So, on Friday afternoon, U.S. President Donald Trump

所以，上週五下午，美國總統唐納德-特朗普

signed an Executive Order that reshapes U.S. immigration law,

簽署行政命令，重塑美國移民法。

and there's been a lot of confusion about it, even within the Government,

並且有很多關於它的混亂，甚至在政府內部。

about who's affected by this law and precisely what it means.

關於誰受此法律的影響以及它的確切含義。

So I thought today I'd take a closer look at what the Executive Order actually says.

所以我想今天我就仔細看看行政命令到底說了些什麼。

So first, the order bans, for a period of 90 days, all "immigrant and non immigrant"

是以，首先，該命令禁止，在90天內，所有 "移民和非移民"。

entry into the United States from all citizens of seven nations --

七個國家的所有公民進入美國 -- --

Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.

伊朗、伊拉克、利比亞、索馬里、蘇丹和葉門。

These seven nations seem to have been chosen

這七個國家似乎是被選中的

because they were cited in 2015 and 2016 laws

因為它們在2015年和2016年的法律中被引用了。

signed by President Obama that required residents of those countries

奧巴馬總統簽署的要求這些國家的居民

to get a visa to visit the United States.

以獲得訪問美國的簽證。

But the Executive Order states that they can't enter the United States even with a visa,

但行政命令規定，他們即使有簽證也不能進入美國。

although there are a few exceptions for diplomats.

儘管外交官有少數例外。

So what does this mean? Well, for an Iranian professor at Yale,

那麼這意味著什麼呢？對於耶魯大學的一位伊朗教授來說。

it means that if she leaves the U.S. she won't be allowed to re-enter it,

這意味著，如果她離開美國，她將不會被允許再次進入美國。

even though she's a well-known opponent of the Iranian regime.

儘管她是眾所周知的伊朗政權的反對者。

And for a doctor who is abroad battling a polio outbreak,

而對於一個在國外與小兒麻痺症疫情作鬥爭的醫生來說。

it meant being denied entry into the U.S. despite his visa to be here.

這意味著被拒絕進入美國，儘管他的簽證在這裡。

Now, I know those probably sound like particular examples of hard-luck stories,

現在，我知道這些可能聽起來像是一些特別的例子，比如說難產的故事。

but because people from those countries already needed visas

但因為這些國家的人已經需要簽證了

with specific reasons to visit the United States,

訪美的具體理由。

like visiting family, or studying, or working in a specialized field,

比如探親，或者學習，或者從事專業領域的工作。

almost all the stories are hard-luck stories.

幾乎所有的故事都是苦逼的故事。

The Executive Order initially also seemed to apply to legal, permanent residents of the United States

該行政命令最初似乎也適用於美國的合法永久居民。

who aren't citizens -- so called "green card" holders,

不是公民的人 -- -- 所謂的 "綠卡 "持有者；

although the language in the order is extremely hard to parse, like, even to those within the government.

雖然命令中的語言極難解析，比如，即使是政府內部的人。

I mean, at one point on Sunday, Tump's chief of staff said the order "does not apply" to green card holders,

我的意思是，在週日，Tump的參謀長一度表示，該命令 "不適用於 "綠卡持有人。

and then later, in the very same interview, said "of course it does" apply to green card holders.

然後後來，在非常相同的採訪中，說 "當然，它確實 "適用於綠卡持有人。

But after much confusion and emergency lawsuits, it now appears that permanent residents

但在經歷了許多混亂和緊急訴訟之後，現在看來永久居民

will not be subject to the ban.

不會受到禁令的影響。

It's also unclear from the language in the order whether it applies to dual citizens.

從命令中的語言也不清楚是否適用於雙重國籍的公民。

Like, if you're a Canadian citizen who was born in Somalia as Canada's Immigration Minister is,

就像，如果你是一個出生在索馬里的加拿大公民，就像加拿大的移民部長一樣。

there's still some confusion as to whether you can enter the U.S.

對於是否可以進入美國，還是有些疑惑。

Now, critics of this part of the Executive Order,

現在，責備這部分行政命令的人。

and I should acknowledge that I am among them,

我應該承認我是他們中的一員。

argue that it is really poorly targeted.

爭辯說，這實在是針對性不強。

I mean, no foreign nationals from any of those seven countries

我的意思是，這七個國家中沒有任何一個國家的外國人

has killed even a single American in a terrorist attack. Ever.

甚至在恐怖襲擊中殺死了一個美國人。從來沒有。

In general, terrorism in the U.S. since 9/11 has been exceedingly rare.

總的來說，自9/11事件以來，美國的恐怖主義事件極為罕見。

Like, in the past decade, American civilians

就像，在過去的十年裡，美國平民

are literally more likely to die by lightning strike than terrorism.

被雷擊致死的可能性比恐怖主義更大。

And notably, most of the attacks that do happen in the U.S.

而值得注意的是，大部分的攻擊，確實發生在美國。

are carried out by American citizens or permanent residents,

由美國公民或永久居民執行；

and those attacks wouldn't be prevented by the order.

而這些攻擊不會被命令所阻止。

Now, the counterargument is that there may be threats from these seven countries we don't know about,

現在，反駁的理由是，可能有來自這七個我們不知道的國家的威脅。

but it's really hard to prove a negative,

但要證明是否定的，真的很難。

like, it's hard for me to prove that I'm not a terrorist

就像，我很難證明我不是恐怖分子一樣。

because, how can you be sure I'm not?

因為，你怎麼能確定我不是？

Just for the record, in case Big Brother is watching -- I'm not.

鄭重聲明 以防老大哥在看... 我沒有

"In case Big Brother..." de-- Big Brother is definitely watching.

"萬一大哥...... "去--大哥肯定在看。

Anyway, all of this is why concerns about the ban don't really fall along traditional left-right lines

總之，這些都是為什麼人們對禁令的關注並不真正沿著傳統的左右路線進行的原因

like, the very conservative Cato Institute, for instance, said

比如說，非常保守的卡託研究所就說過

there is "little national security benefit to Trump's executive order on immigration."

"特朗普的移民行政令對國家安全沒有什麼好處"。

And many, although by no means all, Republican Congress people and Senators agree.

而許多人，雖然絕不是全部，但共和黨的國會人士和參議員都同意。

John McCain and Lindsey Graham, for instance, released a statement saying that

例如，約翰-麥凱恩和林賽-格雷厄姆發表聲明稱，。

the ban may be remembered as a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism.

在人們的記憶中，這項禁令可能是反恐鬥爭中的一個自傷。

And then there is the second part of the Executive Order,

然後是行政命令的第二部分。

which affects admission of refugees into the United States.

影響難民進入美國。

So back in 2011, the Obama administration dramatically slowed the process of refugee applications

所以，早在2011年，奧巴馬政府就大幅放緩了難民申請的進程。

from Iraq for 6 months, an off-sided precedent for what Trump announced on Friday

6個月，為特朗普上週五宣佈的事情開了一個偏門的先例。

but this is very different.

但這是非常不同的。

Trump is suspending all refugee admission to the United States from all countries for 120 days,

特朗普正在120天內暫停所有國家的難民進入美國。

and suspending all refugee resettlement from Syria indefinitely.

並無限期暫停所有來自敘利亞的難民安置工作。

This appears to include people who've already been vetted, approved and received visas,

這其中似乎包括已經經過審核、準許並獲得簽證的人。

which is also very different from what happened in 2011

這也與2011年的情況大不相同。

Side-note -- you may have heard that there is no vetting of Syrian refugees coming into the United States,

附註 -- -- 你可能聽說過，對進入美國的敘利亞難民沒有進行審查。

that is simply not true.

這是不正確的。

As discussed in this video, the process includes a huge variety of background checks and interviews,

正如本視頻中所討論的那樣，這個過程包括大量的背景調查和麵試。

and often takes more than two years.

並且往往需要兩年以上的時間。

The Executive Order also prioritizes (quote)

該行政命令還優先考慮(引用)

"refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution."

"個人以宗教迫害為由提出的難民申請"。

which Trump has said will mean prioritizing Christian refugees when the program restarts

特朗普曾表示，這意味著當該計劃重新啟動時，將優先考慮基督教難民。

although that's not actually stated in the order and it's not clear it would be legal.

雖然這在命令中並沒有實際說明，也不清楚這是否合法。

For context though, last year the US accepted about 39,000 Muslim refugees,

不過就背景而言，去年美國接受了大約3.9萬名穆斯林難民。

about 37,500 Christian ones, and also 8,500 people of other or no faith.

約37,500名基督教徒，還有8,500名其他信仰或沒有信仰的人。

But just to be absolutely clear, Muslim refugees who have been vetted and approved for admission

但要絕對說明的是，穆斯林難民只要經過審查並獲准進入

to the United States cannot currently get in, but neither can Christian or Buddhist refugees

赴美難民目前不能入境，但基督教和佛教難民也不能入境。

for at least 120 days, nor can interpreters who served with the American Armed Forces in Iraq,

至少120天，在美國駐伊拉克武裝部隊服役的口譯員也不能。

because no refugees are being allowed into the United States.

因為沒有難民被允許進入美國。

And this blanket ban also seems to me very poorly targeted.

而這個一刀切的禁令在我看來也是針對性很差。

For one thing, it lumps all refugees together, whether they're from Syria, or South Sudan, or Burma

首先，它把所有的難民混為一談，不管他們是來自敘利亞，還是南蘇丹，或者緬甸

Like, most refugees resettled in the United States in 2015 were not Syrian, they were Burmese.

像，2015年在美國安置的難民大多不是敘利亞人，而是緬甸人。

But also, many Syrian refugees are victims of ISIS who can speak first hand about its horrors

但同時，許多敘利亞難民也是ISIS的受害者，他們可以親口講述ISIS的恐怖。

and that is a moderating force, not a radicalizing one.

而這是一種溫和的力量，而不是激進的力量。

Imagining Syrians monolithically is as dangerously simplistic as imagining that

把敘利亞人想象成一個整體，就像把敘利亞人想象成一個整體一樣，是危險的簡單化。

ending refugee resettlement will solve the US's security challenges.

結束難民安置將解決美國的安全挑戰。

I share John McCain's feeling that ultimately this kind of blanket ban will do more to help terrorist recruitment

我和約翰-麥凱恩一樣，認為這種一刀切的禁令最終會更有助於恐怖分子的招募。

than improve our security.

而不是改善我們的安全。

Now, Trump counters that it will make us more safe, and he certainly has access to top-secret information

現在，特朗普反駁說，這將使我們更加安全，他當然可以獲得絕密資訊。

that I don't have access to;

我沒有機會接觸到的。

but given that these policies wouldn't've prevented a single US terror fatality from the last 40 years,

但考慮到這些政策不會阻止美國過去40年的一次恐怖死亡事件。

it's hard to see exactly how we're safer.

很難看到我們到底如何更安全。

There are also other issues of legal confusion in the order, for instance, the order states (quote)

該命令還存在其他法律混亂的問題，例如，該命令規定（引者注）。

"The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution."

"美國不能也不應該接納那些不支持憲法的人。"

But as many Law professors have pointed out -- that's kind of ludicrous.

但正如許多法學教授所指出的那樣--這是一種可笑的說法。

I mean, according to that sentence, if you are for instance, Canadian

我的意思是，根據這句話，如果你是比如說加拿大的

and you support a parliamentary system of government over the system outlined in the US Constitution,

你支持議會制的政府，而不是美國憲法中規定的制度。

are you no longer legally allowed to visit Disney World? Because that does appear now to be the law.

你是不是不能再合法地去迪士尼樂園了？因為現在看來這確實是法律規定的。

Also, when foreigners attempt to enter the United States, as in most countries,

另外，當外國人試圖進入美國時，與大多數國家一樣。

they have the right to seek asylum, and be interviewed by an immigration officer

他們有權尋求庇護，並接受移民官的面談。

to determine if the asylum seeker has a credible fear of persecution

確定尋求庇護者是否有可信的迫害恐懼；

but the Executive Order explicitly states that "no benefits" will be extended

但行政命令明確規定，"不提供任何福利"。

to citizens of the affected nations when they attempt to enter the United States

受影響國家的公民在試圖進入美國時受到的影響。

and such an interview would probably constitute a benefit.

而這樣的採訪很可能構成一種福利。

So as of now it does not appear that people are being allowed to seek asylum,

所以目前看來，並沒有允許人們尋求庇護。

which is in violation of an existing US law, called the Immigration and Nationality Act,

這違反了美國現行的法律，即《移民和國籍法》。

which an Executive Order cannot legally override.

行政命令在法律上不能推翻。

In short, no matter how you feel about immigration, this Executive Order is a hot mess

簡而言之，不管你對移民有什麼看法，這個行政命令都是一團亂麻。

it is too ambiguous, self contradictory, and unclear to be effective law.

它太含糊、自相矛盾、不明確，不能成為有效的法律。

Now, I wanna emphasize that much of this may be moot in 3 or 4 months

現在，我想強調的是，很多這可能是在3或4個月內沒有意義。

as parts of the order expire,

由於部分訂單過期。

but even if that occurs I worry we've already made a dangerous statement

但即便如此，我也擔心我們已經做出了危險的聲明。

that the US won't do its part in the refugee crisis,

美國不會在難民危機中儘自己的責任。

and that we will discriminate based solely on place of birth.

並且我們將只根據出生地進行歧視。

I think those are mistakes. That imagining a diverse group of over 100 million people

我認為這些都是錯誤。想象一個超過一億人的多元化群體。

to be some terrifying and singular Other only encourages others to imagine us that way.

變成一些可怕的、單一的他者，只會鼓勵別人把我們想象成那樣。

It's hard to imagine people complexly, especially when you're being told to fear them,

很難把人想象得很複雜，尤其是當你被告知要害怕他們的時候。

but I found it helpful to listen, so I put together a playlist of refugees telling their stories

但我覺得聽起來很有幫助，所以我整理了一個難民講故事的播放列表。

and ask you to listen to them, to believe them,

並請你聽他們的話，相信他們。

and to see them as people, instead of merely as threats.

並將其視為人，而不僅僅是威脅。

Hank, I'll see you on Friday.

漢克，週五見。