We often hear these days that the immigration system is broken. I want to make the case today that our immigration conversation is broken and to suggest some ways that, together, we might build a better one. In order to do that, I'm going to propose some new questions about immigration, the United States and the world, questions that might move the borders of the immigration debate.
Zadnje čase pogosto slišimo, da se je zrušil imigracijski sistem. Danes želim pokazati, da je spodletela debata o priseljencih, in predlagati nove načine, na katere lahko skupaj ustvarimo boljšo. S tem namenom bom predstavil nekaj novih vprašanj o priseljenstvu, Združenih državah Amerike in svetu. Vprašanja, ki bodo morda premaknila meje debate o priseljencih.
I'm not going to begin with the feverish argument that we're currently having, even as the lives and well-being of immigrants are being put at risk at the US border and far beyond it. Instead, I'm going to begin with me in graduate school in New Jersey in the mid-1990s, earnestly studying US history, which is what I currently teach as a professor at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. And when I wasn't studying, sometimes to avoid writing my dissertation, my friends and I would go into town to hand out neon-colored flyers, protesting legislation that was threatening to take away immigrants' rights.
Ne bom začel z vročo debato, ki se odvija trenutno, medtem ko so življenja in blaginja priseljencev v nevarnosti tako na ameriški meji kot drugod. Raje bom začel s svojo zgodbo s podiplomskega študija v New Jerseyju, kjer sem sredi 90-ih študiral ameriško zgodovino, ki jo zdaj poučujem kot profesor na Univerzi Vanderbilt v Nashvillu, Tennessee. Ko se nisem ukvarjal s študijem, včasih da bi se izognil pisanju disertacije, smo s prijatelji odšli v mesto in delili letake v neonski barvi, s katerimi smo protestirali proti zakonodaji, ki naj bi priseljencem odvzela pravice.
Our flyers were sincere, they were well-meaning, they were factually accurate ... But I realize now, they were also kind of a problem. Here's what they said: "Don't take away immigrant rights to public education, to medical services, to the social safety net. They work hard. They pay taxes. They're law-abiding. They use social services less than Americans do. They're eager to learn English, and their children serve in the US military all over the world." Now, these are, of course, arguments that we hear every day. Immigrants and their advocates use them as they confront those who would deny immigrants their rights or even exclude them from society. And up to a certain point, it makes perfect sense that these would be the kinds of claims that immigrants' defenders would turn to.
Naši letaki so bili iskreni in dobronamerni, navedena dejstva so bila točna ... Vendar se zdaj zavedam, da so bila tudi sporna. Na letakih je pisalo: "Ne odvzemite priseljencem pravice do javnega šolstva, do zdravstvenih storitev, do mreže socialne varnosti. Trdo delajo. Plačujejo davke. Spoštujejo zakone. Socialnih storitev se poslužujejo redkeje od Američanov. Zelo radi bi se naučili angleščine in njihovi otroci služijo v ameriški vojski po vsem svetu." Takšne argumente slišimo seveda vsak dan. Priseljenci in njihovi zagovorniki se jih poslužujejo pri soočanju s tistimi, ki bi radi kratili pravice priseljencem ali jih celo izključili iz družbe. Do določene mere je popolnoma smiselno, da zagovorniki priseljencev uporabljajo takšne in podobne argumente.
But in the long term, and maybe even in the short term, I think these arguments can be counterproductive. Why? Because it's always an uphill battle to defend yourself on your opponent's terrain. And, unwittingly, the handouts my friends and I were handing out and the versions of these arguments that we hear today were actually playing the anti-immigrants game. We were playing that game in part by envisioning that immigrants were outsiders, rather than, as I'm hoping to suggest in a few minutes, people that are already, in important ways, on the inside. It's those who are hostile to immigrants, the nativists, who have succeeded in framing the immigration debate around three main questions.
Vendar mislim, da imajo takšni argumenti dolgoročno, morda tudi kratkoročno, nasproten učinek. Zakaj? Ker je obramba sebe na nasprotnikovem ozemlju vedno težka bitka. Tako so bili naši letaki, ki smo jih delili, in tako so različice omenjenih argumentov, ki jih slišimo danes, nehote dejansko usmerjeni proti priseljencem. Do nasprotnega učinka smo delno prišli zaradi dojemanja priseljencev kot outsiderjev, namesto da bi jih videli kot ljudi, ki so že pomemben del družbe, kar bom poskušal predstaviti v naslednjih minutah. Tistim, ki so sovražno nastrojeni proti priseljencem, ksenofobom, je uspelo debato o priseljencih omejiti na tri glavna vprašanja.
First, there's the question of whether immigrants can be useful tools. How can we use immigrants? Will they make us richer and stronger? The nativist answer to this question is no, immigrants have little or nothing to offer.
Prvo vprašanje se nanaša na to, ali so priseljenci uporabni. Kako lahko priseljence izkoristimo? Nas bodo naredili bogatejše in močnejše? Ksenofob bo na ta vprašanja odgovoril nikalno -- priseljenci nam lahko ponudijo le malo ali nič.
The second question is whether immigrants are others. Can immigrants become more like us? Are they capable of becoming more like us? Are they capable of assimilating? Are they willing to assimilate? Here, again, the nativist answer is no, immigrants are permanently different from us and inferior to us.
Pri drugem vprašanju gre za to, ali so priseljenci drugačni. Lahko priseljenci postanejo bolj podobni nam? So zmožni postati bolj podobni nam? So se sposobni asimilirati? Se želijo asimilirati? Tudi na ta vprašanja bi ksenofob odgovoril nikalno - priseljenci so nespremenljivo drugačni od nas in manjvredni.
And the third question is whether immigrants are parasites. Are they dangerous to us? And will they drain our resources? Here, the nativist answer is yes and yes, immigrants pose a threat and they sap our wealth. I would suggest that these three questions and the nativist animus behind them have succeeded in framing the larger contours of the immigration debate. These questions are anti-immigrant and nativist at their core, built around a kind of hierarchical division of insiders and outsiders, us and them, in which only we matter, and they don't. And what gives these questions traction and power beyond the circle of committed nativists is the way they tap into an everyday, seemingly harmless sense of national belonging and activate it, heighten it and inflame it.
In tretje vprašanje se glasi, ali so priseljenci paraziti. So nevarni za nas? Bodo izrabili naše vire? V tem primeru bo ksenofob odgovoril pritrdilno -- priseljenci predstavljajo nevarnost za nas in črpajo naše bogastvo. Menim, da so ta tri vprašanja in sovražen odziv ksenofobov na njih postavili glavne okvire za debato o priseljencih. Ta vprašanja so sama po sebi usmerjena proti priseljencem in etnocentrična. Nastala so na podlagi hierarhične delitve na insiderje in outsiderje, na nas in njih, pri čemer smo pomembni samo mi, oni ne. In poleg kroga zavzetih etnocentrikov daje tem vprašanjem moč in zagon način, na katerega prodirajo v vsakdanjik kot navidezno neškodljiv občutek nacionalne pripadnosti, ki se aktivira, krepi in nazadnje razvname.
Nativists commit themselves to making stark distinctions between insiders and outsiders. But the distinction itself is at the heart of the way nations define themselves. The fissures between inside and outside, which often run deepest along lines of race and religion, are always there to be deepened and exploited. And that potentially gives nativist approaches resonance far beyond those who consider themselves anti-immigrant, and remarkably, even among some who consider themselves pro-immigrant. So, for example, when Immigrants Act allies answer these questions the nativists are posing, they take them seriously. They legitimate those questions and, to some extent, the anti-immigrant assumptions that are behind them. When we take these questions seriously without even knowing it, we're reinforcing the closed, exclusionary borders of the immigration conversation.
Etnocentriki se zavežejo k močnemu razlikovanju med insiderji in outsiderji. Takšno razlikovanje je v osnovi način, kako se narodi definirajo. Razkol med insiderji in outsiderji, ki je pogosto najmočneje povezan z raso in religijo, se lahko vedno še bolj poglobi in izkoristi. In tako se lahko vpliv etnocentričnega pristopa razširi ne samo med tistimi, ki se imajo za protipriseljensko nastrojene, temveč presentljivo tudi med nekaterimi, ki ne zavračajo priseljencev. Ko denimo zagovorniki pravic priseljencev odgovarjajo na vprašanja, ki jih postavljajo etnocentriki, se jih resno lotijo. To pomeni, da ta vprašanja sprejmejo in s tem do določene mere tudi protipriseljensko naravnanost, ki se skriva za njimi. Ko resno obravnavamo ta vprašanja, nevede podpiramo ozke in izključujoče okvirje debate o priseljencih.
So how did we get here? How did these become the leading ways that we talk about immigration? Here, we need some backstory, which is where my history training comes in. During the first century of the US's status as an independent nation, it did very little to restrict immigration at the national level. In fact, many policymakers and employers worked hard to recruit immigrants to build up industry and to serve as settlers, to seize the continent. But after the Civil War, nativist voices rose in volume and in power. The Asian, Latin American, Caribbean and European immigrants who dug Americans' canals, cooked their dinners, fought their wars and put their children to bed at night were met with a new and intense xenophobia, which cast immigrants as permanent outsiders who should never be allowed to become insiders.
Kako smo prišli do tega? Kako je to postal glavni način pogovora o priseljenstvu? Za to je treba poznati ozadje, pri tem nam bo pomagalo moje znanje iz zgodovine. V prvem stoletju ameriške neodvisnosti, je država naredila zelo malo pri omejevanju priseljevanja. Pravzaprav so se številni politiki in delodajalci močno trudili, da bi zaposlili priseljence, ki bi zgradili industrijo in delali kot naseljenci ter prevzeli kontinent. Po koncu ameriške državljanske vojne pa so bili vedno glasnejši in močnejši glasovi etnocentrikov. Priseljenci iz Azije, Latinske Amerike, s Karibov in iz Evrope, ki so kopali ameriške kanale, kuhali Američanom večerje, bojevali njihove bitke in zvečer spravljali njihove otroke spat, so bili soočeni z novo in intenzivno ksenofobijo. Ta je zaznamovala priseljence kot stalne outsiderje, katerim ni dovoljeno postati insiderji.
By the mid-1920s, the nativists had won, erecting racist laws that closed out untold numbers of vulnerable immigrants and refugees. Immigrants and their allies did their best to fight back, but they found themselves on the defensive, caught in some ways in the nativists' frames. When nativists said that immigrants weren't useful, their allies said yes, they are. When nativists accused immigrants of being others, their allies promised that they would assimilate. When nativists charged that immigrants were dangerous parasites, their allies emphasized their loyalty, their obedience, their hard work and their thrift. Even as advocates welcomed immigrants, many still regarded immigrants as outsiders to be pitied, to be rescued, to be uplifted and to be tolerated, but never fully brought inside as equals in rights and respect.
Do srede 20-ih let 20. stoletja so etnocentriki dosegli zmago s sprejemanjem rasističnih zakonov, ki so izobčili ogromno število ranljivih priseljencev in beguncev. Priseljenci in njihovi zavezniki so se branili na vso moč, vendar so naleteli na odpor in se na nek način ujeli v etnocentrično mrežo. Ko so ksenofobi trdili, da so priseljenci neuporabni, so zagovorniki priseljencev trdili nasprotno. Ko so ksenofobi obtožili priseljence, da so drugačni, so zagovorniki obljubili, da se bodo asimilirali. Ko so ksenofobi označili priseljence za nevarne parazite, so zagovorniki poudarili lojalnost in poslušnost priseljencev, njihovo trdo delo in njihovo gospodarnost. Tudi ko so zagovorniki odprli vrata priseljencem, so jih številni imeli za outsiderje, ki jih je treba pomilovati in rešiti, jih postaviti na noge in tolerirati, nikoli pa niso bili enakovredno vključeni v pravice in bili spoštovani.
After World War II, and especially from the mid-1960s until really recently, immigrants and their allies turned the tide, overthrowing mid-20th century restriction and winning instead a new system that prioritized family reunification, the admission of refugees and the admission of those with special skills. But even then, they didn't succeed in fundamentally changing the terms of the debate, and so that framework endured, ready to be taken up again in our own convulsive moment. That conversation is broken. The old questions are harmful and divisive.
Po drugi svetovni vojni, predvsem od sredine 60-ih do danes, so priseljenci in zagovorniki spremenili tok dogajanja, s prekinitvijo omejitve iz sredine 20. stoletja in vzpostavitvijo novega sistema, ki postavlja na prvo mesto združitev družin, sprejem beguncev in sprejem priseljencev s posebnimi kompetencami. A kljub temu jim ni uspelo bistveno spremeniti toka debate, zato je ostala vpeta v istem okviru, pripravljena na ponovno obravnavo, ko pridemo do kritičnega trenutka. Ta debata je spodletela. Stara vprašanja so škodljiva in razdiralna.
So how do we get from that conversation to one that's more likely to get us closer to a world that is fairer, that is more just, that's more secure? I want to suggest that what we have to do is one of the hardest things that any society can do: to redraw the boundaries of who counts, of whose life, whose rights and whose thriving matters. We need to redraw the boundaries. We need to redraw the borders of us. In order to do that, we need to first take on a worldview that's widely held but also seriously flawed. According to that worldview, there's the inside of the national boundaries, inside the nation, which is where we live, work and mind our own business. And then there's the outside; there's everywhere else. According to this worldview, when immigrants cross into the nation, they're moving from the outside to the inside, but they remain outsiders. Any power or resources they receive are gifts from us rather than rights.
Kako bomo torej naredili korak naprej od te debate do takšne, ki nas bo morebiti popeljala v svet, ki je bolj pravičen, bolj pošten, bolj varen? Menim, da moramo narediti eno najtežjih stvari, ki jih lahko naredi družba: premakniti moramo meje tega, kdo velja, čigavo življenje, čigave pravice in čigavi uspehi štejejo. Premakniti moramo meje. Premakniti moramo meje nas. Da bi to dosegli, moramo najprej vzeti pod drobnogled pogled na svet, ki je široko razširjen, a izredno pomanjkljiv. V skladu s tem pogledom na svet obstaja notranjost znotraj državnih meja, znotraj naroda, kjer živimo, delamo in se brigamo zase. In obstaja zunanjost -- to je vsepovsod drugod. V okviru takšnega pogleda na svet se priseljenci, ko pridejo v državo, premaknejo iz zunanjosti v notranjost, vendar ostanejo outsiderji. Vsaka pravica ali sredstva, ki jih priseljenci prejmejo, 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. It's reinforced in everyday ways that we talk and act and behave, down to the bordered maps that we hang up in our schoolrooms. The problem with this worldview is that it just doesn't correspond to the way the world actually works, and the way it has worked in the past. Of course, American workers have built up wealth in society. But so have immigrants, particularly in parts of the American economy that are indispensable and where few Americans work, like agriculture. Since the nation's founding, Americans have been inside the American workforce. Of course, Americans have built up institutions in society that guarantee rights. But so have immigrants. They've been there during every major social movement, like civil rights and organized labor, that have fought to expand rights in society for everyone. So immigrants are already inside the struggle for rights, democracy and freedom.
Zlahka ugotovimo, zakaj je takšen pogled na svet tako razširjen. Krepi se v našem vsakodnevnem načinu govora, delovanja in obnašanja, da ne omenjam zemljevidov z označenimi mejami v šolskih učilnicah. Težava takšnega pogleda na svet je v tem, da ne ustreza načinu, na katerega svet dejansko deluje in na katerega je deloval v preteklosti. Neoporečno je, da so ameriški delavci zgradili bogastvo v družbi, a so ga tudi priseljenci, predvsem v nepogrešljivih sektorjih ameriškega gospodarstva, v katerih je zaposlenih le malo Američanov, kot je kmetijstvo. Od ustanovitve ZDA so bili Američani del ameriške delovne sile. Ustanovili so seveda družbene institucije, ki zagotavljajo pravice. A tudi priseljenci so del tega. Bili so prisotni pri vsakem večjem družbenem gibanju, denimo za državljanske pravice in združevanje delavcev, katerih cilj je bil razširiti pravice v družbi za vsakogar. Tako so priseljenci že vključeni v boj za pravice, demokracijo in svobodo.
And finally, Americans and other citizens of the Global North haven't minded their own business, and they haven't stayed within their own borders. They haven't respected other nations' borders. They've gone out into the world with their armies, they've taken over territories and resources, and they've extracted enormous profits from many of the countries that immigrants are from. In this sense, many immigrants are actually already inside American power. With this different map of inside and outside in mind, the question isn't whether receiving countries are going to let immigrants in. They're already in. The question is whether the United States and other countries are going to give immigrants access to the rights and resources that their work, their activism and their home countries have already played a fundamental role in creating. With this new map in mind, we can turn to a set of tough, new, urgently needed questions, radically different from the ones we've asked before -- questions that might change the borders of the immigration debate. Our three questions are about workers' rights, about responsibility and about equality.
In nenazadnje se Američani in drugi prebivalci razvitih držav niso brigali zase in niso ostali znotraj svojih meja. Niso spoštovali meja drugih držav, temveč so vkorakali v njih s svojo vojsko, zasedli teritorije in vire ter izvlekli ogromne dobičke iz številnih držav, iz katerih prihajajo priseljenci. Potemtakem so priseljenci dejansko že del ameriške moči. Pri tej delitvi na notranjost in zunanjost v naših glavah ne gre za to, ali bodo države, ki sprejemajo priseljence, odprle vrata v notranjost. Priseljenci so že del notranjosti. Gre za to, ali bodo ZDA in druge države priseljencem omogočile dostop do pravic in sredstev, pri ustvarjanju katerih so delo in aktivizem priseljencev ter njihove domovine igrali ključno vlogo. S takšnim novim pogledom na svet se lahko lotimo skupka novih, težkih in nujno potrebnih vprašanj, ki so popolnoma drugačna od prejšnjih. Ta vprašanja bodo morda premaknila meje debate o priseljencih. Nova tri vprašanja se nanašajo na delavske pravice, na odgovornost in na enakopravnost.
First, we need to be asking about workers' rights. How do existing policies make it harder for immigrants to defend themselves and easier for them to be exploited, driving down wages, rights and protections for everyone? When immigrants are threatened with roundups, detention and deportations, their employers know that they can be abused, that they can be told that if they fight back, they'll be turned over to ICE. When employers know that they can terrorize an immigrant with his lack of papers, it makes that worker hyper-exploitable, and that has impacts not only for immigrant workers but for all workers.
Glede delavskih pravic se lahko vprašamo sledeče: Kako obstoječa politika priseljencem otežuje obrambo in dopušča izkorščanje, jim niža plače, odvzema pravice in zaščito? Ko delodajalci priseljencem grozijo z zbori, pripori in deportacijami, vedo, da jih lahko izkoriščajo, da jim lahko grozijo z izročitvijo migracijskemu uradu če se bodo pritoževali. Ko se delodajalci zavedajo, da lahko terorizirajo priseljence, ker so brez osebnih dokumentov, postanejo le-ti glavna tarča izkoriščanja, kar vpliva ne samo na priseljenske delavce, temveč tudi na ostale zaposlene.
Second, we need to ask questions about responsibility. What role have rich, powerful countries like the United States played in making it hard or impossible for immigrants to stay in their home countries? Picking up and moving from your country is difficult and dangerous, but many immigrants simply do not have the option of staying home if they want to survive. Wars, trade agreements and consumer habits rooted in the Global North play a major and devastating role here. What responsibilities do the United States, the European Union and China -- the world's leading carbon emitters -- have to the millions of people already uprooted by global warming?
Drugo vprašanje se nanaša na odgovornost. Kako so bogate in vplivne države, kot je ZDA, priseljencem oteževale in onemogočale, da ostanejo v svojih domovinah? Pobrati svoje stvari in zapustiti domovino je težko in nevarno, vendar številni priseljenci enostavno ne morejo ostati doma, če želijo preživeti. Vojne, trgovinski sporazumi in potrošniške navade, zakoreninjene v razvitih državah, igrajo kjučno in uničevalno vlogo pri tem. Kakšno odgovornost imajo Združene države, Evropska unija in Kitajska -- največji onesnaževalci z ogljikom - do milijonov ljudi, ki so zaradi globalnega segrevanja že zapustili svoje domove?
And third, we need to ask questions about equality. Global inequality is a wrenching, intensifying problem. Income and wealth gaps are widening around the world. Increasingly, what determines whether you're rich or poor, more than anything else, is what country you're born in, which might seem great if you're from a prosperous country. But it actually means a profoundly unjust distribution of the chances for a long, healthy, fulfilling life. When immigrants send money or goods home to their family, it plays a significant role in narrowing these gaps, if a very incomplete one. It does more than all of the foreign aid programs in the world combined.
In nenazadnje si moramo zastaviti vprašanja glede enakopravnosti. Globalna neenakost je mučen in rastoč problem. Razlike v prihodkih in bogastvu so vedno večje med ljudmi po celem svetu. Odločilni faktor pri določanju, ali je nekdo bogat ali reven, je bolj kot karkoli to, v kateri državi je nekdo rojen. To se zdi odlično, če smo rojeni v bogati državi. V resnici pa pomeni izredno nepravično razdelitev možnosti za dolgo, zdravo in izpolnjeno življenje. Ko priseljenci pošljejo denar ali dobrine domov družinam, igrajo pomembno vlogo pri manjšanju teh razlik, četudi to ni dovolj. A naredijo več kot vsi tuji svetovni programi pomoči skupaj.
We began with the nativist questions, about immigrants as tools, as others and as parasites. Where might these new questions about worker rights, about responsibility and about equality take us? These questions reject pity, and they embrace justice. These questions reject the nativist and nationalist division of us versus them. They're going to help prepare us for problems that are coming and problems like global warming that are already upon us.
Začeli smo z etnocentričnimi vprašanji, ki so zaznamovali priseljence kot predmete, kot drugačne in kot parazite. Kam nas lahko odpeljejo nova vprašanja, ki se nanašajo ki se nanašajo na odgovornost in na enakopravnost? Ta vprašanja zavračajo usmiljenje in vodijo v pravičnost. Ta vprašanja zavračajo etnocentrično in nacionalistično delitev na nas in njih. Pomagala nas bodo pripraviti na prihajajoče težave 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 towards this new set of questions. It's no small challenge to take on and broaden the borders of us. It will take wit, inventiveness and courage. The old questions have been with us for a long time, and they're not going to give way on their own, and they're not going to give way overnight. And even if we manage to change the questions, the answers are going to be complicated, and they're going to require sacrifices and tradeoffs. And in an unequal world, we're always going to have to pay attention to the question of who has the power to join the conversation and who doesn't. But the borders of the immigration debate can be moved. It's up to all of us to move them.
Ne bo lahko ignorirati vprašanj, ki so bila prisotna do zdaj, in se usmeriti k novim. Gre za veliko spremembo in širitev mej v nas samih. Potrebni bodo razum, iznajdljivost in pogum. Stara vprašanja so nas dolgo spremljala, zato ne bodo kar tako izginila in ne bodo izginila čez noč. Tudi če nam uspe spremeniti vprašanja, bodo odgovori na njih zapleteni, zahtevali bodo požrtvovalnost in kompromise. V svetu neenakosti bomo morali vedno biti pozorni na to, kdo se lahko pridruži debati in kdo ne. A meje debate o priseljencih se lahko premaknejo. Na nas je, da jih premaknemo.
Thank you.
Hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplavz)