Anne Milgram: Congressman, I was about to introduce you and say a little more --
安妮米爾格拉姆: 議員,我正要介紹你, 以及說些——
Will Hurd: Hey, Anne. How are you?
威爾赫爾德: 嘿,安妮。你好嗎?
AM: Hi, how are you doing? Thank you so much for joining us tonight. We're so lucky to have you here with us. I've already explained that you're actually in Washington because you're working. And I was about to tell folks that you represent the 23rd district of Texas. But maybe you could tell us a little bit about your district and describe it for us.
安:嗨,你好嗎? 非常感謝你今晚的參與。 我們很幸運能邀請到你。 我已經向大家解釋過 你現在在華盛頓工作。 我也正要告訴大家, 你代表的是德州的第 23 區。 但能否請你介紹一下你的選區, 向我們描述一下 。
WH: Sure, my district in Southwest Texas is 29 counties, two time zones, 820 miles of border from Eagle Pass, Texas all the way to El Paso. It takes 10 and a half hours to drive across my district at 80 miles an hour, which is the speed limit in most of the district. And I found out a couple of weekends ago, it's not the speed limit in all the district.
威:好的,我的選區位於 德州西南部,有 29 個郡, 跨兩個時區。 從伊格爾帕斯一路到艾爾帕索, 涵蓋了 820 英里長的邊界線 。 以這區大部分地方 每小時 80 英里的開車速限, 要花 10 個半小時才能 橫跨整個區。 不過幾週前我才發現 , 並非全區都是這個速限。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
It's a 71-percent Latino district, and it's the district that I've been representing for now my third term in Congress. And when you think about the issue of the border, I have more border than any other member of Congress. I spent nine and a half years as an undercover officer in the CIA, chasing bad people all across the country. So when it comes to securing our border, it's something I know a little bit about.
這區 71% 的居民是拉丁裔, 我一直都是代表這個區的議員, 在國會中已經做到第三任了。 如果要談邊界議題, 我的邊界比任何其他 國會議員的邊界都還要長。 我在中情局做了 9 年半的臥底探員, 在全國各地追捕壞人。 所以,若要談邊界的安全, 我確實略知一二。
AM: One of the things I learned recently which I hadn't known before is that your district is actually the size, I think, of the state of Georgia?
安:我最近得知 我以前不知道的事情之一 就是你的區的面積,我想, 和喬治亞州差不多大?
WH: That's right. It's larger than 26 states, roughly the size of the state of Georgia. So it's pretty big.
威:沒錯。 它比 26 個州還大, 大約和喬治亞州一樣大。 所以說它相當大。
AM: So as an expert in national security and as a member of Congress, you've been called upon to think about issues related to immigration, and in recent years, particularly about the border wall. What is your reaction to President Trump's statement that we need a big, beautiful wall that would stretch across our border, and at 18 to 30 feet high?
安:身為國安專家, 以及國會議員, 你曾被邀請去討論 和移民相關的議題, 而近幾年,尤其是有關邊界圍牆。 你怎麼看川普總統的聲明? 他說我們需要沿著邊界 建一道又大又美, 大約 18 到 30 英呎高的圍牆。
WH: I've been saying this since I first ran for Congress back in 2009, this is not a new topic, that building a 30-foot-high concrete structure from sea to shining sea is the most expensive and least effective way to do border security. There are parts of the border where Border Patrol's response time to a threat is measured in hours to days. If your response time is measured in hours to days, then a wall is not a physical barrier. We should be having technology along the border, we should have operation control of our border, which means we know everything that's going back and forth across it. We can do a lot of that with technology. We also need more folks within our border patrol. But in addition to doing all this, one of the things we should be able to do is streamline legal immigration. If you're going to be a productive member of our society, let's get you here as quickly as possible, but let's do it legally. And if we're able to streamline that, then you're going to see some of the pressures relieved along our border and allow men and women in Border Patrol to focus on human trafficking and drug-trafficking organizations as well.
威:自從 2009 年第一次 競選國會議員,我就一直在說, 這不是個新議題, 打造一個 30 英呎高的水泥建築, 從大西洋到太平洋, 是最昂貴且最沒效益的 保護邊界的方法。 在邊界的某些地區, 邊界巡邏隊對於威脅的反應時間, 需要數小時甚至數天。 如果你的反應時間 要用小時甚至天來計算, 那麼圍牆就不是一個實質的障礙。 我們應該延著邊界佈署科技, 我們應該對邊界做操作管控, 也就是說,我們要知道 所有穿過邊界的人事物。 用科技我們是可以做到的。 我們的邊境巡邏隊也需要更多人手。 但除此之外, 我們應該要做的另一件事, 就是提高合法移民的效率。 如果你將成為我們社會中 有生產力的一員, 那我們就盡快讓你過來, 但要走合法管道。 如果我們能提高 這方面的效率,你會看到 我們的邊界少了一些壓力, 這能讓邊境巡邏隊 更專注於處理人口販賣, 以及運毒組織。
AM: Congressman, there's also been a conversation nationally about using emergency funds to build the border wall and taking those funds from the United States military. What has your position been on that issue?
安:議員, 全國也一直在討論動用緊急資金, 來建造邊界圍牆, 並且將軍方的資金用於此, 對於此議題,你的立場是?
WH: I'm one of the few Republicans up here that has opposed that effort. We are just now rebuilding our military, and taking funds away from making sure that our brothers and sisters, our wives and our husbands have the training and equipment they need in order to take care of us in far-flung places -- taking money away from them is not an efficient use of our resources, especially if it's going to build a ... you know, I always say it's a fourth-century solution to a 21st-century problem. And the reality is, what we should be focusing on is some of the other root causes of this problem, and many of your speakers today have talked about that. Some of those key root problems are violence, lack of economic opportunity and extreme poverty, specifically, in the Northern Triangle: El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. We should be working --
威:我是這裡少數反對 那麼做的共和黨員。 我們現在正在重建我們的軍隊, 拿走資金,就無法確保 我們的兄弟姐妹, 我們的妻子先生, 能夠得到他們所需的訓練和裝備, 以能在遙遠的地方守護我們—— 從他們那裡拿錢, 並不是個有效運用資源的方式, 特別是還把錢拿來建造…… 我會說這是用 4 世紀的方法, 來解決 21 世紀的問題。 現實是,我們應該把焦點放在 造成這個問題的其他根本原因, 你們今天的很多講者 都談到這個部分。 關鍵的根本問題包括暴力、失業 和極端貧窮, 特別是在北三角:薩爾瓦多、 瓜地馬拉和宏都拉斯。 我們應該要著手——
AM: I was going to ask what you would recommend United States government does to address the underlying, what we call push factors, or root causes in those three countries in Central America?
安:我想問的是,你會建議 美國政府用什麼方式來處理 中美洲那三個國家的 人口外移的推力或者根本原因?
WH: One of the things I learned as an undercover officer in the CIA is be nice with nice guys and tough with tough guys. And one of the principles of being nice with nice guys is to strengthen our alliances. We have a number of programs currently in these three countries that USAID and the State Department is doing to address this violence issue. And we know, in El Salvador, one of the problems was that the police were corrupt. And so we've worked with the Salvadorians to purge the police, rehire new folks, use community policing tactics. These are tactics the men and women in the United States of America and police forces use every single day. And when we did this in certain communities, guess what happened? We saw a decrease in the violence that was happening in those communities. And then we also saw a decrease in the number of people that were leaving those areas to try to come to the United States illegally. So it's a fraction of the cost to solve a problem there, before it ultimately reaches our border. And one of the reasons that you have violence and crime is political corruption and the lack of central governments to protect its citizens. And so this is something we should be continuing to work on. We shouldn't be decreasing the amount of money that we have that we're sending to these countries. I actually think we should be increasing it. I believe the first thing -- we should have done this months ago -- is select a special representative for the Northern Triangle. That's a senior diplomat that's going to work to make sure we're using all of our levers of power to help these three countries, and then that we're doing it in a coordinated effort. This is not just a problem for the United States and Mexico, this is a problem for the entire western hemisphere. So, where is the Organization of American States? Where is the International Development Bank? We should be having a collective plan to address these root causes.
威:我在中情局擔任臥底探員時 學到的其中一件事 就是對好人好一點, 對兇悍的人兇悍一點。 對好人好一點的原則之一 就是鞏固我們的結盟國家。 我們目前有很多針對 這三個國家的專案, 美國國際開發署和國務院 正在致力解決暴力問題。 我們知道,在薩爾瓦多, 其中一個問題是警方腐敗。 所以我們已經在和薩爾瓦多 合作整肅警察, 僱用新人, 採用社區警務策略。 這些策略是美國人民 和警察每天在用的。 當我們在某些社區這麼做時, 猜猜結果如何? 我們發現那些社區中的暴力減少了。 接著,我們也看到 試圖從那些地方 非法進入美國的人數下降了。 所以在問題來到我們的邊界以前, 花一點成本就能先 將問題在當地解決。 而會有暴力和犯罪的原因之一, 就是政治腐敗, 以及中央政府無法保護人民。 所以這是我們應該持續做的。 我們不應該減少 我們對這些國家的金援。 我其實認為應該要增加金額。 我認為,第一步—— 我們幾個月前就該這麼做了—— 是要針對北三角選出一位特別代表。 要是一位資深的外交官, 他的工作是要確保我們使用各種力量 來協助這三個國家, 且要用同心協力的方式來進行。 這不只是美國和墨西哥的問題, 這是整個西半球的問題。 所以,美洲國家組織在哪裡? 美洲開發銀行在哪裡? 我們應該要有一個共同計畫 來處理這些根本原因。
And when you talk about violence, a lot of times, we talk about these terrible gangs like MS-13. But it's also violence like women being beaten by their husbands. And they have nobody else to go to, and they are unable to deal with this current problem. So these are the types of issues that we should be increasing our diplomacy, increasing our economic development aid.
我們談到暴力時, 通常我們想到的是可怕的幫派, 像是 MS-13。 但暴力也包括女性被丈夫家暴。 她們沒有求助的管道, 她們無法處理這個問題。 針對這幾類問題, 我們應該增加外交, 增加經濟開發援助。
AM: Please, I want to take you now from thinking about the root causes in Central America to thinking about the separation of children and families in the United States. Starting in April 2018, the Trump administration began a no-tolerance policy for immigrants, people seeking refugee status, asylum in the United States. And that led to the separation of 2,700 children in the first year that that program was run. Now, I want to address this with you, and I want to separate it up front into two different conversations. One of the things that the administration did was file legal court papers, saying that one of the primary purposes of the separations was to act as a deterrent against people coming to the United States. And I want to talk for a moment about that from a moral perspective and to get your views.
安:我現在想要 把話題從中美洲的根本原因 帶到兒童和家人 在美國被拆散的現象。 2018 年 4 月開始, 川普政府就展開了一項零容忍政策, 對象是在美國的移民、 尋求難民身分和政治庇護的人。 該計畫實施的第一年, 就導致 2,700 名兒童被拆散。 現在我想要和你談談這件事, 我想要先把它分成 兩個不同的話題來談。 政府做的其中一件事 就是向法院提出法律文件, 說明拆散他們的主要目的之一 是要對打算來美國的人 產生威懾作用。 我想要花點時間 從道德的觀點來談這件事, 也想聽聽你的看法。
WH: We shouldn't be doing it, period. It's real simple. And guess what, it wasn't a deterrent. You only saw an increase in the amount of illegal immigration. And when you're sitting, debating a strategy, if somebody comes up with the idea of snatching a child out of their mother's arms, you need to go back to the drawing board. This is not what the United States of America stands for, this is not a Republican or a Democrat or independent thing. This is a human decency thing. And so, using that strategy, it didn't achieve the ultimate purpose. And ultimately, the amount of research that is done and the impact that the detention of children has -- especially if it's over 21 days -- has on their development and their future is disastrous. So we shouldn't be trying to detain children for any more than 21 days, and we should be getting children, if they're in our custody, we should be taking care of them humanely, and making sure they're with people that can provide them a safe and loving environment.
威:我們不該這麼做, 就這樣。就這麼簡單。 你知道嗎,那並沒有威懾作用。 你只會發現 非法移民的數量增加。 當你坐下來討論策略時, 如果有人提出一個想法, 是要把孩子從母親的懷中奪走, 這個想法必須作廢。 這不是美國精神, 這無關你是共和黨、 民主黨還是獨立人士。 這關乎人道尊嚴。 所以,採用那種策略 並沒有達到終極目標。 最終,根據研究, 拘留對兒童的影響—— 特別是拘留超過 21 天—— 對他們的發展和未來 會造成災難性的影響。 所以我們不應該 拘留兒童超過 21 天, 如果我們有拘留兒童, 我們應該要給他們人道的照顧, 確保他們身邊的人 能提供他們安全和有愛的環境。
AM: I would challenge you even on the 21-day number, but for the purposes of this conversation, I want to follow up on something you just said, which is both that it's wrong to detain children, and that it's not effective. So the question, then, is why does the administration continue to do it, when we've seen 900 additional children separated from their parents since the summer of 2018? Why is this happening?
安:我連 21 天 這個數字都想質疑, 但就這段對話而言, 我想要探討你剛剛說的, 你剛說拘留兒童是不對的事, 且沒有效果。 那麼問題是, 為什麼政府持續這麼做? 從 2018 年夏天開始, 又有 900 名兒童被與父母被拆散。 為什麼這件事仍在發生?
WH: Well, that's something that you'd have to ultimately ask the administration. These are questions that I've been asking. The Tornillo facility is in my district. These are buildings that are not designed to hold anybody for multiple days, let alone children. We should be making sure that if they are in our custody -- a lot of times for the uncompanied children, we don't have a ... we don't know of a patron or a family member in the United States, and we should make sure that they're in facilities where they're able to go to school and have proper food and health care. And if we're able to find a sponsor or family member, let's get them into that custody, while they're waiting for their immigration court case. That's the other issue here. When you have a backlog of cases -- I think it's now 900,000 cases that are backlogged -- we should be able to do an immigration hearing within nine months. I think most of the legal community thinks that is enough time to do something like this, so that we can facilitate whether someone, an individual, is able to stay in the United States or they're going to have to be returned back to their home country, rather than being in this limbo for five years.
威:這個問題最終 你得要問政府。 我也一直在問這些問題。 托尼洛拘留營就在我的選區。 這些建築物的設計 並不是用來拘留人好幾天的, 更不用說拘留兒童了。 我們應該要確保 他們在我們的監護之下—— 通常,沒有人陪伴的兒童, 我們沒有…… 我們不知道他們在美國 有沒有庇護者或家人, 我們應該要確保他們待在營區時, 能讓他們上學、 有妥善的食物和健康照護的機構。 如果我們能夠找到贊助人或家人, 那就先讓他們回到 贊助人或家人的監護, 讓他們在那邊 等待移民法庭案件審理。 不過那是另一個議題了。 當你已經積壓了一堆案件, 我想目前已經積壓了 90 萬件案件—— 我們應該能在 9 個月內 舉辦移民聽證會。 我想,大部分的 法律團體都會認為 這樣的時間是足夠做這種事的, 這樣我們就能加速知道哪些人 是否能夠留在美國, 哪些人會被遣返回他的祖國, 而不是讓他們生活在 未知的處境 5 年。
AM: If we think about the asylum system today, where people are coming and saying that they have a credible threat, that they will be persecuted back home, and we think about the fact that on average, it's about two years for someone to get an asylum hearing, that many people are not represented as they go through that process, it makes me think about something that they say in the health care space all the time, which is that every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets. And so as you think about this and think about how we would redesign this system to not do what we're doing, which is years and years of detention and separations and hardship for people seeking -- and again, asylum being a lawful United States government process -- for people seeking to enter our country lawfully. What should we do?
安:想想現今的庇護制度, 人們會跑來說 他們遇到實際的威脅, 如果返國他們會被迫害, 而平均來說, 大概要花 2 年的時間, 才能取得庇護聽證會的機會, 很多人在經歷這個過程時, 並沒有法律代表, 這讓我想到 在醫療照護圈子裡常常在說的事, 就是每個體制都是 為了它想得到的結果而設計的。 所以,想想這一點, 想想我們能如何重新設計體制, 不要去做現在我們在做的事, 那就是年復一年的 拘留、分離和困境, 對象都是在尋求—— 再說一次,庇護是合法的 美國政府流程—— 對象都是在尋求合法 進入我們國家的人。 我們該怎麼做?
WH: I tried to increase by four billion dollars the amount of resources that HHS has in order to specifically deal, ultimately, with children. I think we need more immigration judges in order to process these cases, and I think we need to ensure that folks can get representation. I've been able to work with a number of lawyers up and down the border to make sure they are being able to get access to the folks that are having these problems. And so this is something that we should be able to design. And ultimately, when it comes to children, we should be doing everything we can when they're in our custody, in order to take care of them.
威:我試圖為 美國衛生及公共服務部 增加 40 億美金的資源, 來特別處理兒童的問題。 我想我們需要更多移民法官 來處理這些案件, 我想我們也需要確保 這些人能有法律代表。 我一直往來邊界與一些律師合作, 確保他們能夠接觸到 有這些問題的人。 這些應該是我們能夠設計的。 最終,談到兒童, 當他們在我們的監護下時, 我們應該竭盡全力, 好好照顧他們。
AM: So I have two more questions for you before I'm going to let you go back to work. The first is about our focus in the United States on the questions of immigration. Because if you look at some of the statistics, you see that of people who are undocumented in the United States, the majority of people have overstayed on visas, they haven't come through the border. If you look at the people who try to enter the country who are on the terrorist watch list, they enter overwhelmingly through the airports and not through the border. If we look at drugs coming into the United States, which has been a huge part of this conversation, the vast majority of those drugs come through our ports and through other points of entry, not through backpacks on people crossing the border. So the thing I always ask and I always worry about with government, is that we focus so much on one thing, and my question for you is whether we are focused in this conversation nationally about the border, every day and every minute of every day, whether we're looking completely in the wrong direction.
安:我還有兩個問題想請教你, 然後讓你回去工作。 第一個問題是關於美國 在移民問題上的焦點。 如果你去看一些統計數據, 你會發現,在美國, 非法移民的人, 大部分是簽證過期後滯留的人, 他們並不是從邊界進來的。 如果你去看試圖進入美國的人, 且是在恐怖份子名單上的人, 他們幾乎都是從機場進入, 而不是邊界。 如果我們去看進入美國的毒品, 這也是這個議題中很重要的一部分, 大部分的毒品是從港口 和其他入境口進來的, 而不是藏在邊界穿越者的背包進入的。 所以,我總是在問, 且政府很讓我擔心的一點, 就是我們太聚焦在單一焦點上, 我想問你的問題是, 我們是否太聚焦? 全國都在談論邊界議題, 每天,每分鐘都在談論, 我們是否完全看錯方向?
WH: I would agree with your premise. When you have -- let's start with the economic benefits. When you have 3.6 percent unemployment, what does that mean? That means you need folks in every industry, whether it's agriculture or artificial intelligence. So why aren't we streamlining legal immigration? We should be able to make this market based in order to have folks come in and be productive members of our society. When it comes to the drug issue you're talking about, yes, it's in our ports of entry, but it's also coming in to our shores. Coast Guard is only able to action 25 percent of the known intelligence they have on drugs coming into our country. The metric that we should be measuring [is] are we seeing a decrease of deaths from overdose from drugs overseas, are we seeing a decrease in illegal immigration? It's not how many miles of fencing that we have ultimately built. And so we have benefited from the brain drain of every other country for the last couple of decades. I want to see that continue, and I want to see that continue with the hardworking drain. And I can sell you this: at last Congress, Pete Aguilar, a Democrat from California, and I had a piece of legislation called the USA Act: strong border security, streamline legal immigration, fix DACA -- 1.2 million kids who have only known the United States of America as their home -- these kids, or I should say young men and women, they are already Americans, let's not have them go through any more uncertainty and make that ultimately happen. We had 245 people that were willing to sign this bill into law, it wasn't allowed to come forward under a Republican speaker, and also the current Democratic speaker hasn't brought this bill through in something that we would be able to pass.
威:我認同你的假設。 當你有—— 我們從經濟利益開始談起。 當你有 3.6% 的失業率, 那代表什麼? 那意味著,每個產業都缺人, 不論是農業或者人工智慧產業。 所以,為什麼我們 不提高合法移民的效率? 我們應該要能以市場為基礎 讓人進來, 讓他們成為我們社會中 有產能的成員。 至於你說的毒品議題, 是的,毒品是從入境口進來的, 但毒品也進入我們的海岸線了。 海岸巡防隊只能針對 25% 他們掌握的毒品情報採取行動。 我們應該衡量的標準是 使用來自海外的毒品 過量而死的人數有下降嗎? 非法移民的人數有下降嗎? 重點不是我們最終 建了多少英里的圍牆。 幾十年來, 我們一直受益於 其他國家的人才外流。 我希望這能持續下去, 我希望能持續看到努力的人才流入。 我可以跟各位說: 在上次國會會議中, 加州的民主黨議員皮特阿圭拉和我 提出「美國法案」的立法: 強大的邊界安全, 高效率的合法移民, 修正「童年入境者暫緩遣返手續」 —— 有 120 萬名兒童, 知道的家只有美國—— 這些兒童,或應該說 年輕男性和女性, 他們已經是美國人了, 我們別再讓他們經歷 更多的不確定性, 不要讓他們最終被遣返。 我們有 245 個人 願意簽署這個法案的立法, 但共和黨的眾議院院長 不讓此法案提出, 目前民主黨的議長也沒有 將這個法案推往可以通過的方向。
AM: So I want to close, and you are, perhaps, most famous -- I don't know if that's fair -- but you took a road trip with Beto O'Rourke from your district to Washington, DC, and you've become known for reaching across the aisle and engaging in these bipartisan conversations. And one of the things I've seen you say repeatedly is to talk about how we are all united. And I think, when we think about the language of immigration and we start hearing words about enemies and militarization, I think the real question is: How do we convince all Americans to understand what you say that more unites us than divides us?
安:我想要總結, 你最有名的事件是—— 我不知道這麼說是否公正—— 但你和貝托歐洛克曾一起公路旅行, 從你的轄區到華盛頓特區, 而你也因為跨越黨派 以及參與兩黨對談而變得有名。 我看到你一直強調的, 是我們都有相同之處。 我認為當我們想到關於移民的話題, 我們會聽到關於敵人 和軍事化的字眼。 我認為真正的問題在於: 我們如何說服所有美國人 去了解你所說的,比起分歧, 我們有更多相同處。
WH: Crisscrossing a district like mine that's truly 50-50 -- 50 percent Democrat, 50 percent Republican, it's been very clear to me that way more unites us than divides us. And if we focus on those things that we agree on, we'll all be better off. And I'm not going to get a perfect attendance award for going to church, but I do remember when Jesus was in the Second Temple and the Pharisees asked him what's the most important commandment, and he said to "Love thy Lord God with all your heart, mind and soul." But people forget he also said, "Equally as important, is to love thy neighbor like thyself." And if we remember that and realize what it would mean, and what you would have to be going through to be living in a situation that you may send your child on a 3,000-mile perilous journey, because that's what you think the only thing for their future, the only thing that you can do to make sure their future is bright, if we all remember that situation, and think what we would do in that situation, I think we'd also be better off.
威:劃分像我這樣的選區, 那真的是一半一半—— 一半民主黨,一半共和黨, 我深知,我們的相同處 遠比我們的分歧還多。 如果我們能專注在 我們都認同的事情上, 我們都能變得更好。 在上教堂這件事上, 我不會得全勤獎, 但我記得耶穌在第二聖殿裡, 法利賽人問祂, 哪一條誡命最重要? 祂說:「你要盡心、盡性、 盡意愛主-你的神」, 但人們忘了祂還說:「同樣重要的, 是要愛人如愛己」。 如果我們都能記得這點, 並了解你要經歷 什麼樣的處境, 才會讓你把你的孩子送上一段 3,000 英里的危險旅程, 因為你認為這是為了他們的未來 唯一能做的事, 你唯一能做的,就是 確保他們有一個光明的未來。 如果我們都能想到那樣的處境, 然後想想如果是我們, 我們會怎麼做? 我想我們能夠變得更好。
AM: Thank you, Congressman. Thank you so much for joining us tonight.
安:謝謝你,議員。 非常感謝你今晚的參與。
(Applause)
(掌聲)