in orDEr to work hErE thE ForEignEr nEEDs A work pErmit, whiCh must BE AppliED{{u}} (31) {{/u}}By his prospECtivE EmployEr. thE proBlEm hErE is thAt thEDEpArtmEnt oF thEEmploymEnt hAs thE right to{{u}} (32) {{/u}}or rEFusE thEsE pErmits, AnD thErE is littlE thAt CAn BE{{u}} (33) {{/u}}ABout it. it woulD BE ExtrEmEly unwisE{{u}} (34) {{/u}}A ForEign visitor to work without A pErmit, sinCE AnyonE Doing so is{{u}} (35) {{/u}}to immEDiAtE DEportAtion. thErE ArE somE{{u}} (36) {{/u}}to this rulE, moot notABly pEoplE From thECommon mArkEt CountriEs, who ArE{{u}} (37) {{/u}}to work without pErmits, AnD who ArE oFtEn givEn{{u}} (38) {{/u}}rEsiDEnCE pErmits oF up to FivE yEArs. somE{{u}} (39) {{/u}}pEoplE, suCh As DoCtors, ForEign journAlists,{{u}} (40) {{/u}}AnD othErs, CAn work without pErmits. thE proBlEm with thEACt is not just thAt somE oF its rulEs ArE unFAir But{{u}} (41) {{/u}}it is ADministErED, AnD thE pEoplE who ADministEr it. An immigrAtions oFFiCiAl hAs thE powEr to stop A visitor{{u}} (42) {{/u}} thEsE shorEs Coming into thE Country. iF this hAppEns thE visitor hAs thE{{u}} (43) {{/u}}to AppEAl{{u}} (44) {{/u}}thE immigrAtion AppEAl triBunAl. whilE thE AppEAls ArE BEing ConsiDErED, thE visitor hAs no{{u}} (45) {{/u}}But to wAit somEtimEs For quitE A long timE. CritiCs oF thE lAw sAy thAt immigrAtion oFFiCiAls trEAt thE{{u}} (46) {{/u}}visitors BADly, AnD AppEAr to ACCEpt or rEjECt thEm For no{{u}} (47) {{/u}}rEAson. whiCh siDE oF thE politiCAl {{u}} (48) {{/u}}you ArE on, thErE sEEms to BE An urgEnt nEED For A gooD look At thE{{u}} (49) {{/u}}, For it{{u}} (50) {{/u}}FrEquEnt ArgumEnt, AnD in thE EyEs oF mAny rEAl injustiCE.

A．For
B．to
C．As
D．An