美歐移民策略爲何不同

What should western politicians be most worried about: growth, inequality, the environment, education? To judge from today’s discourse, the answer seems to be none of the above. Instead, in the past month, both Barack Obama, US president, and David Cameron, UK prime minister, have made big speeches on immigration. At the weekend Swiss voters rejected a proposal virtually to end the flow of incomers to their country. But anti-immigration parties have made strong gains in a variety of other European nations, including Sweden and Italy, in the past year.

西方政界人士最應該擔憂的是什麼？增長、不平等、環境還是教育？從當前流行話題來判斷，答案似乎不在其中。相反，一個多月來，美國總統巴拉克•奧巴馬(Barack Obama)和英國首相戴維•卡梅倫(David Cameron)都就移民問題發表了重要講話。日前，瑞士選民否決了一項幾乎不再接納新移民的提案。但在過去一年中，反移民政黨在其他多個歐洲國家——包括瑞典和意大利——取得了重大進展。

Immigration is now clearly at the very centre of political debate in the west. But, in the past couple of weeks, the European and US debates have branched off in different directions.

眼下，移民問題顯然是西方政治辯論的核心。但在過去幾周內，歐洲和美國在這一問題上的辯論走向出現了分化。

Two weeks ago Mr Obama announced plans to shield millions of illegal immigrants from potential deportation. For all the bitter divisions his proposals stirred up, the likelihood is that they will ultimately help to push the American debate in a more liberal direction.

不久前，奧巴馬宣佈了將使數百萬非法移民免於被驅逐的計劃。儘管他提議採取的措施激起了很大爭議，最終卻可能有助於推動美國移民辯論朝着自由主義的方向演變。

In Europe, by contrast, the rise of populist anti-immigration parties, such as Britain’s UK Independence party and France’s National Front, is still driving the debate to the right.

相比之下，英國獨立黨(UKIP)和法國國民陣線(National Front)等歐洲民粹主義反移民政黨的崛起正將移民辯論推向更右傾的方向。

Mr Cameron announced plans to restrict welfare benefits for legal migrants from the rest of the EU and to force those who fail to find a job to leave the country. Across the Channel, meanwhile, Nicolas Sarkozy, the former (and possibly future) president of France, has called for the repeal of the Schengen rules that have dismantled frontier controls within the EU.

卡梅倫最近宣佈的計劃將限制來自歐盟其他國家的合法移民的福利，並強制那些沒有找到工作的移民離境。與此同時，在英吉利海峽的另一邊，法國前總統（或許以後還會再度擔任總統）尼古拉•薩科齊(Nicolas Sarkozy)呼籲廢止在歐盟境內取消邊境管控的申根協定。

Despite the differences in rhetoric, the immigration numbers across the Rich world are strikingly similar. Estimates by the OECD of the foreign-born population in its member states in 2011 was 11-13 per cent for the US, the UK, Germany and France. Switzerland, with a foreign-born population of 27.3 per cent, is a real outlier – which might account for the special vehemence of the debate there.

儘管論調不同，發達國家的移民數據卻驚人地相似。據經合組織(OECD)估測，2011年在其成員國中，美國、英國、德國和法國的外國出生人口比例均在11%到13%之間。而瑞士的這一比例達27.3%，是發達國家中真正的異數，或許這也解釋了爲何瑞士的移民辯論格外激烈。

Rich countries are clearly a magnet for migrants from poorer nations and the pull is growing stronger. According to the OECD, the flow of global migration doubled between 2000 and 2010, compared to the preceding decade.

對來自較貧窮國家的移民來說，富裕國家顯然就像一塊磁石，而且吸引力還在不斷增強。根據經合組織的數據，2000年到2010年間，全球移民的流動規模比上個十年翻了一番。

Globalisation has made both travel and communication much easier. The comparative wealth of western Europe or North America is broadcast across the world. Established immigrant communities in developed nations can help newcomers and provide legal routes into the country. And, where there is no legal route, there are always people- smugglers and the black economy.

全球化使旅行和通訊更加便利。西歐和北美的相對富裕在世界各地可謂家喻戶曉。發達國家成熟的移民社區能幫助新來的移民，並提供進入該國的合法途徑。而且，就算沒有合法途徑，也總會有蛇頭和黑市經濟。

Immigrants often do jobs that locals are unwilling or unable to perform. But they are also routinely blamed for holding down wages and for putting pressure on public services and housing. With levels of inequality rising in the west, it is not hard for populist politicians to argue that limousine liberals are benefiting from cheap, immigrant labour– while evading the social consequences.

移民常常從事本地人不願或不能從事的工作。但人們也時常指責移民拉低了薪資水平，增大了公共服務和住房的壓力。隨着西方的不平等程度持續上升，民粹主義政治人士也就可以很方便地宣稱，坐豪車的自由派人士從廉價的移民勞動力中獲益——同時還能不引起社會後果。

So far, so similar. But the US and European approaches are diverging. Mr Obama has taken on the anti-immigration lobby, casting them as un-American and inhumane. In Britain and the rest of Europe, however, many governments are still promising to “crack down” on immigration, in some form or another – even if political leaders such as Mr Cameron refrain from challenging the EU’s commitment to free movement of labour.

到這裏，美國和歐洲的情況還很相似。但美歐的策略正在出現差異。奧巴馬與反移民遊說團體展開了較量，稱他們是反美國精神和不人道的。而在英國和歐洲其他地方，許多政府還許諾以某種形式“打擊”移民，儘管卡梅倫等政治領袖仍避免挑戰歐盟關於勞動力自由流動的承諾。

The difference partly reflects the fact that Mr Obama is a centre-left politician and Mr Cameron is a conservative. The US Democrats also see an electoral advantage in luring the Republicans into taking a hard line on immigration, which will alienate Hispanic voters.

這種差異部分源於奧巴馬是中左翼的政治人士，而卡梅倫是保守主義者。美國民主黨人也發現，誘使共和黨人在移民問題上採取強硬態度，會讓他們疏遠西班牙裔選民，在選舉上對民主黨有利。

In Europe the political calculations point in the opposite direction. Mr Cameron fears losing support to Ukip, which has made opposition to mass immigration its central theme. Other centre-right politicians in the EU, such as Mr Sarkozy, also seem most concerned about the threat from the far right.

在歐洲，政治考量則指向了相反的方向。卡梅倫擔心選民會轉而支持以反對大量移民爲中心議題的英國獨立黨。歐盟其他中右翼的政治人士，如薩科齊，似乎也極擔憂來自極右翼政治勢力的威脅。

Behind the politics, however, there is also an emerging difference in philosophy. Mr Cameron, Mr Sarkozy and politicians to their right still stress the language of “control”. Their argument is that voters are unhappy about high levels of immigration and that it is their duty to respond.

然而，在政治的背後，美歐之間的理念差異也開始浮現。卡梅倫、薩科齊和比他們更偏右的政治人士依然強調“控制”這種措辭。他們的論點是，既然選民對大量移民不滿，他們就有責任做出迴應。

Mr Obama, though, is taking an approach that sounds more fatalistic. He says he will strengthen border controls but adds that “tracking down, rounding up and deporting millions of people isn’t realistic”.

奧巴馬採取的策略聽起來更順其自然一些。他表示將加強邊境管控，但他也說“追查、圍堵和驅逐數百萬人是不現實的。”

Implicit in the Obama argument is the idea that, in the era of globalisation, rich nations are just going to have to get used to the notion that they will continue to be a magnet for migrants from poorer parts of the world. The alternative is to start turning your country into a fortress or a police state.

奧巴馬的論點中隱含的意思是，在全球化時代，對來自世界更貧窮地方的移民來說，富國將繼續保持磁石一般的吸引力，而富國只能去適應這一點。否則就會把國家變成一個堡壘或者極權國家。

There are several reasons why the Obama argument might work in the US. As the president pointed out, America was built by immigrants. It is also a continent-sized country that has plenty of space. And it has an established two-party system that makes it harder for single-issue, anti-immigration parties to gain ground.

奧巴馬的論點可能在美國行得通有幾點原因。正如他指出的，美國是移民建立起來的國家，幅員遼闊，地方很大。而且，兩黨制在美國建立已久，這使單一議題的反移民政黨更難在美國取得進展。

But none of those conditions prevail on the other side of the Atlantic. As a result, the populist right is likely to make the running in Europe’s immigration debate for some years to come.

而大西洋彼岸的國家都不具備這些條件。因此，在接下來的許多年裏，民粹主義右翼勢力可能還將主導歐洲的移民辯論。