演講MP3+雙語文稿:關于移民問題的新觀點

00:00

00:00

MP3下載

https://online2.tingclass.net/lesson/shi0529/10000/10387/tedyp209.mp3

https://image.tingclass.net/statics/js/2012

聽力課堂TED音頻欄目主要包括TED演講的音頻MP3及中英雙語文稿，供各位英語愛好者學習使用。本文主要內容為演講MP3+雙語文稿:關于移民問題的新觀點，希望你會喜歡！

[演講者及介紹]Paul A. Kramer

歷史學家、作家保羅·克萊默的作品關注的是美國與更廣闊世界之間不斷變化的關系。

[演講主題]我們在移民問題上的對話中斷了——這里有一個更好的方法

[中英文字幕]

翻譯者 Jinhao Ma 校對者 Junrui Zheng

00:13

We often hear these days that theimmigration system is broken. I want to make the case today that ourimmigration conversation is broken and to suggest some ways that, together, wemight build a better one. In order to do that, I'm going to propose some newquestions about immigration, the United States and the world, questions thatmight move the borders of the immigration debate.

最近，我們總是會聽到有人說移民制度已經崩潰了。但我今天要說，崩潰的是我們關于移民問題的討論，并且我要介紹一些方法，通過共同努力來構建更好的移民對話。為此，我要提出關于移民，美國，和世界的一些新問題，這些問題可能會改變移民爭議的格局。

00:40

I'm not going to begin with the feverishargument that we're currently having, even as the lives and well-being ofimmigrants 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 professorat Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. And when I wasn't studying,sometimes to avoid writing my dissertation, my friends and I would go into townto hand out neon-colored flyers, protesting legislation that was threatening totake away immigrants' rights.

我不會在一開始就討論現在爭論最激烈的話題——即使現今移民的生命和健康都在面臨威脅，而且不只是在美國的國界上，在更大范圍內也是如此。我要先說說我在 90 年代中期的新澤西讀研究生時認真學習美國歷史的事情，這也正是正是我目前以教授的身份在田納西州納什維爾的范德堡大學所教授的課程。當我不學習的時候，有時候為了逃避寫論文，我和朋友會去鎮子里，發一些熒光色的傳單，以此抗議可能會威脅移民權利的法規。

01:20

Our flyers were sincere, they werewell-meaning, they were factually accurate ... But I realize now, they werealso kind of a problem. Here's what they said: "Don't take away immigrantrights to public education, to medical services, to the social safety net. Theywork hard. They pay taxes. They're law-abiding. They use social services lessthan Americans do. They're eager to learn English, and their children serve inthe US military all over the world." Now, these are, of course, argumentsthat we hear every day. Immigrants and their advocates use them as theyconfront those who would deny immigrants their rights or even exclude them fromsociety. And up to a certain point, it makes perfect sense that these would bethe kinds of claims that immigrants' defenders would turn to.

我們的傳單很真誠，也是善意的，而且信息準確真實...... 但我現在意識到，某種意義上說它們本身也是種麻煩。傳單上寫著：“不要奪走移民接受教育、享受醫療 和社會保障網絡的權利。他們工作刻苦。他們按規定繳稅，他們遵紀守法。他們占用的社會服務資源比美國人占用的還少。他們渴望學習英語，他們的孩子也為全球的美國軍隊效力?！边@些也是我們現在經常能聽到的觀點。移民及其支持者們用這些觀點來反駁那些否認移民權利，甚至把他們排擠出社會的人。在一定程度上，我們完全可以理解為什么移民的支持者們會使用此類觀點。

02:15

But in the long term, and maybe even in theshort term, I think these arguments can be counterproductive. Why? Because it'salways 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 ofthese arguments that we hear today were actually playing the anti-immigrantsgame. We were playing that game in part by envisioning that immigrants wereoutsiders, rather than, as I'm hoping to suggest in a few minutes, people thatare already, in important ways, on the inside. It's those who are hostile toimmigrants, the nativists, who have succeeded in framing the immigration debatearound three main questions.

但是從長遠來看，甚至從短期的角度考慮，我認為這些論點都可能適得其反。為什么？因為這終歸是場艱苦的戰斗，因為你得在敵人的地盤上守護你自己。而且，在不知不覺中，我和朋友發出去的傳單，還有我們至今還能聽見的這些觀點的不同版本，正在玩一場反移民的游戲。所以稱作反移民的游戲，是因為我們總想象移民是外來者，而非在各個重要方面都已經融入社會內部的成員，這也是我希望在接下來幾分鐘內詳細介紹的。那些對移民持有敵對態度的本土主義者已經成功地構建了移民議題的框架，主要圍繞這三個問題：

03:04

First, there's the question of whetherimmigrants can be useful tools. How can we use immigrants? Will they make usricher and stronger? The nativist answer to this question is no, immigrants havelittle or nothing to offer.

第一，移民到底能不能成為實用工具。我們如何利用移民？他們會不會使我們更加富強？本土主義者 對這個問題的答案是，不行，移民能對社會做出的貢獻 微乎其微，甚至毫無用處。

03:25

The second question is whether immigrantsare others. Can immigrants become more like us? Are they capable of becomingmore like us? Are they capable of assimilating? Are they willing to assimilate?Here, again, the nativist answer is no, immigrants are permanently differentfrom us and inferior to us.

第二個問題是，移民到底是不是異己者。移民能不能變得更像“我們”？他們具不具備變成“我們”的能力？他們能否被同化？他們愿不愿意被同化？本土主義者的答案同樣是否定的，移民永遠與我們不同，而且低我們一等。

03:49

And the third question is whetherimmigrants are parasites. Are they dangerous to us? And will they drain ourresources? Here, the nativist answer is yes and yes, immigrants pose a threatand they sap our wealth. I would suggest that these three questions and thenativist animus behind them have succeeded in framing the larger contours ofthe immigration debate. These questions are anti-immigrant and nativist attheir core, built around a kind of hierarchical division of insiders andoutsiders, us and them, in which only we matter, and they don't. And what givesthese questions traction and power beyond the circle of committed nativists isthe way they tap into an everyday, seemingly harmless sense of nationalbelonging and activate it, heighten it and inflame it.

第三個問題是，移民到底和我們是不是寄生關系。他們對我們有沒有威脅？他們會不會用光我們的資源？本地人的答案是不容質疑的肯定：他們認為，移民會對我們造成威脅，且吸取著我們的財富。我要說的是，這三個問題，以及它們挾帶的本土主義的仇恨，已經成功地塑造了移民討論的大框架。這些問題的核心都是反移民、本土主義的，而且構建了一種等級制度，創造了本地人和外來者的對立、“我們”和“他們”的對立，而且其中只有“我們”才重要，“他們”不重要。而且，在本土主義者的圈子外仍給予這些問題力量的，是它們以一種極其平常、看似無害的方式利用著人們的民族歸屬感，激起它，強化它，煽動它。

04:51

Nativists commit themselves to making starkdistinctions between insiders and outsiders. But the distinction itself is atthe heart of the way nations define themselves. The fissures between inside andoutside, which often run deepest along lines of race and religion, are alwaysthere to be deepened and exploited. And that potentially gives nativistapproaches resonance far beyond those who consider themselves anti-immigrant,and remarkably, even among some who consider themselves pro-immigrant. So, forexample, when Immigrants Act allies answer these questions the nativists areposing, they take them seriously. They legitimate those questions and, to someextent, the anti-immigrant assumptions that are behind them. When we take thesequestions seriously without even knowing it, we're reinforcing the closed,exclusionary borders of the immigration conversation.

本土主義者們總是竭力將本地人和外來者 明確地劃分開。但是這種劃分本質上取決于 一個國家如何自我定義。所謂“內部”和“外部”之間的裂隙 常常延伸到諸如種族、 宗教的深層因素中，而且總是被別有用心者 深化并利用著。這還給了本土主義方針 潛在的支持者，其中遠不只有自認為 是反對移民的人，甚至還在很大程度上 涵蓋了支持移民的人。舉個例子，在移民法案的支持者 回答本土主義者提出的問題時，他們確實把這些問題當回事了。他們會將這些問題合理化，同時在某種程度上，將這些問題背后的反移民思想也合理化了。當我們無意識地開始重視這些問題時，我們就把移民問題封閉、排外的交流界限 進一步強化了。

05:56

So how did we get here? How did thesebecome the leading ways that we talk about immigration? Here, we need somebackstory, which is where my history training comes in. During the firstcentury of the US's status as an independent nation, it did very little torestrict immigration at the national level. In fact, many policymakers andemployers worked hard to recruit immigrants to build up industry and to serveas settlers, to seize the continent. But after the Civil War, nativist voicesrose in volume and in power. The Asian, Latin American, Caribbean and Europeanimmigrants who dug Americans' canals, cooked their dinners, fought their warsand put their children to bed at night were met with a new and intensexenophobia, which cast immigrants as permanent outsiders who should never beallowed to become insiders.

我們是怎么走到這一步的？這些又是怎么變成我們討論移民問題的主要方式的？這里，我們需要一些背景故事。這也是我的歷史學科背景發揮作用的時候。美國在成為獨立國家的第一個世紀中，它幾乎沒有在國家層面限制移民。事實上，很多政策制定者和老板都努力地 吸收移民、 建立產業，以移民者身份做貢獻，充分利用美洲大陸的發展機會。但是在內戰之后，本土主義的聲浪漸漸增強，變得更有分量。來自亞洲、拉丁美洲、加勒比地區和歐洲的移民，即便幫助了美國開鑿運河，幫他們做了晚飯，替他們打了仗，悉心照顧了他們孩子，仍遭遇了新一輪強烈的仇外心理。這讓移民變成了永遠的“局外人”，并且永遠不能成為這個國家的“局內人”。

07:00

By the mid-1920s, the nativists had won,erecting racist laws that closed out untold numbers of vulnerable immigrantsand refugees. Immigrants and their allies did their best to fight back, butthey found themselves on the defensive, caught in some ways in the nativists'frames. When nativists said that immigrants weren't useful, their allies saidyes, they are. When nativists accused immigrants of being others, their alliespromised that they would assimilate. When nativists charged that immigrantswere dangerous parasites, their allies emphasized their loyalty, theirobedience, their hard work and their thrift. Even as advocates welcomedimmigrants, many still regarded immigrants as outsiders to be pitied, to berescued, to be uplifted and to be tolerated, but never fully brought inside asequals in rights and respect.

1920 年代中期，本土主義者大獲全勝，建立了種族主義的法律，將不計其數的 弱勢的移民和難民拒之門外。移民和他們的支持者 盡了全力回擊，但最后還是發現自己處于被動一方，被困在本土主義者所建立的話語框架中。當本土主義者說移民者毫無用處時，他們的支持者說，不，他們有用。當本土主義者指責移民成為異己分子時，他們的支持者保證他們會被社會同化。當本土主義者指控移民是危險的寄生蟲時，他們的支持者又強調他們的忠誠、恭順、勤奮和節儉。就算有倡導者歡迎移民，很多人仍然把移民當作異己分子，只能被可憐，被拯救，被激勵，被忍受，但是從未被平等地、有尊嚴地完全接納。

08:11

After World War II, and especially from themid-1960s until really recently, immigrants and their allies turned the tide,overthrowing mid-20th century restriction and winning instead a new system thatprioritized family reunification, the admission of refugees and the admissionof those with special skills. But even then, they didn't succeed infundamentally changing the terms of the debate, and so that framework endured,ready to be taken up again in our own convulsive moment. That conversation isbroken. The old questions are harmful and divisive.

在第二次世界大戰之后，尤其是從 1960 年代中期至今，移民及其的支持者們逆轉了這股洪流，推翻了二十世紀中期的限制，并且贏得了優先考慮家庭團聚、接納難民、 接納有特殊技能的人的新體制。但是就算如此，他們還是沒有從根本上改變辯論的主題，導致討論框架仍在延續，而且隨時會伴著我們的驚駭被再次提起。關于移民問題的討論已經破裂。那些老舊的問題是有害的、分裂的。

08:56

So how do we get from that conversation toone that's more likely to get us closer to a world that is fairer, that is morejust, that's more secure? I want to suggest that what we have to do is one ofthe hardest things that any society can do: to redraw the boundaries of whocounts, of whose life, whose rights and whose thriving matters. We need toredraw the boundaries. We need to redraw the borders of us. In order to dothat, we need to first take on a worldview that's widely held but alsoseriously flawed. According to that worldview, there's the inside of the nationalboundaries, inside the nation, which is where we live, work and mind our ownbusiness. And then there's the outside; there's everywhere else. According tothis worldview, when immigrants cross into the nation, they're moving from theoutside to the inside, but they remain outsiders. Any power or resources theyreceive are gifts from us rather than rights.

那么我們如何才能從破裂的交流中走出來，進入新的交流，好讓我們更有可能朝著一個更加公平、更加正義、 和更加安全的世界邁進一步？ 我想要說的是，我們現在要做的，是任何社會都最難做到的事情之一：重新規劃界限——重新決定誰重要，重新決定誰的生命、權利和繁榮發展重要。我們需要重新規劃這些界限。我們需要重新定義“我們”的范圍。為此，我們首先需要接納一種被廣泛采納，卻有著嚴重缺陷的世界觀。根據這種世界觀，國家有國境線內部、國家內部，即我們生活，工作和過自己日子的地方。然后國家有“外部”：所有其它地方。根據這種世界觀，當移民跨境進入一個國家時，他們從國家“外面”來到“內部”，但他們也只是“外來者”。他們獲得的任何權力或資源都是我們給的禮物，而非權利。

10:12

Now, it's not hard to see why this is sucha commonly held worldview. It's reinforced in everyday ways that we talk andact 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 waythe 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 wherefew Americans work, like agriculture. Since the nation's founding, Americanshave been inside the American workforce. Of course, Americans have built upinstitutions in society that guarantee rights. But so have immigrants. They'vebeen there during every major social movement, like civil rights and organized labor,that have fought to expand rights in society for everyone. So immigrants arealready inside the struggle for rights, democracy and freedom.

我們不難理解為什么這種世界觀如此普遍。它被我們日常說話、做事和行動的方式所強化，其中甚至還包括我們掛在教室里的、劃分了國境的地圖。這個世界觀的問題是，它與世界實際的運作方式，還有其以前的運作方式已經脫節了。誠然，美國本土勞動者在社會中積累了財富。但是移民也一樣，特別是在美國經濟一些不可或缺，而且少有美國人工作的領域，例如農業。自美國建國以來，美國國民一直在美國勞動人口的“內部”。誠然，美國人已經建立了可以保障權利的 社會機構。但移民也是如此。所有重大社會運動中 都有他們的身影，例如爭取公民權和工會的過程，為擴展每個人的社會權利而斗爭。所以，移民早已在斗爭過程的“內部”，與其他人一起爭取權利、民主和自由。

11:20

And finally, Americans and other citizensof the Global North haven't minded their own business, and they haven't stayedwithin their own borders. They haven't respected other nations' borders.They've gone out into the world with their armies, they've taken overterritories and resources, and they've extracted enormous profits from many ofthe countries that immigrants are from. In this sense, many immigrants areactually already inside American power. With this different map of inside andoutside in mind, the question isn't whether receiving countries are going tolet immigrants in. They're already in. The question is whether the UnitedStates and other countries are going to give immigrants access to the rightsand resources that their work, their activism and their home countries havealready played a fundamental role in creating. With this new map in mind, wecan turn to a set of tough, new, urgently needed questions, radically differentfrom the ones we've asked before -- questions that might change the borders ofthe immigration debate. Our three questions are about workers' rights, aboutresponsibility and about equality.

最后，美國國民和北半球其他發達國家的公民并未只關注自己的生活，而且沒有只留在自己國家境內。他們并未尊重其他國家的邊境線，而是他們已經帶著自己的軍隊向這個世界進發；他們已經接管了領土和資源，他們從那些移民的原屬國獲得了巨大的利潤。從這種意義上說，許多移民實際上已經在美國管轄“內部”了。只要我們心里有這種展現不一樣的“內部”和“外部”的地圖，問題就不在于國家會不會允許移民進入。他們已經進去了。問題是，美國和其他國家是否會允許移民們獲得本國的權利和資源，盡管移民們的工作、對權利的積極爭取，還有他們的祖國在本國構建權利和資源的過程中已經扮演了重要角色。心里有了這張新地圖，我們可以開始處理一系列艱難的、迫切需要解決的新問題，它們完全不同于我們之前曾問過的那些——這些問題可能會改變移民討論話題的邊界。我們的三個問題關乎勞工的權利，關乎責任，關乎平等。

12:45

First, we need to be asking about workers'rights. How do existing policies make it harder for immigrants to defendthemselves and easier for them to be exploited, driving down wages, rights andprotections for everyone? When immigrants are threatened with roundups,detention and deportations, their employers know that they can be abused, thatthey can be told that if they fight back, they'll be turned over to ICE. Whenemployers know that they can terrorize an immigrant with his lack of papers, itmakes that worker hyper-exploitable, and that has impacts not only forimmigrant workers but for all workers.

首先，我們需要問有關勞工權利的問題?，F有政策如何增加了移民保衛自己的難度，使他們更容易被剝削，還威脅了所有人的薪酬、權利與應受的保護？當移民面對著圍捕、監禁和驅逐出境的威脅，他們的雇主知道他們可以被壓迫，還可以告訴他們，如果他們反擊，就會被交給移民局。當雇主知道，自己能以身份證明材料不足為由恫嚇移民勞工，移民勞工便極易被剝削了。而且，這不僅會影響到移民，更會影響所有勞工。

13:25

Second, we need to ask questions aboutresponsibility. What role have rich, powerful countries like the United Statesplayed in making it hard or impossible for immigrants to stay in their homecountries? 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 wantto survive. Wars, trade agreements and consumer habits rooted in the GlobalNorth play a major and devastating role here. What responsibilities do theUnited States, the European Union and China -- the world's leading carbonemitters -- have to the millions of people already uprooted by global warming?

其次，我們要問責任的問題。像美國這樣發達的國家，在令移民難以乃至無法留在原屬國的過程中，扮演了怎樣的角色？從自己的國家搬出來是困難而危險的，但是很多移民為了生存，根本沒有留在家里的選項。植根于發達國家的戰爭、貿易協定和消費習慣具有毀滅性作用，承擔了主要責任。像美國、歐盟和中國這樣世界主要的碳排放國家，在全球變暖迫使數以百萬計的人背井離鄉的過程中又應承擔怎樣的責任？

14:12

And third, we need to ask questions aboutequality. Global inequality is a wrenching, intensifying problem. Income andwealth gaps are widening around the world. Increasingly, what determineswhether you're rich or poor, more than anything else, is what country you'reborn in, which might seem great if you're from a prosperous country. But itactually means a profoundly unjust distribution of the chances for a long,healthy, fulfilling life. When immigrants send money or goods home to theirfamily, it plays a significant role in narrowing these gaps, if a veryincomplete one. It does more than all of the foreign aid programs in the worldcombined.

第三，我們需要問有關平等的問題。全球不平等的現象導致民不聊生，而且這種情況還在加劇。收入和財富差距在世界范圍內都有所擴大。在當今世界，決定你是富人還是窮人的 首要因素，是你出生于哪個國家。如果你生在富裕國家，感覺似乎不錯，但這實際上意味著極度的不公平：實現長壽，健康，充實的人生的機會分布極不平衡。移民向其家庭匯款、郵寄生活用品的過程在縮小這些差距上起著重要的作用，甚至是唯一的作用因素。它的作用甚至比世界上所有移民幫扶項目加起來產生的作用還要大。

14:59

We began with the nativist questions, aboutimmigrants as tools, as others and as parasites. Where might these newquestions about worker rights, about responsibility and about equality take us?These questions reject pity, and they embrace justice. These questions rejectthe nativist and nationalist division of us versus them. They're going to helpprepare us for problems that are coming and problems like global warming thatare already upon us.

我們最開始從本土主義的問題出發，探討了移民的工具性、異己性 與寄生性。而這些探討了勞工的權利、 責任 和平等的新問題 又把我們領向何處呢？ 這些問題拒絕憐憫，擁抱公平正義。這些問題拒絕本土主義、民粹主義 對“我們”和“他們”的割裂。這些問題將幫我們 為即將出現的問題做好準備，也幫我們為全球變暖這種 已經存在的問題做好了準備。

15:36

It's not going to be easy to turn away fromthe questions that we've been asking towards this new set of questions. It's nosmall 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 giveway overnight. And even if we manage to change the questions, the answers aregoing 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 thequestion of who has the power to join the conversation and who doesn't. But theborders of the immigration debate can be moved. It's up to all of us to movethem.

摒棄我們長久以來所問的問題并接受這些新問題不會輕松。挑戰并擴大“我們”的范圍是個不小的挑戰。這個過程需要智慧、創造力和勇氣。我們在舊的問題上糾纏已久，它們不會自行解決，也不會在一夜之間消失。即使我們設法改變了這些問題，答案將會非常復雜，且需要犧牲與權衡。在不平等的世界里，我們必須時刻注意誰擁有參與移民討論的能力，而誰沒有。但是移民辯論的邊界可以被修正，而修正它們的責任就落在我們每個人身上。

16:27

Thank you.

謝謝。

16:28

(Applause)

（掌聲）