Nurses Helping Nurses
allnurses Network: Central | Jobs | Books | Newsletter
allnurses: A Nursing Community for Nurses
Home General News Blogs Articles Students Region Specialty Degrees F.A.Q.
International Nursing /

S.1348, Sec 505



Did You Know?
allnurses is the largest community for nurses on the web. We now have over 388,448 members! Join today to network with other nurses, laugh, share, and much more.
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

Jun 25, 2007 12:48 AM

S.1348, Sec 505


The below info was given on http://thomas.loc.gov/ (Library of Congress).


S.1348

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)

SEC. 505. SHORTAGE OCCUPATIONS.
  • (a) Exception to Direct Numerical Limitations- Section 201(b)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
      • `(F)(i) During the period beginning on the date of the enactment the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, and ending on September 30, 2017, an alien--
        • `(I) who is otherwise described in section 203(b); and
        • `(II) who is seeking admission to the United States to perform labor in shortage occupations designated by the Secretary of Labor for blanket certification under section 212(a)(5)(A) due to the lack of sufficient United States workers able, willing, qualified, and available for such occupations and for which the employment of aliens will not adversely affect the terms and conditions of similarly employed United States workers.
Kindly check the web-site out for more details.
Could someone enlighten me whether the above Section affects us and does it mean that we would be excluded from direct numerical limtation of visas till 30th September 2017 if CIR passes?


Share

Search Tags
None
Top

 
Advertisement
Sponsored Links
 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Reply
12 Comments
No. 1
Old Jun 25, 2007, 01:02 AM
Updated Jun 25, 2007 at 01:49 AM by knight rider

Default Re: S.1348, Sec 505
I am sure lost stranger is right.that section clearly states no limit for shortage occupations(RNs)...Now just hoping for CIR to be a law.
Top
 
No. 2
Old Jun 25, 2007, 01:24 AM

Default Re: S.1348, Sec 505
This section is exactly similar to the Section 504 of STRIVE ACT of 2007
H.R.1645

STRIVE Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

SEC. 504. NURSING SHORTAGE.

  • (a) Exception to Direct Numerical Limitations- Section 201 (b )(1 ) (8 U.S.C. 1151 (b )(1 )) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    • `(F)(i) During the period beginning on the date of the enactment the STRIVE Act and ending on September 30, 2017, an alien--
      • `(I) who is otherwise described in section 203(b); and
      • `(II) who is seeking admission to the United States to perform labor in shortage occupations designated by the Secretary of Labor for blanket certification under section 212(a)(5)(A) due to the lack of sufficient United States workers able, willing, qualified, and available for such occupations and for which the employment of aliens will not adversely affect the terms and conditions of similarly employed United States workers.
So I guess the section in CIR does pertain to us???!!!
Top
 
No. 3
from mpineda10
Old Jun 25, 2007, 01:58 AM

Default Re: S.1348, Sec 505
Originally Posted by lost_stranger View Post
This section is exactly similar to the Section 504 of STRIVE ACT of 2007
H.R.1645

STRIVE Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

SEC. 504. NURSING SHORTAGE.
  • (a) Exception to Direct Numerical Limitations- Section 201 (b )(1 ) (8 U.S.C. 1151 (b )(1 )) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    • `(F)(i) During the period beginning on the date of the enactment the STRIVE Act and ending on September 30, 2017, an alien--
      • `(I) who is otherwise described in section 203(b); and
      • `(II) who is seeking admission to the United States to perform labor in shortage occupations designated by the Secretary of Labor for blanket certification under section 212(a)(5)(A) due to the lack of sufficient United States workers able, willing, qualified, and available for such occupations and for which the employment of aliens will not adversely affect the terms and conditions of similarly employed United States workers.
So I guess the section in CIR does pertain to us???!!!

so what exactly does this mean??
Top
 
No. 4
from pinguina
Old Jun 25, 2007, 12:59 PM

Default Re: S.1348, Sec 505
Originally Posted by mpineda10 View Post
so what exactly does this mean??
This text is of the bill of 2006 and not 2007, the new bill was an amendment in the nature of substitute offered to this bill, the new bill was published last week under the name s.1639, which does not include this section...

sorry
Top
 
No. 5
from suzanne4
Old Jun 25, 2007, 11:53 PM

Default Re: S.1348, Sec 505
The chances of the CIR even making it thru the next vote are extremely slim. Nurses should not want to be included in it in the first place. And there is no way that the unions are going to let this go thru for unlimited visas for the next ten years. Just is not going to happen, and it is not like this in the current CIR that is in for the next vote. Most has already been modified from what was first discussed.

Free immigration fees for 12 million people is the main thing in the CIT and there are too many Americans that are against this and so should you. You are having to pay for all of your fees, whether you do it up front or your agency takes it from your pay, you are ultimately paying for it. Why should those that came to the US illegally not have to pay for their immigration fees, but your taxes will have to pay for it.

Not a good deal for anyone at all.
Top
 
No. 6
Old Jun 26, 2007, 06:06 AM

Default Re: S.1348, Sec 505
Personally, CIR won’t be comprehensive if it doesn’t address issues about Labor in Shortage Occupations in general and Nurses in particular. But CIR in its current form places nurses in disadvantageous position since it includes them in the merit-based system; please read National Foundation for American Policy’s June 2007 brief titled “The Point Systems’ Impact on Foreign Nurses and other Potential Immigrants.”

The same reason why we see bridge bills/ amendments being introduced dependent and even independent of the current CIR similar to what is posted above. But we believe that any provision/bill/law that provides unlimited visa numbers for nurses for X number of years will be seen in a bad light; in may even be counter productive as we have seen in the past. If we look across the spectrum of opinions coming from recruiters, agencies, attorneys and even hospitals themselves, we can see that a bridge bill for X number of visas under the green card category or a visa recapture just like last time is generally acceptable.

For me, as long as we see the ugly head of the CIR we cannot expect issues affecting nurses to be discussed seriously or be taken into consideration (unless we see a bridge feature introduced to CIR itself).
Top
 
No. 7
Old Jun 26, 2007, 06:11 AM

Default Re: S.1348, Sec 505
Originally Posted by suzanne4 View Post
The chances of the CIR even making it thru the next vote are extremely slim. Nurses should not want to be included in it in the first place. And there is no way that the unions are going to let this go thru for unlimited visas for the next ten years. Just is not going to happen, and it is not like this in the current CIR that is in for the next vote. Most has already been modified from what was first discussed.

Free immigration fees for 12 million people is the main thing in the CIT and there are too many Americans that are against this and so should you. You are having to pay for all of your fees, whether you do it up front or your agency takes it from your pay, you are ultimately paying for it. Why should those that came to the US illegally not have to pay for their immigration fees, but your taxes will have to pay for it.

Not a good deal for anyone at all.
Top
 
No. 8
from mutya
Old Jun 26, 2007, 08:16 PM

Default Re: S.1348, Sec 505
Originally Posted by pinguina View Post
This text is of the bill of 2006 and not 2007, the new bill was an amendment in the nature of substitute offered to this bill, the new bill was published last week under the name s.1639, which does not include this section...

sorry
Cloture motion on S1639 Passes and nothing for nurses.

Also proposed amendments have not touch nurses.
Top
 
No. 9
from jonRNMD
Old Jun 26, 2007, 09:10 PM

Default Re: S.1348, Sec 505
wha? most confusing thread
Top

1 Reader Gave Kudos
 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Reply




Thread Tools


Who's Online
323 members
3,815 guests
4,138

2

Interesting article on ThedaCare's Collaborative Care Model

7

Possible breakthrough regarding MS

63

16th Philly area hospital to stop delivering babies: Mercy...

10

Really interesting article on Indian open hearts

6

High-Tech Pump Does What Her Heart Can't

4

Air Force RN Found Not Guilty

7

California Imposes Stricter Rules Regarding Drug Abuse In...

49

Are older nurses being forced out of the profession?

3

An outlook in California?

8

Australian surgeons successfully separate conjoined twins



1

Society Needs Care Too

12

Why am I doing this, anyway?

2

Nurse Heal Thyself

9

My Papa, why I am the nurse I am today.

17

I made it through

11

An angel's gaze

16

A Sister Never Forgets

16

Ruby's Marbles

37

What Do Operating Room Nurses Do?

14

My Little Old Jedi

20

I love this job......

23

"I hear voices"

19

Preventing FRUTI (Foley Related Urinary Tract Infection) in...

24

Error and Attitude

10

It's Just a Shower





Sponsored Links

Currently Reading This Page: 1 (0 members & 1 guests)

Interested in the hottest topics of the week? Subscribe to the Nurse-zine Newsletter.
Enter email address: