题目内容
You might think they would havc learned thcir lesson by now. At the end of 2005 Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a bill that cracked down on illegal immigration.while doing nothing to regularise the position of the 12m or so people, mostly of Hispanic origin, who were living and working inside the United States without the proper papers.or to crcate a mechanism for allowing in people from Mexico and other southern neighbours to work with temporary permits. The bill never became law, but its one-sided nature helped stamp the Republicans (92% of whom voted for it in the House) as an anti-immigrant party. In April 2006 Latinos organised a day of protests in more than 100 cities; more than 500.000 people marched in Los Angeles alone. In the 2008 election 67% of Hispanics voted for Barack Obama. Now it is all happening again. Until now, the detection of illegal immigrants has invariably been a matter for the federal authorities. Republican-governed Arizona has just enacted a tough new law of its own: it requires state police to check the papers of anyone whose immigration status they have "reasonable" cause to doubt. Opponents say this is sure to lead to racial profiling. The bill is popular with angry white locals, so much so that the previously reform-minded John McCain, who is running for re-election to the Senate in Arizona, has not dared to oppose it. But in a country that is turning Hispanic at a rapid rate (by mid-century white Anglos will be another minority), the Republicans are once again hellbent on being on the wrong side of demography. The backlash will surely last longer than any bump in popularity gained by looking tough. The marches have begun again: on May 1st, up to a million people across the country took to the streets, by no means all of them Hispanic. For those who yearn for America to have a sensible immigration policy, the Arizona bill is a reason for both despair and hope. The first is easier to spell out. By any measure, Arizona’s offering is deeply illiberal. It would require all non-U.S, citizens to carry documents proving their immigration status, and would require police to check those papers in any contact with anyone who might be illegal. The obvious danger is that it would lead to the systematic harassment of brown-skinned people, including legal immigrants. As for illegals, it would simply drive even more of them underground. It would also criminalise anyone who shelters or helps illegals. Even the plan’s fans acknowledge that this is the toughest such bill ever passed in America. Paradoxically, the reason for hope is much the same. The bill is such a shocker that it is restarting the national debate. The Arizona law passed largely because the government is failing to do its job. The border is not secure; employers can and do hire people who have no legal right to be in America; and cross-border crime is on the rise. Better enforcement is needed. But on both political and moral grounds, better enforcement can only be part of a comprehensive immigration reform. The 12m illegals cannot be wished away, but must be given a chance to earn their citizenship; a guest-worker programme is needed to match the demands of employers with the desire of Mexicans and others to work. Mr. Obama’s administration has talked a lot about an immigration bill. It is now long past time that they produced one. Otherwise, expect to see more Arizonas. The Arizona bill is believed to be
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
You might think they would havc learned thcir lesson by now. At the end of 2005 Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a bill that cracked down on illegal immigration.while doing nothing to regularise the position of the 12m or so people, mostly of Hispanic origin, who were living and working inside the United States without the proper papers.or to crcate a mechanism for allowing in people from Mexico and other southern neighbours to work with temporary permits. The bill never became law, but its one-sided nature helped stamp the Republicans (92% of whom voted for it in the House) as an anti-immigrant party. In April 2006 Latinos organised a day of protests in more than 100 cities; more than 500.000 people marched in Los Angeles alone. In the 2008 election 67% of Hispanics voted for Barack Obama. Now it is all happening again. Until now, the detection of illegal immigrants has invariably been a matter for the federal authorities. Republican-governed Arizona has just enacted a tough new law of its own: it requires state police to check the papers of anyone whose immigration status they have "reasonable" cause to doubt. Opponents say this is sure to lead to racial profiling. The bill is popular with angry white locals, so much so that the previously reform-minded John McCain, who is running for re-election to the Senate in Arizona, has not dared to oppose it. But in a country that is turning Hispanic at a rapid rate (by mid-century white Anglos will be another minority), the Republicans are once again hellbent on being on the wrong side of demography. The backlash will surely last longer than any bump in popularity gained by looking tough. The marches have begun again: on May 1st, up to a million people across the country took to the streets, by no means all of them Hispanic. For those who yearn for America to have a sensible immigration policy, the Arizona bill is a reason for both despair and hope. The first is easier to spell out. By any measure, Arizona’s offering is deeply illiberal. It would require all non-U.S, citizens to carry documents proving their immigration status, and would require police to check those papers in any contact with anyone who might be illegal. The obvious danger is that it would lead to the systematic harassment of brown-skinned people, including legal immigrants. As for illegals, it would simply drive even more of them underground. It would also criminalise anyone who shelters or helps illegals. Even the plan’s fans acknowledge that this is the toughest such bill ever passed in America. Paradoxically, the reason for hope is much the same. The bill is such a shocker that it is restarting the national debate. The Arizona law passed largely because the government is failing to do its job. The border is not secure; employers can and do hire people who have no legal right to be in America; and cross-border crime is on the rise. Better enforcement is needed. But on both political and moral grounds, better enforcement can only be part of a comprehensive immigration reform. The 12m illegals cannot be wished away, but must be given a chance to earn their citizenship; a guest-worker programme is needed to match the demands of employers with the desire of Mexicans and others to work. Mr. Obama’s administration has talked a lot about an immigration bill. It is now long past time that they produced one. Otherwise, expect to see more Arizonas. Which of the following statements is INCORRECT
When the world was a simpler place, the rich were fat, the poor were thin, and right-thinking people worried about how to feed the hungry. Now, in much of the world, the rich are thin, the poor are fat, and right-thinking people are worrying about obesity. Evolution is mostly to blame. It has designed mankind to cope with deprivation, not plenty. People are perfectly tuned to store energy in good years to see them through lean ones. But when bad times never come, they are stuck with that energy, stored around their expanding bellies. Thanks to rising agricultural productivity, lean years are rarer all over the globe. Modern-day Malthusians, who used to draw graphs proving that the world was shortly going to run out of food, have gone rather quiet lately. According to the UN the number of people short of food fell from 920m in 1980 to 799 m 20 years later, even though the world’s population increased by 1.6 billion over the period. This is mostly a cause for celebration. Mankind has won what was for most of his time on this planet, his biggest battle: to ensure that he and his offspring had enough to eat. But every silver lining has a cloud, and the consequence of prosperity is a new plague that brings with it a host of interesting policy dilemmas. As a scourge of the modern world, obesity has an image problem. It is easier to associate with Father Christmas than with the four horses of the apocalypse. But it has a good claim to lumber along beside them for it is the world’s biggest public-health issue today the main cause of heart disease, which kills more people these days than AIDS, malaria, war; the principal risk factor in diabetes; heavily implicated in cancer and other diseases. Since the World Health Organisation labelled obesity an "epidemic" in 2000, reports on its fearful consequences have come thick and fast. Will public-health warnings, combined with media pressure, persuade people to get thinner, just as they finally put them off tobacco Possibly. In the rich world, sales of healthier foods are booming and new figures suggest that over the past year Americans got very slightly thinner for the first time in recorded history. But even if Americans are losing a few ounces, it will be many years before the country solves the health problems caused by half a century’s dining to excess. And, everywhere else in the world, people are still piling on the pounds. That’s why there is now a consensus among doctors that governments should do something to stop them. There’s nothing radical about the idea that governments should intervene in the food business. They’ve been at it since 1202.when King John of England first banned the adulteration of bread. Governments and people seem to agree that ensuring the safety and stability of the food supply is part of the state’s job. But obesity is a more complicated issue than food safety. It is not about ensuring that people don’t get poisoned; it is about changing their behaviour. Should governments be trying to do anything about it at all There is a bad reason for doing something. The bad reason is that governments should help citizens look after themselves. People, the argument goes, are misled by their genes, which are constantly trying to pack away a few more calories just in case of a famine around the corner. Governments should help guide them towards better eating habits. But that argument is weaker in the case of food than it is for tobacconicotine is addictive, chocolate is not-and no better than it is in any other area where people have a choice of being sensible or silly. People are constantly torn by the battle between their better and worse selves. It’s up to them, not governments, to decide who should win. The author believes that ______ leads to Americans’ obesity.
You might think they would havc learned thcir lesson by now. At the end of 2005 Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a bill that cracked down on illegal immigration.while doing nothing to regularise the position of the 12m or so people, mostly of Hispanic origin, who were living and working inside the United States without the proper papers.or to crcate a mechanism for allowing in people from Mexico and other southern neighbours to work with temporary permits. The bill never became law, but its one-sided nature helped stamp the Republicans (92% of whom voted for it in the House) as an anti-immigrant party. In April 2006 Latinos organised a day of protests in more than 100 cities; more than 500.000 people marched in Los Angeles alone. In the 2008 election 67% of Hispanics voted for Barack Obama. Now it is all happening again. Until now, the detection of illegal immigrants has invariably been a matter for the federal authorities. Republican-governed Arizona has just enacted a tough new law of its own: it requires state police to check the papers of anyone whose immigration status they have "reasonable" cause to doubt. Opponents say this is sure to lead to racial profiling. The bill is popular with angry white locals, so much so that the previously reform-minded John McCain, who is running for re-election to the Senate in Arizona, has not dared to oppose it. But in a country that is turning Hispanic at a rapid rate (by mid-century white Anglos will be another minority), the Republicans are once again hellbent on being on the wrong side of demography. The backlash will surely last longer than any bump in popularity gained by looking tough. The marches have begun again: on May 1st, up to a million people across the country took to the streets, by no means all of them Hispanic. For those who yearn for America to have a sensible immigration policy, the Arizona bill is a reason for both despair and hope. The first is easier to spell out. By any measure, Arizona’s offering is deeply illiberal. It would require all non-U.S, citizens to carry documents proving their immigration status, and would require police to check those papers in any contact with anyone who might be illegal. The obvious danger is that it would lead to the systematic harassment of brown-skinned people, including legal immigrants. As for illegals, it would simply drive even more of them underground. It would also criminalise anyone who shelters or helps illegals. Even the plan’s fans acknowledge that this is the toughest such bill ever passed in America. Paradoxically, the reason for hope is much the same. The bill is such a shocker that it is restarting the national debate. The Arizona law passed largely because the government is failing to do its job. The border is not secure; employers can and do hire people who have no legal right to be in America; and cross-border crime is on the rise. Better enforcement is needed. But on both political and moral grounds, better enforcement can only be part of a comprehensive immigration reform. The 12m illegals cannot be wished away, but must be given a chance to earn their citizenship; a guest-worker programme is needed to match the demands of employers with the desire of Mexicans and others to work. Mr. Obama’s administration has talked a lot about an immigration bill. It is now long past time that they produced one. Otherwise, expect to see more Arizonas. If Mr. Obama’s administration cannot come up with an immigration bill,
In this section you will hear everything ONCE ONLY. Listen carefully and then answer the questions that follow. Mark the correct answer to each question on ANSWER SHEET TWO. Questions 1 to 5 are based on an interview. At the end of the interview you will be given 10 seconds to answer each of the following five questions. Now listen to the interview. Which of the following is NOT the item the man need to know when he gives his advice
微信支付 
支付宝支付