移民與恐懼政治
Priyanjali Malik
刊登日期：2025年10月23日 凌晨12:36（印度標準時間）
在上個月的聯合國大會上，美國總統唐納．川普（Donald Trump）對歐洲領袖大聲斥責：「是時候結束那場開放邊界的失敗實驗了……你們的國家正在墮落地獄。」這番話明確地把他的反移民思想，輸出到那片他蘇格蘭母親曾離開、移民美國的歐洲大陸。
焦點的轉移
移民問題在英國長期以來都是爭議性極高的議題。從極右派人物伊諾克．鮑威爾（Enoch Powell）1968年煽動性的「血河演說」（Rivers of Blood speech），到1970年代「國家陣線」（National Front）的激進活動，再到2010年代中期脫歐公投的「奪回控制權」（Take Back Control）口號——反移民情緒一波波被煽動。然而，川普的講話標誌著一個新轉折：討論的焦點已從譴責「非法」或「不規則」移民，轉向攻擊「合法移民」。問題不再是國家是否能吸收移民，而是被偽裝成「融合」（integration）的本土主義焦慮——對文化與血統的恐懼。
上個月在英國發生的三件事，粉碎了任何仍懷抱希望的人。
首先，英國防衛聯盟（English Defence League）創辦人湯米．羅賓森（Tommy Robinson）號召15萬人參加名為「團結王國」（Unite the Kingdom）的大型集會，表面上是「言論自由節」，實際上卻是反移民抗議。極右法國政治人物艾瑞克．澤穆爾（Eric Zemmour）在現場聲稱：「我們的歐洲民族正在被來自南方、擁有穆斯林文化的人所取代。」
接著，奈傑爾．法拉吉（Nigel Farage）領導的新興政黨「改革英國黨」（Reform UK，僅有4位國會議員）宣布：若他們執政，將廢除「永久居留權」（Indefinite Leave to Remain, ILR）制度——該制度讓移民在英國合法居住5年後可獲永久居留資格。他們打算以「5年期簽證」取代之，並大幅提高所得與語言能力門檻。這項政策將追溯適用於現有ILR持有人，使許多在英國工作或擁有家庭成員的移民前途未卜，也讓退休後收入降低的長者面臨簽證被拒的風險。此政策顯然難以執行，但這並非重點——改革英國黨藉由公開的反移民、本土主義立場，迅速崛起成為不可忽視的政治力量，緊貼川普的「讓美國再次偉大」（MAGA）式政治。
工黨政府花了幾天時間才稱該政策為「種族歧視」，但新的內政大臣夏巴娜．馬哈茂德（Shabana Mahmood）隨後推出更嚴格的永久居留條件：申請ILR的年限由5年延長至10年；需達到「高等」英文能力；犯罪紀錄必須全無；必須有穩定就業且未領取任何社會福利；並須證明有「為社會貢獻」的志工服務經驗。換句話說，申請居留者必須展現比英國本地公民更高的「道德水準」與「社會價值」。這無異於建立了兩級居民制度——一級是可自由生活的英國公民，另一級是生活在不確定與條件限制下的合法移民。
工黨急於表現得比改革英國黨更「強硬」，因為法拉吉在民調中大幅領先首相凱爾．史塔默（Keir Starmer）。保守黨也不甘落後：前司法大臣羅伯特．詹里克（Robert Jenrick）抱怨說，他在伯明罕某社區待了90分鐘「卻沒看到另一張白人臉孔」，並把這形容為「融合問題」。此時爭論的核心已不再是移民或定居，而是種族。辯論正變得有毒。
從居留到公民權？
今天的爭議是居留，明天可能就會波及公民權。若英國開始改變公民資格的標準，便可能出現兩種公民階層：「白人英國人」與「其他人」。後者將不得不不斷證明自己的「價值」。美國已經證明這並非不可能——美國曾試圖剝奪非法或暫居移民子女的「出生公民權」。今年稍早，川普政府甚至用軍用運輸機、戴著鐐銬將非法印度移民遣返回國。這種去人性化的場面，把他們描繪成「威脅正當美國人福祉」的敵人。一旦某個族群被定義為對國家結構的威脅，那麼該族群中的所有人——無論合法與否——都成為仇恨與排斥的目標。這種「他者化」（othering）的過程，也為日後攻擊合法移民、修改H1B工作簽證制度鋪平了道路。
何謂「國家」？
在印度國內，也不乏類似針對所謂「滲透者」（infiltrators）的政治鼓噪。人們跨越地區與邊界的原因多樣，卻被稱作「白蟻」或「滲透者」，只是為了迎合民粹的殘酷表演。
早在1882年，學者歐內斯特．勒南（Ernest Renan）在〈何謂國家？〉（What is a nation?）一文中指出：國家並非建立在王朝、種族、語言、宗教或地理之上，而是一種「靈魂，一種精神原則」，基於共同的記憶遺產（其中有的刻意抹去了建國時的暴力），以及「當下的共識——願意共同生活，願意繼續投資於我們共同繼承的遺產」。
今日關於移民的討論，正逐漸侵蝕這種「當下的共識」，削弱我們作為共同體成員的精神根基。
作者簡介：
Priyanjali Malik——專欄作家，撰寫政治與國際關係議題。
Immigration and the politics of fear
Premium
Conversations about immigration have gone from decrying illegal or irregular immigration to denouncing legal migration
Published - October 23, 2025 12:36 am IST
Priyanjali MalikPriyanjali Malik
Google Preferred Source
A demonstrator stands on the head of the South Bank lion that sits on the side of the Westminster Bridge, during a Unite the Kingdom march and rally led by English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson in London on September 13, 2025.
A demonstrator stands on the head of the South Bank lion that sits on the side of the Westminster Bridge, during a Unite the Kingdom march and rally led by English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson in London on September 13, 2025. | Photo Credit: Joanna Chan
At the UN General Assembly last month, U.S. President Donald Trump harangued European leaders saying, “It’s time to end the failed experiment of open borders... Your countries are going to hell.” It was an explicit export of his anti-immigrant ideas to the continent that his Scottish mother had departed as an immigrant to the U.S.
Shift in focus
Immigration has long been a fraught subject in the U.K., with waves of anti-immigrant sentiment fanned by the far right, be it Enoch Powell’s incendiary ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech of 1968, the National Front’s activism of the 1970s, or the ‘Take Back Control’ rhetoric of the Brexit debates of the mid 2010s. However, Mr. Trump’s speech marks a turning point: conversations about immigration have gone from decrying illegal or irregular immigration to denouncing legal migration. The focus has shifted from a state’s ability to absorb immigrants to nativist concerns about culture and heritage, dressed up as ‘integration’.
In case those in Britain harboured any illusions to the contrary, three events in quick succession last month dispelled false hopes. First, English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson led a 1,50,000-strong rally called ‘Unite the Kingdom’ in what was billed as a festival of free speech but was, in reality, an anti-immigration protest. (The far-right French politician, Eric Zemmour, spoke to the crowd of the “great replacement of our European people by peoples coming from the south and of Muslim culture.”) Then, Nigel Farage’s upstart Reform UK party (with just 4 MPs) announced that should they come to power, they would scrap Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), which qualifies migrants for permanent settlement after five years, and replace it with a five-year visa with significantly higher income and language proficiency thresholds. The policy would apply to current ILR holders, throwing in doubt the futures of not just those who have moved to work, but also those families with some members resident via ILR. It also raises questions about whether older residents whose income might drop on retiring would find their visa requests rejected. The policy is patently unworkable, but that is besides the point. Reform UK has become a political force to be reckoned with by running on an avowedly anti-immigrant, nativist platform, hewing closely to Mr. Trump’s MAGA politics.
It took the Labour government a few days to call Reform UK’s ILR policy racist, but the new Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, then laid down new requirements for permanent settlement: the qualifying period for ILR will now be 10 years; applicants have to demonstrate a “high” standard of English proficiency; possess a spotless criminal record; show that they are in employment and have not received benefits; and prove that they have contributed to society by volunteering. In short, those applying for residency will be held to a higher standard of behaviour and a nebulous higher bar of moral worth than their British neighbours. This creates two tiers of residents: British citizens who can live their lives as usual, and legal migrants who will have to live a life of precarious conditionality.
Keen to prove themselves tougher on immigration than Reform UK (Mr. Farage is far ahead of Prime Minister Keir Starmer in opinion polls), Labour has changed the goal posts for settlement. The Conservative Party is not far behind: former Conservative Justice Secretary, Robert Jenrick, complained about “not seeing another white face” in a 90-minute visit to a Birmingham neighbourhood and framed his concern as an issue of integration. This is now no longer about migrants or settlement; it is about race. The debate is turning toxic.
Today, it is settlement, tomorrow it could be citizenship. If the goalposts are changed on citizenship, there is the danger that the U.K. will move towards classes of citizenship: white British and others. And the others will need to constantly prove themselves worthy. The U.S. has already shown that this proposition is not improbable; it has tried to strip constitutionally mandated birthright citizenship from the children of migrants resident temporarily or illegally. Earlier this year, the Trump administration sent back illegal Indian immigrants in shackles in military aircraft. The dehumanising spectacle painted them as a threat to the wellbeing of “legitimate” Americans. But once some members of a community are painted as a threat to the fabric of a country, the rest of that community, whatever their immigration status, are fair game as targets of this toxic nativism. The othering of those migrants paved the way for subsequent attacks on legal migrants and the changes to the H1B regime.
What is a nation?
Within India too, there has been a steady drumbeat on the purported threat from ‘infiltrators.’ People move across regions and borders for a variety of reasons. Painting them as infiltrators or “termites” is simply performative cruelty for populist gains. In 1882, the academic Ernest Renan gave a lecture titled, ‘What is a nation?’ He argued that a nation does not depend on dynasty, race, language, religion or geography. It is “a soul, a spiritual principle,” based on a shared understanding of “a legacy of memories” (some of which have edited out the violence that created the nation); and “present consent, the desire to live together, the desire to continue to invest in the heritage that we have jointly received”. Today, the conversations on immigration are chipping away at “present consent” in ways that diminish us all.
Priyanjali Malik writes on politics and international relations
Published - October 23, 2025 12:36 am IST
沒有留言:
張貼留言
注意：只有此網誌的成員可以留言。