Text 3
A possible conflict in Iraq; deteriorating economies in South Americas famine in sub-Saharan Africa; turmoil in Indonesia; political instability in the Balkans. And in many developing countries, persistent crime, lousy education and a lack of opportunities for energetic people to prosper without graft and political connections. No wonder so many people want the chance of a better life in the stable, meritocratic economies of the rich world. No wonder they risk their life savings, or even their lives, to buy the hope of higher earnings, fairer treatment and better opportunities for their families.
This movement of humanity brings undoubted gains, and not just to the immigrants. The gap between earnings in the poor and rich worlds is vastly greater than the gap in the prices of traded goods. As our survey argues, the potential economic benefits to the world of liberalizing migration dwarf those from removing trade barriers. Where populations are aging and economies are sluggish, the benefits are especially great. Immigrants, unlike natives, move readily to areas where labour is in short supply, so easing bottlenecks. They bring a just-in-time supply of skills, too, which is why hospitals want to hire foreign doctors and nurses; farmers, spare hands to pick fruit and vegetables; and wealthy couples, nannies for their children. In many cases, immigrants also pay more in taxes than they cost in public spending.
But voters in rich countries often don’t see things this way. Like other forces of globalization, immigration is disruptive, and at the most intimate level. It changes the neighbourhood. People in the street speak odd languages; the neighbours’ cooking smells strange. So immigration often meets passionate resistance. Even in countries built on immigration, like the United States, politicians hesitate to press for easier entry. America has refused to strike a deal with Mexico to let in more legal migrants. In Europe, hostility is deeper and can be more dangerous. In the past year, the far right has gained in elections in France, Denmark, Austria and Netherlands.
The hostility may well increase. Immigration has boomed in the past decade partly because rich countries have created lots of jobs. If the economic slowdown persists, unemployment is sure to breed greater resentment. Another terrorist attack along the lines of September 11th, 2001 would, rightly or wrongly, increase fears that immigrants threaten security. And, as HIV spreads in the poor world, rich countries will fret about the threat to their health services and the risk of AIDS.
How then to square the conflicting pressures of politics and economics The first essential is to accept that the voters’ right to a say about who and how many can enter must take precedence over the rights of those unlucky enough to be born in poorer parts of the world. The task of politicians--and of employers is to persuade voters that immigration is not only inevitable but also in their long-term interests.

From the text we learn that（）

A:the economic benefits brought by immigration conflict the political concerns. B:the threats posed by immigration should be the greatest concern. C:the rights of voters in the rich countries precede over the rights of immigrants. D:employers and politicians should manage immigration for the voters' benefits.

President Bush has once again started speaking out for comprehensive immigration reform, and a draft plan to rally Republican senators on the issue is circulating just as Congressional hearings on the issue approach. Members of Congress recognize that voters are looking for real reform that rests on resolute, effective enforcement of our immigration laws.
The only serious legislative proposal on the table offers such enforcement, because it focuses on making employers accountable for their hiring practices. To that end, the bill incorporates lessons learned from the largest immigration enforcement operation ever undertaken. Last December, Department of Homeland Security agents descended on meat processing plants run by Swirl & Company in six states, arresting more than 1,200 unauthorized workers.
The arrests were astonishing because Swift participates in Basic Pilot, a voluntary Department of Homeland Security program that allows employers to electronically verify the work eligibility of newly hired workers against department and Social Security databases. The program is seen as the precursor for a verification system that would become mandatory with comprehensive immigration reform. Since Swirl was using the department’s system, how did it end up with illegal workers
The Basic Pilot program has a fatal flaw, which is that it requires only electronic verification of employment qualification. An effective program should also insist on tamper-proof identification documents for job-seekers, incorporating biometrics like digital photographs and fingerprints to prove identity. Only then would it be possible to establish not only that job applicants are authorized to work, but also that they are who they say they are. Otherwise, valid Social Security numbers can be presented to employers, and Basic Pilot will verify them, but the numbers may not belong to the workers who present them.
To insist on secure documents with biometric identifiers is not a call for a national ID. Green cards, temporary work permits and passports are secure and reliable for hiring purposes. Adding Social Security cards to this list, establishing a single standard for their security features, and replacing old cards over a designated period would resolve the problem on a national scale.
Only then would employers be able to comply reliably with verification requirements as the basis for sound enforcement and, by extension, border control. Legal immigrants and American citizens could prove their identities and qualifications to work without facing discrimination based on appearance or language. Scarce enforcement resources could be spent on apprehending real criminals and addressing national security threats. And a new system of enforcement would at last have a chance to win back public confidence in the nation’s immigration policies. After more than 20 years of failed efforts, Congress must not bake half a loaf. Secure biometric Social Security cards are an essential ingredient in any comprehensive immigration reform.
It can NOT be found from the text that ______

A:the US Government is rethinking on feasible methods to solve the problem of immigration. B:the arrest of Swift Company is the largest immigration operation in the US. C:participators of the Basic Pilot program are compelled to take part in it. D:the US Congress has made a lot of unsuccessful efforts on immigration for over 2 decades.

In their everyday life, most Americans seem to agree with Henry Ford who once said, "History is more or less absurdity. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker’s damn is the history we make today. " Certainly a great—but now also deadlocked—debate on immigration figures prominently in the history being made today in the United States and around the world.
In both history and sociology, scholarly work on immigration was sparked by the great debates of the 1920s, as Americans argued over which immigrants to include and which to exclude from the American nation. The result of that particular great debate involved the restriction of immigration from Asia and southern and eastern Europe.
Reacting to the debates of their time, sociologists and historians nevertheless developed different central themes. While Chicago School sociologists focused on immigrant adaptation to the American mainstream, historians were more likely to describe immigrants engaged in building the American nation or its regional sub-cultures.
Historians studied the immigrants of the past, usually in the context of nation-building and settlement of the western United States, while sociologists focused on the immigrant urban workers of their own times—that is, the early 20th century. Meanwhile, sociologists’ description of assimilation as an almost natural sequence of interactions resulting in the modernization, and Americanization of foreigners reassured Americans that their country would survive the recent arrival of immigrants whom longtime Americans perceived as radically different.
Historians insisted that the immigrants of the past had actually been the "makers of America"; they had forged the mainstream to which new immigrants adapted. For sociologists, however, it was immigrants who changed and assimilated over the course of three generations. For historians, it was the American nation that changed and evolved.
In current debates, overall, what seems to be missing is not knowledge of significant elements of the American past or respect for the lessons to be drawn from that past, but rather debaters’ ability to see how time shapes understanding of the present.
In the first moments of American nation-building, the so-called Founding Fathers celebrated migration as an expression of human liberty. Here is a reminder that today’s debates take place among those who agree rather fundamentally that national self-interest requires the restriction of immigration. Debaters disagree with each other mainly over how best to accomplish restriction, not whether restriction is the right course. The United States, along with many other nations, is neither at the start, nor necessarily anywhere near the end, of a long era of restriction.
According to the passage, the 1920s’ debate on immigration______.

A:sparked scholarly work on immigration restrictions B:led to the decrease of immigrants from Asia and parts of Europe C:resulted in the exclusion of all immigrants from abroad D:inspired academic research on immigration in various fields

President Bush has once again started speaking out for comprehensive immigration reform, and a draft plan to rally Republican senators on the issue is circulating just as Congressional hearings on the issue approach. Members of Congress recognize that voters are looking for real reform that rests on resolute, effective enforcement of our immigration laws.
The only serious legislative proposal on the table offers such enforcement, because it focuses on making employers accountable for their hiring practices. To that end, the bill incorporates lessons learned from the largest immigration enforcement operation ever undertaken. Last December, Department of Homeland Security agents descended on meat processing plants run by Swirl & Company in six states, arresting more than 1,200 unauthorized workers.
The arrests were astonishing because Swift participates in Basic Pilot, a voluntary Department of Homeland Security program that allows employers to electronically verify the work eligibility of newly hired workers against department and Social Security databases. The program is seen as the precursor for a verification system that would become mandatory with comprehensive immigration reform. Since Swirl was using the department’s system, how did it end up with illegal workers
The Basic Pilot program has a fatal flaw, which is that it requires only electronic verification of employment qualification. An effective program should also insist on tamper-proof identification documents for job-seekers, incorporating biometrics like digital photographs and fingerprints to prove identity. Only then would it be possible to establish not only that job applicants are authorized to work, but also that they are who they say they are. Otherwise, valid Social Security numbers can be presented to employers, and Basic Pilot will verify them, but the numbers may not belong to the workers who present them.
To insist on secure documents with biometric identifiers is not a call for a national ID. Green cards, temporary work permits and passports are secure and reliable for hiring purposes. Adding Social Security cards to this list, establishing a single standard for their security features, and replacing old cards over a designated period would resolve the problem on a national scale.
Only then would employers be able to comply reliably with verification requirements as the basis for sound enforcement and, by extension, border control. Legal immigrants and American citizens could prove their identities and qualifications to work without facing discrimination based on appearance or language. Scarce enforcement resources could be spent on apprehending real criminals and addressing national security threats. And a new system of enforcement would at last have a chance to win back public confidence in the nation’s immigration policies. After more than 20 years of failed efforts, Congress must not bake half a loaf. Secure biometric Social Security cards are an essential ingredient in any comprehensive immigration reform.

It can NOT be found from the text that （）

A:the US Government is rethinking on feasible methods to solve the problem of immigration. B:the arrest of Swift Company is the largest immigration operation in the US. C:participators of the Basic Pilot program are compelled to take part in it. D:the US Congress has made a lot of unsuccessful efforts on immigration for over 2 decades.

Text 3 A possible conflict in Iraq; deteriorating economies in South Americas famine in sub-Saharan Africa; turmoil in Indonesia; political instability in the Balkans. And in many developing countries, persistent crime, lousy education and a lack of opportunities for energetic people to prosper without graft and political connections. No wonder so many people want the chance of a better life in the stable, meritocratic economies of the rich world. No wonder they risk their life savings, or even their lives, to buy the hope of higher earnings, fairer treatment and better opportunities for their families. This movement of humanity brings undoubted gains, and not just to the immigrants. The gap between earnings in the poor and rich worlds is vastly greater than the gap in the prices of traded goods. As our survey argues, the potential economic benefits to the world of liberalizing migration dwarf those from removing trade barriers. Where populations are aging and economies are sluggish, the benefits are especially great. Immigrants, unlike natives, move readily to areas where labour is in short supply, so easing bottlenecks. They bring a just-in-time supply of skills, too, which is why hospitals want to hire foreign doctors and nurses; farmers, spare hands to pick fruit and vegetables; and wealthy couples, nannies for their children. In many cases, immigrants also pay more in taxes than they cost in public spending. But voters in rich countries often don’t see things this way. Like other forces of globalization, immigration is disruptive, and at the most intimate level. It changes the neighbourhood. People in the street speak odd languages; the neighbours’ cooking smells strange. So immigration often meets passionate resistance. Even in countries built on immigration, like the United States, politicians hesitate to press for easier entry. America has refused to strike a deal with Mexico to let in more legal migrants. In Europe, hostility is deeper and can be more dangerous. In the past year, the far right has gained in elections in France, Denmark, Austria and Netherlands. The hostility may well increase. Immigration has boomed in the past decade partly because rich countries have created lots of jobs. If the economic slowdown persists, unemployment is sure to breed greater resentment. Another terrorist attack along the lines of September 11th, 2001 would, rightly or wrongly, increase fears that immigrants threaten security. And, as HIV spreads in the poor world, rich countries will fret about the threat to their health services and the risk of AIDS. How then to square the conflicting pressures of politics and economics The first essential is to accept that the voters’ right to a say about who and how many can enter must take precedence over the rights of those unlucky enough to be born in poorer parts of the world. The task of politicians--and of employers is to persuade voters that immigration is not only inevitable but also in their long-term interests.

From the text we learn that（）

A:the economic benefits brought by immigration conflict the political concerns. B:the threats posed by immigration should be the greatest concern. C:the rights of voters in the rich countries precede over the rights of immigrants. D:employers and politicians should manage immigration for the voters' benefits.

In their everyday life, most Americans seem to agree with Henry Ford who once said, "History is more or less absurdity. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker’s damn is the history we make today. " Certainly a great—but now also deadlocked—debate on immigration figures prominently in the history being made today in the United States and around the world.
In both history and sociology, scholarly work on immigration was sparked by the great debates of the 1920s, as Americans argued over which immigrants to include and which to exclude from the American nation. The result of that particular great debate involved the restriction of immigration from Asia and southern and eastern Europe.
Reacting to the debates of their time, sociologists and historians nevertheless developed different central themes. While Chicago School sociologists focused on immigrant adaptation to the American mainstream, historians were more likely to describe immigrants engaged in building the American nation or its regional sub-cultures.
Historians studied the immigrants of the past, usually in the context of nation-building and settlement of the western United States, while sociologists focused on the immigrant urban workers of their own times—that is, the early 20th century. Meanwhile, sociologists’ description of assimilation as an almost natural sequence of interactions resulting in the modernization, and Americanization of foreigners reassured Americans that their country would survive the recent arrival of immigrants whom longtime Americans perceived as radically different.
Historians insisted that the immigrants of the past had actually been the "makers of America"; they had forged the mainstream to which new immigrants adapted. For sociologists, however, it was immigrants who changed and assimilated over the course of three generations. For historians, it was the American nation that changed and evolved.
In current debates, overall, what seems to be missing is not knowledge of significant elements of the American past or respect for the lessons to be drawn from that past, but rather debaters’ ability to see how time shapes understanding of the present.
In the first moments of American nation-building, the so-called Founding Fathers celebrated migration as an expression of human liberty. Here is a reminder that today’s debates take place among those who agree rather fundamentally that national self-interest requires the restriction of immigration. Debaters disagree with each other mainly over how best to accomplish restriction, not whether restriction is the right course. The United States, along with many other nations, is neither at the start, nor necessarily anywhere near the end, of a long era of restriction.

According to the passage, the 1920s’ debate on immigration（）

A:sparked scholarly work on immigration restrictions B:led to the decrease of immigrants from Asia and parts of Europe C:resulted in the exclusion of all immigrants from abroad D:inspired academic research on immigration in various fields

Text 4 　　On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona’s immigration law Monday-a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration. But on the more important matter of the Constitution,the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration’s effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states。 　　In Arizona v. United States, the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona’s controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law. The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization ”and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial . Arizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones。 　　Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun. On the overturned provisions the majority held the congress had deliberately “occupied the field” and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal’s privileged powers。 　　However,the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement.That’s because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues。 　　Two of the three objecting Justice-Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas-agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute.The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia,who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the alien and Sedition Acts。 　　The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as “a shocking assertion assertion of federal executive power”.The White House argued that Arizona’s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities,even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter.In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with 。 　　Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could. It never did so. The administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim。 On which of the following did the Justices agree,according to Paragraph4

A:Federal officers’ duty to withhold immigrants’information。 B:States’ independence from federal immigration law。 C:States’ legitimate role in immigration enforcement。 D:Congress’s intervention in immigration enforcement。

Text 4 　　On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona’s immigration law Monday-a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration. But on the more important matter of the Constitution,the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration’s effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states。 　　In Arizona v. United States, the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona’s controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law. The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization ”and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial . Arizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones。 　　Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun. On the overturned provisions the majority held the congress had deliberately “occupied the field” and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal’s privileged powers。 　　However,the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement.That’s because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues。 　　Two of the three objecting Justice-Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas-agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute.The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia,who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the alien and Sedition Acts。 　　The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as “a shocking assertion assertion of federal executive power”.The White House argued that Arizona’s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities,even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter.In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with 。 　　Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could. It never did so. The administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim。 What can be learned from the last paragraph

A:Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress。 B:Justices intended to check the power of the Administrstion。 C:Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress。 D:The Administration is dominant over immigration issues。

The foreign student adviser (FSA) and members of his or her staff provide a number of services important to all foreign students on campus. Duties of FSAs vary from campus to cam pus, but most are responsible for providing assistance on immigration matters, coordinating all campus and community services available to foreign students and serving as a liaison between foreign students and personnel on campus and in the community.
Foreign student advisers are willing to discuss any matters with their foreign students-- even extremely personal ones which in other societies might be discussed only in the family. All discussions with FSAs are kept in strict confidence, and if the advisers are unable to provide the assistance requested, they are prepared to refer you to the correct office or person, giving you some background about the person and advising you about how best to present your problem. In order for FSAs to provide the most effective assistance, it is important that you contact them when you first become aware a problem might be developing rather than waiting until it has be come extremely serious.
FSAs will help with all immigration matters--visa problems, transfers to other schools, extensions of stay, travel outside the United States, employment permission--and will assist you in contacting the local Immigration and Naturalization Service(移民归化局) office if that should be necessary.

This passage appears to be a part of introduction to（）

A:foreign students B:the Immigration and Naturalization Service C:the local community D:U.S. college and university life