单选题 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, far 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(事实上得大赦) 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 Lon-don, 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】本题询问作者对美国移民政策的看法。作者在第5段末句指出“对我来说，在福利国家建起一堵围墙比在国家的边界建围墙要更好”。这里的建围墙实际上就是指限制移民，可见作者是主张限制移民的。第6段首句又指出“福利国家已经在这里，但围墙远未建成，福利国家正在向各个方向扩张”。expanding in all directions说明移民政策实际上不受限制。可知作者认为“不受限制的移民会损害美国福利社会”，选C项。

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】本题询问作者提及波士顿和伦敦的恐怖袭击的目的。第9段首句指出，“不仅是美国，大体整个西方世界也发现了接纳不兼容文化(incompatible cultures)的移民是一个无法挽回的决定，会带来不可估量的后果(consequences)。”接下来以波士顿和伦敦的恐怖袭击为例，强调如果我们现在还看不到后果的严重性，什么时候才能看到。可见，用恐怖袭击的例子是来说明文化不兼容会带来严重后果，故选D项“为了证明移民中不兼容的文化会给接纳国带来不良后果”。