题目内容
Why will the man draw the woman a map
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
A proposal to change long-standing federal policy and deny citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants on U.S. soil ran aground this month in Congress, but it is sure to resurface-kindling bitter debate even if it fails to become law. At issue is "birthright citizenship" —provided for since the Constitution’s 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Section 1 of that amendment, drafted with freed slaves in mind, says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Some conservatives in Congress, as well as advocacy groups seeking to crack down on illegal immigration, say the amendment has been misapplied over the years, that it was never intended to grant citizenship automatically to babies of illegal immigrants. Thus they contend that federal legislation, rather than a difficult-to-achieve constitutional amendment, would be sufficient to end birthright citizenship. "Most Americans feel it doesn’t make any sense for people to come into the country illegally, give birth and have a new U.S. citizen," said the spokesman of the federation of American immigration reform. "But the advocates for illegal immigrants will make a fuss; they’ll claim you’re punishing the children, and I suspect the leadership doesn’t want to deal with that.\ Some conservatives in Congress, as well as advocacy groups seeking to crack down on illegal immigration, say the amendment has been misapplied over the years, that it was never intended to grant citizenship automatically to babies of illegal immigrants. Thus they contend that federal legislation, rather than a difficult-to-achieve constitutional amendment, would be sufficient to end birthright citizenship.
The most important fact in Washington’s failure on Thursday to be re-elected for the first time since 1947 to the U.N. Human Rights Commission is that it was America’s friends, not its enemies, that engineered the defeat. After all, China and Cuba and other targets of U.S.-led criticism in the committee were always going to vote and lobby against Washington; the shock came in the fact that the European and other Western nations that traditionally ensured U.S. reelection turned their backs on Washington. Many traditional U.S. supporters clearly withdrew their votes to signal displeasure over U.S. unilateralism. They have been increasingly chagrined by Washington’s tendency to ignore the international consensus on issues ranging from the use of land mines to the Kyoto climate change treaty. They are also critical of what they see as Washington’s tendency to publicise the issue of human rights, using annual resolutions at the committee to denounce China or Cuba when that conforms to U.S. foreign policy objectives but for the same reason voting alone in defence of Israel when that country is in the dock over its conduct. The most important fact in Washington’s failure on Thursday to be re-elected for the first time since 1947 to the U.N. Human Rights Commission is that it was America’s friends, not its enemies, that engineered the defeat.
第一节听下面5段对话。每段对话后有一个小题，从题中所给的A、B、C三个选项中选出最佳选项，并标在试卷的相应位置。听完每段对话后，你都有10秒钟的时间来回答有关小题和阅读下一小题。每段对话仅读一遍。 Which shirt does the man want to buy
Consider the following statements, made by the same man eight years apart. "Eventually, being ’poor’ won’t be as much a matter of living in a poor country as it will be a matter of having poor skills." That was Bill Gates talking in 1992. Way back then, the Microsoft chairman’s image was that of a rather harsh, libertarian-leaning fellow who proudly declared his products alone would "change the world." When asked what he would do with his billions, the boy wonder of Silicon Valley used to shrug off the question, saying his long workdays didn’t leave time for charity. But now listen to the same Gates-or perhaps not quite the same Gages-talking in the fall of 2000: Whenever the computer industry has a panel about the digital divide and I’m on the panel, I always think, "OK, you want to send computers to Africa, what about food and electricity-those computers aren’t going to be that valuable"... The mothers are going to walk right up to that computer and say: "My children are dying, what can you do" Yes, even Bill Gates, the iconic capitalist of our day, seems to have come around. The self-assured Gates of 1992 was obviously a man of his times, confident of his industry’s ability to change the world, certain that the power of markets and new technology, once unleashed, would address most of the world’s ills. But the more skeptical Gates of the new millennium is someone who evinces a passion for giving and government aid. He shares a growing realization, even in the multibillionaire set, that something is amiss with the ideology that has prevailed since the end of the cold war: global-capitalism-as-panacea. Way back then, the Microsoft chairman’s image was that of a rather harsh, libertarian-leaning fellow who proudly declared his products alone would "change the world.”
微信支付 
支付宝支付