Many current discussions of immigration issues talk about immigrants in general, as if they were abstract people in an abstract world. But the concrete differences between immigrants from different countries affect whether their coming here is good or bad for the American people.The very thought of formulating immigration laws from the standpoint of what is best for the American people seems to have been forgotten by many who focus on how to solve the problems of illegal immigration. It is hard to look for "the ideal outcome" on immigration in the abstract. Economics professor Milton Friedman once said, "The best is the enemy of the good," which to me meant that attempts to achieve an unattainable ideal can prevent us from reaching good outcomes that are possible in practice. Too much of our current immigration controversy is conducted in terms of abstract ideals, such as "We are a nation of immigrants." Of course we are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of people who wear shoes. Does it follow that we should admit anybody who wears shoes? The immigrants of today are very different from those who arrived here a hundred years ago. Moreover, the society in which they arrive is different. To me, it is better to build a wall around the welfare state than the country. But the welfare state is already here—and, Jar from having a wall built around it, the welfare state is expanding in all directions. We do not have a choice between the welfare state and open borders. Anything we try to do as regards immigration laws has to be done in the context of a huge welfare state that is already a major, inescapable fact of life. Among other facts of life utterly ignored by many advocates of de facto amnesty(事实上的大赦) is that the free international movement of people is different from free international trade in goods. Buying cars or cameras from other countries is not the same as admitting people from those countries or any other countries. Unlike inanimate objects, people have cultures and not all cultures are compatible with the culture in this country that has produced such benefits for the American people for so long. Not only the United States, but the Western world in general, has been discovering the hard way that admitting people with incompatible cultures is an irreversible decision with incalculable consequences. If we do not see that after recent terrorist attacks on the streets of Boston and London, when will we see it? "Comprehensive immigration reform" means doing everything all together in a rush, without time to look before we leap, and basing ourselves on abstract notions about abstract people.

单选题 What does the author say about immigrants in America?

单选题 What does the author try to say by citing Milton Friedman's remark?

单选题 What is the author's view regarding America's immigration policy?

【正确答案】 C

【答案解析】解析：观点态度题。题干问作者对美国移民政策的看法。根据其中的关键词 “immigrant policy”定位到第六段最后一句。作者提到移民政策必须考虑福利系统，因为这已经是一种主要的、难以回避的现实。而且，其前面的一句提到要么是福利国家，要么开放边界，除此之外我们别无选择，这表明作者担忧不断涌入的移民会损害福利体系。由此可知选项C是正确答案，其中的“unrestrained immigration”是对“open borders”的同义互换。

单选题 What is the author's purpose in citing the recent terrorist attacks on the streets of Boston and London?

【正确答案】 D

【答案解析】解析：本题是目的意图题。题干问作者提到最近一次恐怖袭击的目的是什么。根据关键词Boston and London 定位到倒数第二段。作者说不仅是美国，还有西方世界已经发现这是一条不归路：接受来自不兼容文化的移民是一个不可逆转的决定，具有不可估量的后果。随后就以波士顿和伦敦恐怖袭击作为例证来证明此观点。由此可知选项D是正确答案，其中的“immigrants' cultural incompatibility”对应“people with incompatible cultures”；“has consequences”对应“with incalculable consequences”。