Light at the end of the tunnel for Foreign Nurses

[Rep]

There is light at the end of the tunnel with the Democrats in control of the House of Representatives and with two shy seats in the US Senate.

Remember the dynamics of US politics where Democrats are known for friendly legislations when it comes to immigration.

Way back in 2004 when retrogression settled in, a Democrat , Tom Lantos, Ca, filed a bill for the recapture of EB3 visas. And thats where we got the 50,000visas for Schedule A.

Let us keep our fingers cross. Anyway, anything that will be done would be in the early 2nd quarter next year.

But the good thing is, the new Congress will be friendly to immigration.

[Sheri257]

Look at Colorado: Comprehensive reform advocates Bill Ritter (D) and Rick Perlmutter (D) handily won their races for Governor and Congress over hardliners.

"The fact that the anti-immigration card didn't work in Arizona and Colorado shows that this Republican strategy was a loser, and that voters are smarter than the Republicans thought. It turns out that Americans who are deeply concerned with our nation's broken immigration system want solutions not sound bites, pragmatism not posturing."

Governor's races: In numerous Governors' races Democratic candidates came under attack for begin "soft on illegal immigration," and in all of these races - MD, KS, OR, WI, MA, CO, AZ - the Democrat won.

Schwarzenegger: In a display of Republican savvy lacking in most races, Governor Schwarzenegger moved away from hard line views on immigration, deftly repositioning himself in the middle on immigration, and won going away.

This is a gross mischaracterization of the election. Democrats won because of the war, not because of immigration. If the issue in this election had been about immigration, instead of the war, Democrats would have lost.

In California, Democrats have a long history a losing elections because of illegal immigration. Schwarzenegger won because the Democrat supported driver's licenses for illegals.

Yes, I know ... your issues have nothing to do with illegals. But to say Democrats won because of immigration is wishful thinking. If anything, the Democrats' position on immigration is big loser with voters.

There's many a Democratic candidate who's blown 20 point leads in California elections because of immigration. And if being pro-immigration causes Democrats to lose elections in liberal California then, you can bet it's going to be even more of a loser in more conservative areas of the country.

:typing

[lavalin]

two new polls out yesterday echo this analysis. the first, released by the manhattan institute and the national immigration forum, found that immigration would not be a top vote determining issue nor a top turnout motivator. furthermore; voters remain supportive of comprehensive immigration reform and expect congress to take action next year.

another poll released yesterday by the national council of la raza and the national association of latino elected and appointed officials of likely latino voters found that republican attempts to use immigration as a wedge issue were driving down latino support for republicans by some 20 points.

these findings correspond with today's exit polling results: more than 7 out of 10 hispanic voters supported democrats, and only 27% supported republicans. this is in stark contrast to the 2004 election in which president bush attracted an estimated 40 to 44% of the hispanic vote.

"it seems that the vaunted republican strategy of trying to use immigration as political wedge produced little more than self-inflicted wounds that could take a long time to heal".

[Sheri257]

These findings correspond with today's exit polling results: more than 7 out of 10 Hispanic voters supported Democrats, and only 27% supported Republicans. This is in stark contrast to the 2004 election in which President Bush attracted an estimated 40 to 44% of the Hispanic vote.

"It seems that the vaunted Republican strategy of trying to use immigration as political wedge produced little more than self-inflicted wounds that could take a long time to heal".

Again, election spin from immigration groups this doesn't mean anything. Republicans don't have any credibility on the immigration issue because they haven't done anything about it. For most voters ... both parties have a bad reputation when it comes to immigration.

And as far as the Hispanic vote ... it's insignificant. Even though we have a huge Hispanic population in California, they don't actually turn out to vote in enough numbers to make any difference. A large percentage of what is essentially a small number of votes is still a small number of votes.

If the Hispanic vote was significant ... former Governor Gray Davis, who supported them, wouldn't have been recalled a couple of years ago. And the Democratic challenger would have had at least a shot at defeating Schwarzenegger. But he didn't ... largely because of immigration issues.

:typing

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

"It seems that the vaunted Republican strategy of trying to use immigration as political wedge produced little more than self-inflicted wounds that could take a long time to heal".

While I might agree with this assessment, you missed the mark on the analysis by 180 degrees.

In many cases, Republicans lost seats because their constituents were upset that they did not hold the House line on immigration. Republicans were not angry with their Congressman because they didn't pass a comprehensive reform, they were angry because they didn't close the border.

The unintended result is that Congress now supports a more 'comprehensive' agenda that the President agreed with well before the elections. But, for conservatives, this was but one bone of contention with the President that allowed for the elections to turn out as it did. They disagreed with the President on this one.

The result is that many conservative districts were carried by conservative Dems that promised MORE strict enforcement. Perhaps YOU didn't see all the 'tough on enforcement' political ads ran by the blue dog Dems like the one in my district that just won re-election in President Bush's own home district.

I agree that there will be a more comprehensive immigration reform bill that is signed this year. But, while you focus on what that could do for the legal status of foreign nurses, that isn't even on the radar for the politics of dealing with our Southern border.

So, don't be surprised that the compromises that turns such a bill into law will be giving up the VERY parts of the old bill that didn't focus on the Southern border.

Why? Because even as comprehensive reform gets a wider chance of passage, there is even MORE need now to focus its results on illegal immigration. Your concerns will be mere trading points to make that so.

You misunderstand this whole debate if you think Republicans lost because they didn't support the Senate bill. They lost, in part, because they didn't sufficiently support the House bill. And the legislators holding their seats now - don't doubt for a minute that they don't know this.

If a compromise on the old House/Senate bill had actually passed, the Republicans would not have been in as much trouble. That is especially true of the 2 seats on AZ's border. If such a bill had passed THEN, it almost certainly would not have contained the most far reaching results of either bill, and that includes both making illegal immigration a felony AND opening up visas.

Don't think for a minute that those holding office don't know this. The results will be a comprehensive immigration bill that compromises all that is necessary to resolve the issue of our Southern border before the next election.

The nursing visa entry in the Senate bill is not only NOT on point, it will have the unions that support Pelosi not only knocking on her door, but gaining an audience. Republicans NEVER wanted those Senate provisions and the new power bloc in Congress has no vested interest in them either.

~faith,

Timothy.

[Sheri257]

While I might agree with this assessment, you missed the mark on the analysis by 180 degrees.

In many cases, Republicans lost seats because their constituents were upset that they did not hold the House line on immigration. Republicans were not angry with their Congressman because they didn't pass a comprehensive reform, they were angry because they didn't close the border.

The unintended result is that Congress now supports a more 'comprehensive' agenda that the President agreed with well before the elections. But, for conservatives, this was but one bone of contention with the President that allowed for the elections to turn out as it did. They disagreed with the President on this one.

The result is that many conservative districts were carried by conservative Dems that promised MORE strict enforcement. Perhaps YOU didn't see all the 'tough on enforcement' political ads ran by the blue dog Dems like the one in my district that just won re-election in President Bush's own home district.

You misunderstand this whole debate if you think Republicans lost because they didn't support the Senate bill. They lost because they didn't sufficiently support the House bill. And the legislators holding their seats now - don't doubt for a minute that they don't know this.

~faith,

Timothy.

Exactly. When it comes to immigration, Republicans were generally just as bad as the Democrats. On that issue, it essentially made no difference which party you voted for.

That's why the war, not immigration, was more or less the deciding factor.

:typing

[cardiacRN2006, ADN, RN]

"The fact that the anti-immigration card didn't work in Arizona and Colorado shows that this Republican strategy was a loser, and that voters are smarter than the Republicans thought. It turns out that Americans who are deeply concerned with our nation's broken immigration system want solutions not sound bites, pragmatism not posturing."

Really? It didn't work?

Did you take a look at our propositions this year? We overwhelmingly voted to make English as a official language. We also hands down denied bail to illegals. Yep, denied bail! That's pretty hard core anti-illegal immigration. Also, we denied illegals the ability to sue for punitive damages in court cases when they've been injured or wronged. They can still sue for criminal damages (so far) but no punitive damages. Also, they are being denied to ability to obtaing assistance for adult education and childcare assistance. And these props won HANDS DOWN...

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/politics/154986

Arizona voters resoundingly passed three anti-illegal-immigrant ballot measures Tuesday and established English as the state's official language.

The landslide victory-all four passed by about 3-to-1 ratios statewide-sends a message that the state won't tolerate illegal immigration, said proponent Don Goldwater.

"The people of Arizona have said, 'Enough,' and that they want this issue taken care of,"

Our propositions prove that we are still red-hot when it comes to immigration.

Also, so many people like to call illegal aliens undocumented immigrants...this lumps them in with all other immigrants, and brings a bad name to the title.

I think you're being a little naive when it comes to the implications of this election, and why we all voted the way we did-but I think increasing immigration is about the LAST thing that will get accomplished in the next two years.

[lavalin]

However, intense political fighting over the details largely scuttled the debate and deadlocked meaningful progress at the federal level.

As a result, several dozen U.S. cities and local jurisdictions began passing their own laws. The moves are highly controversial because the United States Constitution grants specific authority only to the federal government to regulate immigration, legal or illegal, into the United States.

Most of the legislation has been highly partisan and politically reactionary, often in response to alleged issues that have little substance or have been distorted to promote special interests.

:pumpiron:

By the end of the summer, several basic tactics that had been passed into law or were under pending status were punitive measures directed at illegal residents, landlords that allow illegal immigrants to reside at their properties, businesses that employ illegal immigrants, and access to various services and licenses by illegal immigrants.

By the end of the summer and into September, human rights organizations, American citizens, legal aid societies, and organized illegal immigrants themselves had begun to respond, challenging the legality of the laws.

At the same time, politicians entering an election on 06 November had more or less dropped the issue, apart from using sound bites to promote their election campaigns. George Bush signed legislation partially funding a wall along the border between the U.S. and Mexico, adding approximately 700 miles to the existing wall.

Other actions by the federal government have been to tighten up passport and visa checks at the borders, and by plane and boat. New passports and visas include biometric security chips, which are phasing out the old, paper-only versions. Eventually, the radio frequency identification (RFID) chips will include a wealth of personal data that can be automatically scanned remotely by computers connected to a world network and different government databases.

In California last week, two human rights groups, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a federal lawsuit on Friday seeking to overturn an ordinance in the southern California city of Escondido that prevents landlords from renting homes to illegal immigrants. Five other organizations are participating in the suit against the city, located 50 miles north of the border with Mexico.

They are challenging a measure, passed 3-2 last month, which would force landlords to prove the legal immigration status of tenants to the local government.

"We believe that it is not within the authority of municipalities like Escondido to pass laws of this kind," said Kristina Campbell, staff attorney for the legal defence group. "Immigration lies within the scope of the authority of the federal government, not small towns," she said.

The law was passed 18 October at a meeting in Escondido City Hall that was disrupted repeatedly, by parties on both sides of the issue. Supporters said the city needed to curb illegal immigration.

Opponents called the law racist and said it set neighbour against neighbour in the city of 140,000 people.

City lawmakers said they plan to contest the suit against the bylaw, which was to come into effect in mid-November.

:pumpiron: :roll :gandalf:

[Sheri257]

Lavalin: I'm not sure why you're posting all of these arguments in favor of illegals.

If anything, foreign nurses who are seeking help with legal immigration should distance themselves from illegals as much as possible.

It's easy enough for the public to confuse the two as it is. If foreign nurses are perceived as supporting illegal immigration then, it will really hurt your cause very, very badly.

:typing

[lavalin]

That old slogan so popular during the immigrant marches, "Today We March, Tomorrow We Vote," has come really alive after Tuesday's election.

Americans are angry at President Bush and the Republican Party, and far from wanting to "stay the course," they demand change in Iraq and a new direction for the country. The stunning Democratic victory made that crystal clear.

"Americans voted to have our reputation around the world restored, and trust and integrity in government restored here at home as well.

The lesson is clear: Americans want fair immigration reform. And politicians will forget it at their own risk.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

The lesson is clear: Americans want fair immigration reform. And politicians will forget it at their own risk.

Americans want their Southern border closed. Period.

Everything else, including what YOU want so badly, is just extraneous noise.

I see no clamor out there - at all, for 'fair immigration reform'. A concession to amnesty for illegals is not on point to nursing visas for legal immigrants. As far as Dems now pushing the particular piece of the Senate bill regarding nursing visas - remember this: it was inserted by Republican Sam Brownback. It was on the agenda of a few Republicans kow-towing to hospital interests. It was NOT on the Dem agenda. And, it wasn't on the agenda for conservative Republicans. There is just no great groundswell of support for this: therefore, come vote time, it will be expendable.

Speaker Pelosi, if anything, will listen to the CNA over hospital suits on this anyday and twice on the days she holds the gavel (and that is EVERYDAY come Jan.) CNA is not only among her natural constituents, they are her LOCAL constituents as well. And they don't support this.

If anything, the political shift will serve to keep this Republican earmark out of any final law.

~faith,

Timothy.

[loved]

If hospitals pay market rates then, I'm sure they do. But when hospitals use foreign nurses to under cut and avoid giving staff pay raises ... I seriously doubt it. Filipino nurses want to make more money, just like anybody else.

It's obvious from this board that a lot of these foreign nurses have no clue what the market wages are because they don't live here. It's very easy for the hospitals to rip them off and, bringing in cheap labor hurts wages for everybody, including the foreign nurses who come here.

Nevertheless, since the foreign nurses are dying to get over here, they take it. But I wouldn't presume that most of the nurses who are already here would be in favor of bringing in cheap labor that under cuts their own wages.

:typing[/OUOTE]

Foreign nurses are not necessarily cheap. Under the immigration law, hospitals have to pay them equal amt of money to hire them.

On the other hand, the current U.S. nursing education system just cannot supply enough amt of native nurses, and having foreign nurses can help to reduce the nurse-patient ratio, which will make the life of native nurses (or other nurses who are currently working in the hospitals where they have to take care of too many patients at one time) easier.

[loved]

Prevailing wage is just a clever word for low wage. And it hurts foreign nurses just as much as Americans.

:typing

Wages can vary quite a bit from a hospital to another (public v.s. private). In NYC, some private hospitals pay almost $20000 more to newly graduate nurses than public hospitals do.