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.
我們現在常聽說, 現在的移民體制已經出問題了。 而今天我想要說明的是, 我們的移民對話出現了問題, 然後我想透過一些方法 來建立更好的移民對話。 為此,我會提出一些新問題, 關於移民、關於美國,以及世界, 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, 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.
我並不打算從我們 目前的熱門話題談起, 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。 但我反而要先談談研究生時期的我, 我在 1990 年代中期的 紐澤西州認真地研讀美國歷史, 現在是一名教授,任職於田納西州 納什維爾的范德堡大學。 當我不學習的時候, 有時是不想寫我的論文, 我會和朋友到鎮上去, 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。
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.
我們的傳單很真誠,立意良好, 傳單上的事實也都很準確…… 但我現在意識到, 這些傳單也算是一種問題。 傳單上寫著: 「不要剝奪移民 接受義務教育的權利, 以及獲得醫療服務 和社會安全網的權利。 他們工作很努力。 他們有繳稅。 他們守法。 他們使用的社會服務比美國人少。 他們很渴望學英語, 他們的孩子在世界各地的 美國軍隊服役。」 當然,這些是我們天天聽到的說法。 移民者和他們的擁護者 會利用這些說法 來反駁那些否認移民權利, 甚至想將移民群體 從這個社會中排除的人。 從某種程度上來說,這非常合理, 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, 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.
但從長期來看,也許短期也是, 我認為這些說法會產生反效果。 為什麼? 因為,這一定是一場硬仗, 因為要在敵方的領地上為自己辯護。 在不經意間,我和朋友 那時候所發的傳單 和現在我們所聽到的這些說法, 其實是在玩反移民的遊戲。 我們玩這個遊戲在某個層面上 是把移民當作外來者, 而不是如我稍後會建議的方式, 人們已經把移民視為重要的自己人。 那些敵視移民的人,即先天論者, 很成功地把移民辯論 用三個主要問題框住了。
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.
第一個問題,移民 能否成為有用的工具。 我們能怎樣利用移民? 他們能讓我們變得 更富裕、更強大嗎? 先天論者對此的答案是「不」, 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. 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.
第二個問題,移民是否 是「其他人」。 移民能不能變得更像我們? 他們有能力變得更像我們嗎? 他們能夠被同化嗎? 他們願意被同化嗎? 先天論者對此的答案仍然是「不」。 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. 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.
第三個問題,移民是否是寄生蟲。 他們對我們來說危險嗎? 他們會用光我們的資源嗎? 對此,先天論者的 兩個答案皆為「是」。 移民是種威脅, 他們會吸光我們的財富。 我認為,這三個問題 及其背後先天論者的敵意 已經成功勾勒出了一個 更大的移民辯論的輪廓。 這些問題的核心,是反移民的、 是先天論者的, 建立起等級分化, 將人分為自己人和外來人, 分為我們和他們, 只有我們才重要, 而他們不重要。 這些問題仍然有影響力和力量, 即使是在虔誠先天論者的圈子外, 因為它們能夠利用 日常中看起來無害的國家歸屬感, 然後觸發它、增強它, 再點燃它。
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.
先天論者致力於明確 將自己人與外來人區分開來。 但這種區別本身是 各國定義自己的關鍵。 內部與外部的分歧, 通常在種族和宗教方面最嚴重, 且總是可以再被加深、被利用。 這可能會引起先天論者的共鳴, 且影響範圍遠超過那些認為 自己是反移民的人, 很驚人的是,就連一些自認支持 移民的人也會產生共鳴。 所以,比如當移民法的盟友 回答先天論者提出的這些問題時, 他們會很認真地看待。 他們會將那些問題合法化, 並在某種程度上, 將問題背後的反移民假設合法化。 當我們在不知不覺間 認真看待這些問題時, 就是在加固封閉、具有排他性的 移民對話的界線。
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.
我們怎麼會走到這一步? 這些問題怎麼會變成 我們談論移民時的主導方式? 這裡我們需要些背景訊息, 我的歷史知識也就此派上用場了。 在美國成為獨立國家的 第一個 100 年裡, 美國幾乎沒有對移民採取 任何國家層面的限制。 事實上,許多政策制訂者和僱主—— 都很努力去招募移民, 去建立產業, 以移居者的身份占據這塊大陸。 但在內戰之後, 先天論者的聲音 不論是音量或強度都提升了。 亞洲人、拉丁裔美國人、 加勒比海地區和歐洲地區的移民 為美國人挖隧道, 為他們煮晚餐, 為他們打仗, 哄他們的孩子上床睡覺, 在此時卻遇到了 新的、強烈仇外情緒, 這種情緒令移民被視為 是永遠的外來者, 永遠都不能允許他們成為自己人。
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.
直到 1920 年代中期, 先天論者贏了, 建立起了種族主義的法律, 排擠走了數不盡的 無力抵抗的移民和難民。 移民和他們的盟友盡力反擊, 但他們卻發現自己只能防守, 被先天論者構造的框架控制著。 當先天論者說移民沒有用處時, 移民的盟友說,移民是有用處的。 當先天論者指控移民是「其他人」, 移民的盟友保證移民會被同化。 當先天論者控訴移民 是危險的寄生蟲時, 移民的盟友強調移民的忠誠、 順從、辛勤和節儉。 就連支持者在歡迎移民的時候, 許多人仍然將其視為外來者, 且需要被同情、拯救、 鼓勵、 包容, 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, 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.
在二戰後,特別是 從 1960 年代中期到最近, 移民和他們的盟友扭轉了局勢, 推翻了 20 世紀中期的限制, 贏得了一個新體制, 這個體制優先讓家庭重聚、 接納難民, 以及接納有一技之長的人。 但即使這樣,他們也沒有成功地 從根本上改變辯論的條件, 所以,那個框架仍然存續, 準備在我們自己的失控時刻 再次被拿來使用。 那個對話出現了問題。 舊的問題是有害的,會造成分裂。
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.
所以我們要如何從那樣的對話 轉變成另一種對話,讓我們的世界 更公平、更公正、 更安全? 我建議我們需要做的 是對任何社會都最困難的事情之一: 重新畫出界線,包括誰來做決定、 誰的生命、誰的權利、 誰的成功是重要的。 我們必須要重畫界線。 我們需要重畫「我們」的界線。 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。 根據那種世界觀, 這裡有國家「内部」, 邊界在國家領土内, 也就是我們居住、工作 和管好自家事的地方。 還有「外面」;也就是其他地方。 根據這種世界觀,當移民 跨越邊界進入了國家, 他們就是從外面到了裡面, 但他們仍然是外來者。 他們接收到的任何權力或資源 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. 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.
現在看來不難理解為什麼 這種世界觀會如此普遍。 從我們每天說話、 做事、表現的方式, 到學校教室掛在牆上的 邊界地圖,都會強化它。 這種世界觀的問題是, 它不符合世界真正運作的方式, 以及世界過去運作的方式。 當然,美國工人已經 在社會中創造了財富。 但移民也一樣, 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。 從國家建立以來, 美國人就一直在美國勞動力的内部。 當然,美國人在社會中 建立了權利保障制度。 但移民也一樣。 他們參加了每一場重大的社會運動, 比如民權運動和工會運動, 在社會上為民衆爭取更大權利而戰。 所以,移民始終存在於 權利、民主和自由的奮鬥中。
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.
最終,美國人和北方世界的公民 沒有管好自己的事, 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。 他們帶著軍隊前往世界各地, 佔據領土和資源, 他們從許多其他的國家 奪取巨大收益, 移民正是來自這些國家。 從這種意義上來看,許多移民 已經在美國權力的内部了。 根據這幅不同的地圖, 用來劃分内部和外部, 所以問題並不是接收國是否 要讓移民進入。 因為移民已經進入了。 而是,美國及其他國家是否 能夠讓移民取得權利和資源, 靠他們的努力、他們的 行動主義、他們的母國 扮演重要角色去創造 出來的權利和資源。 有了這幅新地圖, 我們可以轉向一組困難、 嶄新且迫切需要解決的問題, 和我們以前問過的 問題非常不同—— 這些問題可能會改變 移民辯論的界線。 我們的三個問題是關於勞工權利、 責任、 以及平等。
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.
首先,我們必須要問勞工權利。 為什麽現有的政策 讓移民更難保護自己, 讓他們更容易被剝削, 導致薪水、權利和保障都減少了? 當移民受到圍捕、 拘留和驅逐的威脅時, 他們的僱主知道可以虐待他們, 告訴他們,如果他們反抗, 就會把他們交給移民局。 當僱主知道 他們可以利用移民 沒有身份文件來恐嚇他們, 就會讓勞工非常容易受到剝削, 這不僅會影響到移民勞工 也會影響到所有勞工。
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?
第二,我們需要問關於責任的問題。 像美國這樣富裕強大的國家 到底扮演著什麽樣的角色, 讓移民很難或無法待在他們的母國? 離開母國是很困難和危險的事, 但許多移民僅僅是由於 沒有留在家鄉這個選項可以選, 因為他們想要生存。 戰爭、貿易協定, 及扎根於北方世界的消費者習慣, 在此都扮演了重要 且具破壞性的角色。 美國、歐盟及中國要承擔什麽責任? 這些世界領先的碳排放國家 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. 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.
第三,我們需要問關於平等的問題。 全球不平等的問題 令人愈發痛苦不堪。 全球的收入和財富差距越來越大。 漸漸地,決定你是富裕 或是貧窮的重要因素 變成了是你出生在哪個國家, 如果你出生在繁榮的國家,那很棒。 但那就意味著,人生能夠 長壽、健康、滿足的機會, 在世界各地的分佈非常不公平。 當移民把金錢或物品寄回給家人時, 對於減少上述的差距, 這一點扮演很關鍵的角色, 重要性十分高。 它的影響力超過所有外國援助項目 相加的總合。
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.
我們一開始談到先天論者的問題, 把移民視為工具、 視為其他人 和寄生蟲。 而關於勞工權利、 責任和平等的新問題, 會把我們引向何處? 這些問題拒絕同情, 擁抱公正。 這些問題拒絕先天論和民族主義中 我們和他們的劃分。 這些問題能協助我們 面對即將到來的難題, 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 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.
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 。 把「我們」的界線拓展出去 是個不小的挑戰。 這需要智慧、創造力和勇氣。 舊問題已經伴隨我們太久了, 它們不會自己消失, 也不會一夜之間就消失 。 即使我們能成功改變這些問題, 答案也會很複雜, 而且也會有犧牲和權衡。 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。 但移民辯論的界線 是可以移動的。 這需要我們所有人來共同移動它。
Thank you.
謝謝大家。
(Applause)
(掌聲)