PBS高端访谈:难民和移民的区别是什么?（在线收听）

AMNA NAWAZ: In September, the Trump administration proposed an annual refugee cap of 18,000 people for the year 2020. That's down from the low of 30,000 refugees this year. But what makes someone a refugee and another person a migrant? Tonight, writer Dina Nayeri offers her Humble Opinion on that important difference.

DINA NAYERI, Author, The Ungrateful Refugee: What Immigrants Never Tell You: In 1989, when I was 10, I arrived in Oklahoma as a refugee. In Iran, my mother had been threatened with execution for converting to Christianity, so we were recognized as political dissidents and granted asylum. According to American law, refugees are entitled asylum because they have suffered persecution and face future danger, whereas economic migrants must prove their merit. The difference between these two groups may seem obvious, danger to one's life, but, in practice, it is anything but. When you apply for asylum, either at the border or in an embassy, often before you have had legal advice, you're given what's called a credible fear assessment. Let's say you're from Central America and a gang demanded money from you. You refused, and they threatened to kill you. Naturally, you fled. At the U.S. border, the officer will ask for the specific reason that you refused the gang. The truth is there are many reasons you didn't pay. You don't have the money. It stinks to face extortion every day. But if you happen to say to the officer, Because I didn't have the money, then you don't qualify for refugee status. But if instead you say, Because I don't believe gangs should be running my country, that would make you a refugee. Why? Because you have a well-founded fear of future persecution based on your political opinion, that the country shouldn't be run by gangs. Think about that for a minute. If you testify that the gang said, We will kill you, you cheapskate, you're just a migrant.

If they said, We will kill you, you traitor, you're a refugee. Seems arbitrary, doesn't it, to hang an entire person's fate on the gangster's insult of choice? I come from a family of doctors and scholars. When we had our asylum interview, we knew that our Christianity was the central question. If my mother had been less educated about what she shouldn't say, she might have wept about her marriage or a lack of money after we escaped Iran. If she had, would our asylum have been denied? Would I be a writer now, or a frustrated housewife forced to live under a head scarf? I'd like to believe that would have been a waste. So here's my question: How meaningful is the distinction between migrant and refugee? Is this really a useful way to decide how much people have suffered and what care and protection we owe to our fellow man? And how exactly do you define a life in danger? If a life is sure to be wasted in poverty, without education, opportunity, or purpose, isn't that a kind of danger too?

阿姆纳·纳瓦兹：9月，特朗普提出2020年一整年可进入美国的难民上限是1.8万人。这个数量与今年的3万相比降低了。但难民和移民的区别是什么呢？今晚，作家蒂娜·奈叶利分享了她对这一重要区别的想法。

蒂娜·奈叶利，《不知感恩的难民：移民永远不会告诉你的事》作者：1989年，我10岁，那时候，我以难民的身份来到了俄克拉荷马州。在伊朗，我的母亲一直受到被处决的威胁，因为她转而皈依基督教了。因此，我们被认定为持不同政见的人，同时也得到了庇护。根据美国法律，难民获得庇护的条件是他们遭受了迫害，未来面临着危险；而经济移民则需要证明自己的优势。这两类群体之间的区别看起来似乎很显眼，有人的生命受到了威胁，但实际上正好相反。每当有人申请壁虎的时候，不是在边境，就是在大使馆，在申请庇护之前，通常都还没获得法律建议，有的只是所谓的可信的恐惧评估。比如，一个人来自中美洲，有一伙人向这个人索要钱财。这个人拒绝之后，这伙人威胁说要杀了这个人。那么这个人自然会逃离这里。在美国边境上，工作人员会询问你拒绝这伙人的具体原因。而实情是，你拒绝这伙人可能有很多原因。可能是你没有钱，所以你每天都要遭受勒索。但如果你恰好对另一名过个工作人员说：我当时没有钱。那么你可能就不符合难民的资格。但如果你说：因为我觉得这伙人不应该掌管我们的国家。那么你可能就可以成为一名难民。为啥呢？因为你有充分的理由说明自己未来可能会遭受迫害，因为你的政见不同。你的政见就是这伙人不该掌管你们的国家。思考一下：如果你提供证词的时候说这伙人曾对你说——我们会杀了你，你个一毛不拔的铁公鸡，你不过就是个移民罢了。

如果他们说——我们会杀了你，你个叛国贼，你个臭难民。这些话听起来都很武断对不对？居然把一个人的命运跟一伙流氓的侮辱言辞绑定在一起？我们家都是做医生和学者的。我们做庇护面试的时候，我们知道基督教会成为问我们的主要问题。如果我母亲未曾了解过我们应该在这场面试中说什么的话，那么母亲可能会，哭诉我们逃离伊朗之后她所经历的悲惨婚姻和身无长物的生活境遇。如果母亲当时真地这样哭诉的话，那么我们的庇护申请会被拒绝吗？我现在还能成为一名作家吗？还是说，我现在会是一名对生活灰心丧气的家庭主妇，每日只能被迫戴着头巾生活呢？我倾向于认为这是一种浪费。那么我的问题是：难民和移民之间有意义的区别是什么呢？这种方法真的有用吗？真的能判断一个人遭遇了多少事吗？真的能判断该为一个人提供多少保护吗？我还想问：应该怎样定义一个人是否处于危险呢？如果一条生命一定会在贫穷中荒废一生的话，如果一条生命要终身无法接受教育、无法获得机会、无所事事浑浑噩噩的话，这是否也是一种危险呢？