We often hear these days that the immigration system is broken.
最近，我们总是会听到有人说移民制度已经崩溃了。
I want to make the case today that our immigration conversation is broken
但我今天要说，崩溃的是我们关于移民问题的讨论，
and to suggest some ways that, together, we might build a better one.
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。
In order to do that, I'm going to propose some new questions about immigration, the United States and the world,
为此，我要提出关于移民、美国和世界的一些新问题，
questions that might move the borders of the immigration debate.
这些问题可能会改变移民争议的格局。
I'm not going to begin with the feverish argument that we're currently having,
我不会在一开始就讨论现在争论最激烈的话题，
even as the lives and well-being of immigrants are being put at risk at the US border and far beyond it.
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。
Instead, I'm going to begin with me in graduate school in New Jersey in the mid-1990s, earnestly studying US history,
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，
which is what I currently teach as a professor at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee.
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。
And when I wasn't studying, sometimes to avoid writing my dissertation,
当我不学习的时候，有时候为了逃避写论文，
my friends and I would go into town to hand out neon-colored flyers,
我和朋友会去镇子里，发一些荧光色的传单，
protesting legislation that was threatening to take away immigrants' rights.
以此抗议可能会威胁移民权利的法规。
Our flyers were sincere, they were well-meaning, they were factually accurate...
我们的传单很真诚，也是善意的，而且信息准确真实...
But I realize now, they were also kind of a problem.
但我现在意识到，某种意义上说它们本身也是种麻烦。
Here's what they said: "Don't take away immigrant rights to public education, to medical services, to the social safety net.
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。
They work hard. They pay taxes. They're law-abiding. They use social services less than Americans do.
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。
They're eager to learn English, and their children serve in the US military all over the world."
他们渴望学习英语，他们的孩子也为全球的美国军队效力。”
Now, these are, of course, arguments that we hear every day.
这些也是我们现在经常能听到的观点。
Immigrants and their advocates use them as they confront those who would deny immigrants their rights or even exclude them from society.
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。
And up to a certain point, it makes perfect sense that these would be the kinds of claims that immigrants' defenders would turn to.
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。
But in the long term, and maybe even in the short term, I think these arguments can be counterproductive.
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。
Why? Because it's always an uphill battle to defend yourself on your opponent's terrain.
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。
And, unwittingly, the handouts my friends and I were handing out
而且，在不知不觉中，我和朋友发出去的传单，
and the versions of these arguments that we hear today were actually playing the anti-immigrants game.
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。
We were playing that game in part by envisioning that immigrants were outsiders,
所以称作反移民的游戏，是因为我们总想象移民是外来者，
rather than, as I'm hoping to suggest in a few minutes, people that are already, in important ways, on the inside.
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。
It's those who are hostile to immigrants, the nativists,
那些对移民持有敌对态度的本土主义者
who have succeeded in framing the immigration debate around three main questions.
已经成功地构建了移民议题的框架，主要围绕这三个问题。
First, there's the question of whether immigrants can be useful tools.
第一，移民到底能不能成为实用工具。
How can we use immigrants? Will they make us richer and stronger?
我们如何利用移民？他们会不会使我们更加富强？
The nativist answer to this question is no, immigrants have little or nothing to offer.
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。
The second question is whether immigrants are others.
第二个问题是，移民到底是不是异己者。
Can immigrants become more like us? Are they capable of becoming more like us?
移民能不能变得更像“我们”？他们具不具备变成“我们”的能力？
Are they capable of assimilating? Are they willing to assimilate?
他们能否被同化？他们愿不愿意被同化？
Here, again, the nativist answer is no, immigrants are permanently different from us and inferior to us.
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。
And the third question is whether immigrants are parasites.
第三个问题是，移民到底和我们是不是寄生关系。
Are they dangerous to us? And will they drain our resources?
他们对我们有没有威胁？他们会不会用光我们的资源？
Here, the nativist answer is yes and yes, immigrants pose a threat and they sap our wealth.
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。
I would suggest that these three questions and the nativist animus behind them
我要说的是，这三个问题，以及它们挟带的本土主义的仇恨，
have succeeded in framing the larger contours of the immigration debate.
已经成功地塑造了移民讨论的大框架。
These questions are anti-immigrant and nativist at their core,
这些问题的核心都是反移民、本土主义的，
built around a kind of hierarchical division of insiders and outsiders, us and them, in which only we matter, and they don't.
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。
And what gives these questions traction and power beyond the circle of committed nativists
而且，在本土主义者的圈子外仍给予这些问题力量的，
is the way they tap into an everyday, seemingly harmless sense of national belonging and activate it, heighten it and inflame it.
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。
Nativists commit themselves to making stark distinctions between insiders and outsiders.
本土主义者们总是竭力将本地人和外来者明确地划分开。
But the distinction itself is at the heart of the way nations define themselves.
但是这种划分本质上取决于一个国家如何自我定义。
The fissures between inside and outside, which often run deepest along lines of race and religion,
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，
are always there to be deepened and exploited.
而且总是被别有用心者深化并利用着。
And that potentially gives nativist approaches resonance far beyond those who consider themselves anti-immigrant,
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，
and remarkably, even among some who consider themselves pro-immigrant.
甚至还在很大程度上涵盖了支持移民的人。
So, for example, when Immigrants Act allies answer these questions the nativists are posing, they take them seriously.
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。
They legitimate those questions and, to some extent, the anti-immigrant assumptions that are behind them.
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。
When we take these questions seriously without even knowing it,
当我们无意识地开始重视这些问题时，
we're reinforcing the closed, exclusionary borders of the immigration conversation.
我们就把移民问题封闭、排外的交流界限进一步强化了。
So how did we get here? How did these become the leading ways that we talk about immigration?
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？
Here, we need some backstory, which is where my history training comes in.
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。
During the first century of the US's status as an independent nation,
美国在成为独立国家的第一个世纪中，
it did very little to restrict immigration at the national level.
它几乎没有在国家层面限制移民。
In fact, many policymakers and employers worked hard to recruit immigrants
事实上，很多政策制定者和老板都努力地吸收移民、
to build up industry and to serve as settlers, to seize the continent.
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。
But after the Civil War, nativist voices rose in volume and in power.
但是在内战之后，本土主义的声浪渐渐增强，变得更有分量。
The Asian, Latin American, Caribbean and European immigrants who dug Americans' canals, cooked their dinners,
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，
fought their wars and put their children to bed at night were met with a new and intense xenophobia,
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。
which cast immigrants as permanent outsiders who should never be allowed to become insiders.
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”。
By the mid-1920s, the nativists had won, erecting racist laws that closed out untold numbers of vulnerable immigrants and refugees.
20世纪20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。
Immigrants and their allies did their best to fight back,
移民和他们的支持者尽了全力回击，
but they found themselves on the defensive, caught in some ways in the nativists' frames.
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。
When nativists said that immigrants weren't useful, their allies said yes, they are.
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。
When nativists accused immigrants of being others, their allies promised that they would assimilate.
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。
When nativists charged that immigrants were dangerous parasites,
当本土主义者指控移民是危险的寄生虫时，
their allies emphasized their loyalty, their obedience, their hard work and their thrift.
他们的支持者又强调他们的忠诚、恭顺、勤奋和节俭。
Even as advocates welcomed immigrants, many still regarded immigrants as outsiders to be pitied, to be rescued,
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，
to be uplifted and to be tolerated, but never fully brought inside as equals in rights and respect.
被激励，被忍受，但是从未被平等地、有尊严地完全接纳。

After World War II, and especially from the mid-1960s until really recently, immigrants and their allies turned the tide,
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，
overthrowing mid-20th century restriction and winning instead a new system that prioritized family reunification,
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、
the admission of refugees and the admission of those with special skills.
接纳难民、接纳有特殊技能的人的新体制。
But even then, they didn't succeed in fundamentally changing the terms of the debate,
但是就算如此，他们还是没有从根本上改变辩论的主题，
and so that framework endured, ready to be taken up again in our own convulsive moment.
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。
That conversation is broken. The old questions are harmful and divisive.
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。
So how do we get from that conversation to one
那么我们如何才能从这样的交流中走出来，进入一个新的交流，
that's more likely to get us closer to a world that is fairer, that is more just, that's more secure?
好让我们更有可能朝着更加公平、更加正义和更加安全的世界迈进一步？
I want to suggest that what we have to do is one of the hardest things that any society can do:
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：
to redraw the boundaries of who counts, of whose life, whose rights and whose thriving matters.
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。
We need to redraw the boundaries. We need to redraw the borders of us.
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。
In order to do that, we need to first take on a worldview that's widely held but also seriously flawed.
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。
According to that worldview, there's the inside of the national boundaries, inside the nation,
根据这种世界观，国家有国境线内部、国家内部，
which is where we live, work and mind our own business.
即我们生活、工作和过自己日子的地方。
And then there's the outside; there's everywhere else.
然后国家有“外部”：所有其它地方。
According to this worldview, when immigrants cross into the nation,
根据这种世界观，当移民跨境进入一个国家时，
they're moving from the outside to the inside, but they remain outsiders.
他们从国家“外面”来到“内部”，但他们也只是“外来者”。
Any power or resources they receive are gifts from us rather than rights.
他们获得的任何权力或资源都是我们给的礼物，而非权利。
Now, it's not hard to see why this is such a commonly held worldview.
我们不难理解为什么这种世界观如此普遍。
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.
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。
The problem with this worldview is that it just doesn't correspond to the way the world actually works,
这个世界观的问题是，它与世界实际的运作方式，
and the way it has worked in the past.
还有其以前的运作方式已经脱节了。
Of course, American workers have built up wealth in society.
诚然，美国本土劳动者在社会中积累了财富。
But so have immigrants, particularly in parts of the American economy that are indispensable and where few Americans work, like agriculture.
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。
Since the nation's founding, Americans have been inside the American workforce.
自美国建国以来，美国国民一直在美国劳动人口的“内部”。
Of course, Americans have built up institutions in society that guarantee rights. But so have immigrants.
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。
They've been there during every major social movement, like civil rights and organized labor,
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，
that have fought to expand rights in society for everyone.
为扩展每个人的社会权利而斗争。
So immigrants are already inside the struggle for rights, democracy and freedom.
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。
And finally, Americans and other citizens of the Global North haven't minded their own business,
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，
and they haven't stayed within their own borders. They haven't respected other nations' borders.
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。
They've gone out into the world with their armies, they've taken over territories and resources,
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，
and they've extracted enormous profits from many of the countries that immigrants are from.
他们从那些移民的原属国获得了巨大的利润。
In this sense, many immigrants are actually already inside American power.
从这种意义上说，许多移民实际上已经在美国管辖“内部”了。
With this different map of inside and outside in mind,
只要我们心里有这种展现不一样的“内部”和“外部”的地图，
the question isn't whether receiving countries are going to let immigrants in. They're already in.
问题就不在于国家会不会允许移民进入。他们已经进去了。
The question is whether the United States and other countries are going to give immigrants access to the rights and resource
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，
that their work, their activism and their home countries have already played a fundamental role in creating.
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。
With this new map in mind, we can turn to a set of tough, new, urgently needed questions,
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，
radically different from the ones we've asked before -- questions that might change the borders of the immigration debate.
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。
Our three questions are about workers' rights, about responsibility and about equality.
我们的三个问题关乎劳工的权利，关乎责任，关乎平等。
First, we need to be asking about workers' rights.
首先，我们需要问有关劳工权利的问题。
How do existing policies make it harder for immigrants to defend themselves and easier for them to be exploited,
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，
driving down wages, rights and protections for everyone?
还威胁了所有人的薪酬、权利与应受的保护？
When immigrants are threatened with roundups, detention and deportations, their employers know that they can be abused,
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，
that they can be told that if they fight back, they'll be turned over to ICE.
还可以告诉他们，如果他们反击，就会被交给移民局。
When employers know that they can terrorize an immigrant with his lack of papers,
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，
it makes that worker hyper-exploitable, and that has impacts not only for immigrant workers but for all workers.
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。
Second, we need to ask questions about responsibility.
其次，我们要问责任的问题。
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?
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？
Picking up and moving from your country is difficult and dangerous,
从自己的国家搬出来是困难而危险的，
but many immigrants simply do not have the option of staying home if they want to survive.
但是很多移民为了生存，根本没有留在家里的选项。
Wars, trade agreements and consumer habits rooted in the Global North play a major and devastating role here.
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。
What responsibilities do the United States, the European Union and China -- the world's leading carbon emitters
像美国、欧盟和中国这样世界主要的碳排放国家，
have to the millions of people already uprooted by global warming?
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？
And third, we need to ask questions about equality.
第三，我们需要问有关平等的问题。
Global inequality is a wrenching, intensifying problem.
全球不平等的现象导致民不聊生，而且这种情况还在加剧。
Income and wealth gaps are widening around the world.
收入和财富差距在世界范围内都有所扩大。
Increasingly, what determines whether you're rich or poor, more than anything else, is what country you're born in,
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，
which might seem great if you're from a prosperous country.
如果你生在富裕国家，感觉似乎不错。
But it actually means a profoundly unjust distribution of the chances for a long, healthy, fulfilling life.
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。
When immigrants send money or goods home to their family,
移民向其家庭汇款、邮寄生活用品的过程，
it plays a significant role in narrowing these gaps, if a very incomplete one.
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。
It does more than all of the foreign aid programs in the world combined.
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。
We began with the nativist questions, about immigrants as tools, as others and as parasites.
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。
Where might these new questions about worker rights, about responsibility and about equality take us?
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？
These questions reject pity, and they embrace justice.
这些问题拒绝怜悯，拥抱公平正义。
These questions reject the nativist and nationalist division of us versus them.
这些问题拒绝本土主义、民粹主义对“我们”和“他们”的割裂。
They're going to help prepare us for problems that are coming and problems like global warming that are already upon us.
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。
It's not going to be easy to turn away from the questions that we've been asking towards this new set of questions.
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。
It's no small challenge to take on and broaden the borders of us. It will take wit, inventiveness and courage.
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。
The old questions have been with us for a long time,
我们在旧的问题上纠缠已久，
and they're not going to give way on their own, and they're not going to give way overnight.
它们不会自行解决，也不会在一夜之间消失。
And even if we manage to change the questions,
即使我们设法改变了这些问题，
the answers are going to be complicated, and they're going to require sacrifices and tradeoffs.
答案将会非常复杂，且需要牺牲与权衡。
And in an unequal world,
在不平等的世界里，
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.
我们必须时刻注意谁拥有参与移民讨论的能力，而谁没有。
But the borders of the immigration debate can be moved. It's up to all of us to move them. Thank you.
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。谢谢。