演讲MP3+双语文稿:关于移民问题的新观点
听力课堂TED音频栏目主要包括TED演讲的音频MP3及中英双语文稿，供各位英语爱好者学习使用。本文主要内容为演讲MP3+双语文稿:关于移民问题的新观点，希望你会喜欢！
[演讲者及介绍]Paul A. Kramer
历史学家、作家保罗·克莱默的作品关注的是美国与更广阔世界之间不断变化的关系。
[演讲主题]我们在移民问题上的对话中断了——这里有一个更好的方法
[中英文字幕]
翻译者 Jinhao Ma 校对者 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，我们总是会听到有人说移民制度已经崩溃了。但我今天要说，崩溃的是我们关于移民问题的讨论，并且我要介绍一些方法，通过共同努力来构建更好的移民对话。为此，我要提出关于移民，美国，和世界的一些新问题，这些问题可能会改变移民争议的格局。
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.
我不会在一开始就讨论现在争论最激烈的话题——即使现今移民的生命和健康都在面临威胁，而且不只是在美国的国界上，在更大范围内也是如此。我要先说说我在 90 年代中期的新泽西读研究生时认真学习美国历史的事情，这也正是正是我目前以教授的身份在田纳西州纳什维尔的范德堡大学所教授的课程。当我不学习的时候，有时候为了逃避写论文，我和朋友会去镇子里，发一些荧光色的传单，以此抗议可能会威胁移民权利的法规。
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.
我们的传单很真诚，也是善意的，而且信息准确真实...... 但我现在意识到，某种意义上说它们本身也是种麻烦。传单上写着：“不要夺走移民接受教育、享受医疗 和社会保障网络的权利。他们工作刻苦。他们按规定缴税，他们遵纪守法。他们占用的社会服务资源比美国人占用的还少。他们渴望学习英语，他们的孩子也为全球的美国军队效力。”这些也是我们现在经常能听到的观点。移民及其支持者们用这些观点来反驳那些否认移民权利，甚至把他们排挤出社会的人。在一定程度上，我们完全可以理解为什么移民的支持者们会使用此类观点。
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.
但是从长远来看，甚至从短期的角度考虑，我认为这些论点都可能适得其反。为什么？因为这终归是场艰苦的战斗，因为你得在敌人的地盘上守护你自己。而且，在不知不觉中，我和朋友发出去的传单，还有我们至今还能听见的这些观点的不同版本，正在玩一场反移民的游戏。所以称作反移民的游戏，是因为我们总想象移民是外来者，而非在各个重要方面都已经融入社会内部的成员，这也是我希望在接下来几分钟内详细介绍的。那些对移民持有敌对态度的本土主义者已经成功地构建了移民议题的框架，主要围绕这三个问题：
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，移民到底能不能成为实用工具。我们如何利用移民？他们会不会使我们更加富强？本土主义者 对这个问题的答案是，不行，移民能对社会做出的贡献 微乎其微，甚至毫无用处。
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.
第二个问题是，移民到底是不是异己者。移民能不能变得更像“我们”？他们具不具备变成“我们”的能力？他们能否被同化？他们愿不愿意被同化？本土主义者的答案同样是否定的，移民永远与我们不同，而且低我们一等。
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.
第三个问题是，移民到底和我们是不是寄生关系。他们对我们有没有威胁？他们会不会用光我们的资源？本地人的答案是不容质疑的肯定：他们认为，移民会对我们造成威胁，且吸取着我们的财富。我要说的是，这三个问题，以及它们挟带的本土主义的仇恨，已经成功地塑造了移民讨论的大框架。这些问题的核心都是反移民、本土主义的，而且构建了一种等级制度，创造了本地人和外来者的对立、“我们”和“他们”的对立，而且其中只有“我们”才重要，“他们”不重要。而且，在本土主义者的圈子外仍给予这些问题力量的，是它们以一种极其平常、看似无害的方式利用着人们的民族归属感，激起它，强化它，煽动它。
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.
本土主义者们总是竭力将本地人和外来者 明确地划分开。但是这种划分本质上取决于 一个国家如何自我定义。所谓“内部”和“外部”之间的裂隙 常常延伸到诸如种族、 宗教的深层因素中，而且总是被别有用心者 深化并利用着。这还给了本土主义方针 潜在的支持者，其中远不只有自认为 是反对移民的人，甚至还在很大程度上 涵盖了支持移民的人。举个例子，在移民法案的支持者 回答本土主义者提出的问题时，他们确实把这些问题当回事了。他们会将这些问题合理化，同时在某种程度上，将这些问题背后的反移民思想也合理化了。当我们无意识地开始重视这些问题时，我们就把移民问题封闭、排外的交流界限 进一步强化了。
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.
我们是怎么走到这一步的？这些又是怎么变成我们讨论移民问题的主要方式的？这里，我们需要一些背景故事。这也是我的历史学科背景发挥作用的时候。美国在成为独立国家的第一个世纪中，它几乎没有在国家层面限制移民。事实上，很多政策制定者和老板都努力地 吸收移民、 建立产业，以移民者身份做贡献，充分利用美洲大陆的发展机会。但是在内战之后，本土主义的声浪渐渐增强，变得更有分量。来自亚洲、拉丁美洲、加勒比地区和欧洲的移民，即便帮助了美国开凿运河，帮他们做了晚饭，替他们打了仗，悉心照顾了他们孩子，仍遭遇了新一轮强烈的仇外心理。这让移民变成了永远的“局外人”，并且永远不能成为这个国家的“局内人”。
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，本土主义者大获全胜，建立了种族主义的法律，将不计其数的 弱势的移民和难民拒之门外。移民和他们的支持者 尽了全力回击，但最后还是发现自己处于被动一方，被困在本土主义者所建立的话语框架中。当本土主义者说移民者毫无用处时，他们的支持者说，不，他们有用。当本土主义者指责移民成为异己分子时，他们的支持者保证他们会被社会同化。当本土主义者指控移民是危险的寄生虫时，他们的支持者又强调他们的忠诚、恭顺、勤奋和节俭。就算有倡导者欢迎移民，很多人仍然把移民当作异己分子，只能被可怜，被拯救，被激励，被忍受，但是从未被平等地、有尊严地完全接纳。
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.
在第二次世界大战之后，尤其是从 1960 年代中期至今，移民及其的支持者们逆转了这股洪流，推翻了二十世纪中期的限制，并且赢得了优先考虑家庭团聚、接纳难民、 接纳有特殊技能的人的新体制。但是就算如此，他们还是没有从根本上改变辩论的主题，导致讨论框架仍在延续，而且随时会伴着我们的惊骇被再次提起。关于移民问题的讨论已经破裂。那些老旧的问题是有害的、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.
那么我们如何才能从破裂的交流中走出来，进入新的交流，好让我们更有可能朝着一个更加公平、更加正义、 和更加安全的世界迈进一步？ 我想要说的是，我们现在要做的，是任何社会都最难做到的事情之一：重新规划界限——重新决定谁重要，重新决定谁的生命、权利和繁荣发展重要。我们需要重新规划这些界限。我们需要重新定义“我们”的范围。为此，我们首先需要接纳一种被广泛采纳，却有着严重缺陷的世界观。根据这种世界观，国家有国境线内部、国家内部，即我们生活，工作和过自己日子的地方。然后国家有“外部”：所有其它地方。根据这种世界观，当移民跨境进入一个国家时，他们从国家“外面”来到“内部”，但他们也只是“外来者”。他们获得的任何权力或资源都是我们给的礼物，而非权利。
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.
我们不难理解为什么这种世界观如此普遍。它被我们日常说话、做事和行动的方式所强化，其中甚至还包括我们挂在教室里的、划分了国境的地图。这个世界观的问题是，它与世界实际的运作方式，还有其以前的运作方式已经脱节了。诚然，美国本土劳动者在社会中积累了财富。但是移民也一样，特别是在美国经济一些不可或缺，而且少有美国人工作的领域，例如农业。自美国建国以来，美国国民一直在美国劳动人口的“内部”。诚然，美国人已经建立了可以保障权利的 社会机构。但移民也是如此。所有重大社会运动中 都有他们的身影，例如争取公民权和工会的过程，为扩展每个人的社会权利而斗争。所以，移民早已在斗争过程的“内部”，与其他人一起争取权利、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，美国国民和北半球其他发达国家的公民并未只关注自己的生活，而且没有只留在自己国家境内。他们并未尊重其他国家的边境线，而是他们已经带着自己的军队向这个世界进发；他们已经接管了领土和资源，他们从那些移民的原属国获得了巨大的利润。从这种意义上说，许多移民实际上已经在美国管辖“内部”了。只要我们心里有这种展现不一样的“内部”和“外部”的地图，问题就不在于国家会不会允许移民进入。他们已经进去了。问题是，美国和其他国家是否会允许移民们获得本国的权利和资源，尽管移民们的工作、对权利的积极争取，还有他们的祖国在本国构建权利和资源的过程中已经扮演了重要角色。心里有了这张新地图，我们可以开始处理一系列艰难的、迫切需要解决的新问题，它们完全不同于我们之前曾问过的那些——这些问题可能会改变移民讨论话题的边界。我们的三个问题关乎劳工的权利，关乎责任，关乎平等。
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，我们需要问有关劳工权利的问题。现有政策如何增加了移民保卫自己的难度，使他们更容易被剥削，还威胁了所有人的薪酬、权利与应受的保护？当移民面对着围捕、监禁和驱逐出境的威胁，他们的雇主知道他们可以被压迫，还可以告诉他们，如果他们反击，就会被交给移民局。当雇主知道，自己能以身份证明材料不足为由恫吓移民劳工，移民劳工便极易被剥削了。而且，这不仅会影响到移民，更会影响所有劳工。
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，我们要问责任的问题。像美国这样发达的国家，在令移民难以乃至无法留在原属国的过程中，扮演了怎样的角色？从自己的国家搬出来是困难而危险的，但是很多移民为了生存，根本没有留在家里的选项。植根于发达国家的战争、贸易协定和消费习惯具有毁灭性作用，承担了主要责任。像美国、欧盟和中国这样世界主要的碳排放国家，在全球变暖迫使数以百万计的人背井离乡的过程中又应承担怎样的责任？
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，我们需要问有关平等的问题。全球不平等的现象导致民不聊生，而且这种情况还在加剧。收入和财富差距在世界范围内都有所扩大。在当今世界，决定你是富人还是穷人的 首要因素，是你出生于哪个国家。如果你生在富裕国家，感觉似乎不错，但这实际上意味着极度的不公平：实现长寿，健康，充实的人生的机会分布极不平衡。移民向其家庭汇款、邮寄生活用品的过程在缩小这些差距上起着重要的作用，甚至是唯一的作用因素。它的作用甚至比世界上所有移民帮扶项目加起来产生的作用还要大。
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.
我们最开始从本土主义的问题出发，探讨了移民的工具性、异己性 与寄生性。而这些探讨了劳工的权利、 责任 和平等的新问题 又把我们领向何处呢？ 这些问题拒绝怜悯，拥抱公平正义。这些问题拒绝本土主义、民粹主义 对“我们”和“他们”的割裂。这些问题将帮我们 为即将出现的问题做好准备，也帮我们为全球变暖这种 已经存在的问题做好了准备。
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.
摒弃我们长久以来所问的问题并接受这些新问题不会轻松。挑战并扩大“我们”的范围是个不小的挑战。这个过程需要智慧、创造力和勇气。我们在旧的问题上纠缠已久，它们不会自行解决，也不会在一夜之间消失。即使我们设法改变了这些问题，答案将会非常复杂，且需要牺牲与权衡。在不平等的世界里，我们必须时刻注意谁拥有参与移民讨论的能力，而谁没有。但是移民辩论的边界可以被修正，而修正它们的责任就落在我们每个人身上。
16:27
Thank you.
谢谢。
16:28
(Applause)
（掌声）
