的成功是重要的。

We need to redraw the boundaries.

我們必須要重畫界線。

We need to redraw the borders of us.

我們需要重畫「我們」的界線。

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

為了做到這一點， 首先，我們需要接受

一種普遍，但也有 嚴重缺陷的世界觀。

but also seriously flawed.

According to that worldview,

根據那種世界觀，

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

這裡有國家「内部」， 邊界在國家領土内，

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

也就是我們居住、工作 和管好自家事的地方。

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

還有「外面」；也就是其他地方。

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

根據這種世界觀，當移民 跨越邊界進入了國家，

they're moving from the outside to the inside,

他們就是從外面到了裡面，

but they remain outsiders.

但他們仍然是外來者。

Any power or resources they receive

他們接收到的任何權力或資源

are gifts from us rather than rights.

都是我們給予的禮物，而不是權利。

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

現在看來不難理解為什麼 這種世界觀會如此普遍。

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

從我們每天說話、 做事、表現的方式，

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

到學校教室掛在牆上的 邊界地圖，都會強化它。

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

這種世界觀的問題是，

它不符合世界真正運作的方式，

to the way the world actually works,

and the way it has worked in the past.

以及世界過去運作的方式。

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

當然，美國工人已經 在社會中創造了財富。

But so have immigrants,

但移民也一樣，

particularly in parts of the American economy that are indispensable

特別是在美國經濟中不可或缺

且很少有美國人自己 在做的工作，比如農業。

and where few Americans work, like agriculture.

Since the nation's founding,

從國家建立以來，

Americans have been inside the American workforce.

美國人就一直在美國勞動力的内部。

Of course, Americans have built up institutions in society

當然，美國人在社會中

建立了權利保障制度。

that guarantee rights.

But so have immigrants.

但移民也一樣。

They've been there during every major social movement,

他們參加了每一場重大的社會運動，

like civil rights and organized labor,

比如民權運動和工會運動，

that have fought to expand rights in society for everyone.

在社會上為民衆爭取更大權利而戰。

So immigrants are already inside the struggle

所以，移民始終存在於

for rights, democracy and freedom.

權利、民主和自由的奮鬥中。

And finally, Americans and other citizens of the Global North

最終，美國人和北方世界的公民

haven't minded their own business,

沒有管好自己的事，

and they haven't stayed within their own borders.

他們沒有待在自己的邊界內。 他們沒有尊重其他國家的邊界。

They haven't respected other nations' borders.

他們帶著軍隊前往世界各地，

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

they've taken over territories and resources,

佔據領土和資源，

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

他們從許多其他的國家 奪取巨大收益，

that immigrants are from.

移民正是來自這些國家。

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

從這種意義上來看，許多移民 已經在美國權力的内部了。

With this different map of inside and outside in mind,

根據這幅不同的地圖， 用來劃分内部和外部，

the question isn't whether receiving countries

所以問題並不是接收國是否

are going to let immigrants in.

要讓移民進入。

They're already in.

因為移民已經進入了。

The question is whether the United States and other countries

而是，美國及其他國家是否

are going to give immigrants access to the rights and resources

能夠讓移民取得權利和資源，

that their work, their activism and their home countries

靠他們的努力、他們的 行動主義、他們的母國

have already played a fundamental role in creating.

扮演重要角色去創造 出來的權利和資源。

With this new map in mind,

有了這幅新地圖，

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

我們可以轉向一組困難、 嶄新且迫切需要解決的問題，

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

和我們以前問過的 問題非常不同——

questions that might change the borders of the immigration debate.

這些問題可能會改變 移民辯論的界線。

Our three questions are about workers' rights,

我們的三個問題是關於勞工權利、

about responsibility

責任、

and about equality.

以及平等。

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

首先，我們必須要問勞工權利。

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

為什麽現有的政策 讓移民更難保護自己，

and easier for them to be exploited,

讓他們更容易被剝削，

driving down wages, rights and protections for everyone?

導致薪水、權利和保障都減少了？

When immigrants are threatened with roundups, detention and deportations,

當移民受到圍捕、 拘留和驅逐的威脅時，

their employers know that they can be abused,

他們的僱主知道可以虐待他們，

that they can be told that if they fight back,

告訴他們，如果他們反抗， 就會把他們交給移民局。

they'll be turned over to ICE.

When employers know

當僱主知道

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

他們可以利用移民 沒有身份文件來恐嚇他們，

it makes that worker hyper-exploitable,

就會讓勞工非常容易受到剝削，

and that has impacts not only for immigrant workers

這不僅會影響到移民勞工

but for all workers.

也會影響到所有勞工。

Second, we need to ask questions about responsibility.

第二，我們需要問關於責任的問題。

What role have rich, powerful countries like the United States

像美國這樣富裕強大的國家 到底扮演著什麽樣的角色，

played in making it hard or impossible

讓移民很難或無法待在他們的母國？

for immigrants to stay in their home countries?

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

離開母國是很困難和危險的事，

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

但許多移民僅僅是由於 沒有留在家鄉這個選項可以選，

if they want to survive.

因為他們想要生存。

Wars, trade agreements

戰爭、貿易協定，

and consumer habits rooted in the Global North

及扎根於北方世界的消費者習慣，

play a major and devastating role here.

在此都扮演了重要 且具破壞性的角色。

What responsibilities do the United States,

美國、歐盟及中國要承擔什麽責任？

the European Union and China --

the world's leading carbon emitters --

這些世界領先的碳排放國家

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

讓數百萬人因為全球暖化 而被迫離開家園。

And third, we need to ask questions about equality.

第三，我們需要問關於平等的問題。

Global inequality is a wrenching, intensifying problem.

全球不平等的問題 令人愈發痛苦不堪。

Income and wealth gaps are widening around the world.

全球的收入和財富差距越來越大。

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

漸漸地，決定你是富裕 或是貧窮的重要因素

more than anything else,

變成了是你出生在哪個國家，

is what country you're born in,

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

如果你出生在繁榮的國家，那很棒。

But it actually means a profoundly unjust distribution

但那就意味著，人生能夠 長壽、健康、滿足的機會，

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

在世界各地的分佈非常不公平。

When immigrants send money or goods home to their family,

當移民把金錢或物品寄回給家人時，

it plays a significant role in narrowing these gaps,

對於減少上述的差距， 這一點扮演很關鍵的角色，

if a very incomplete one.

重要性十分高。

It does more than all of the foreign aid programs

它的影響力超過所有外國援助項目

in the world combined.

相加的總合。

We began with the nativist questions,

我們一開始談到先天論者的問題，

about immigrants as tools,

把移民視為工具、

as others

視為其他人

and as parasites.

和寄生蟲。

Where might these new questions about worker rights,

而關於勞工權利、

about responsibility

責任和平等的新問題， 會把我們引向何處？

and about equality

take us?

These questions reject pity, and they embrace justice.

這些問題拒絕同情，

擁抱公正。

These questions reject the nativist and nationalist division

這些問題拒絕先天論和民族主義中

of us versus them.

我們和他們的劃分。

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

這些問題能協助我們 面對即將到來的難題，

and problems like global warming that are already upon us.

如全球暖化，這些已經出現的問題。

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

要脫離我們一直在問的問題 並轉向一組新問題不是容易的事 。

towards this new set of questions.

It's no small challenge

把「我們」的界線拓展出去 是個不小的挑戰。

to take on and broaden the borders of us.

It will take wit, inventiveness and courage.

這需要智慧、創造力和勇氣。

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

舊問題已經伴隨我們太久了，

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

它們不會自己消失，

and they're not going to give way overnight.

也不會一夜之間就消失 。

And even if we manage to change the questions,

即使我們能成功改變這些問題，

the answers are going to be complicated,

答案也會很複雜，

而且也會有犧牲和權衡。

and they're going to require sacrifices and tradeoffs.

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

在不平等的世界裡， 我們將會一直關注

「誰有權力、誰沒有權力 可以加入對話」的問題。

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

and who doesn't.

But the borders of the immigration debate

但移民辯論的界線

can be moved.

是可以移動的。

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

這需要我們所有人來共同移動它。

Thank you.

謝謝大家。

(Applause)

（掌聲）