Thank you. Just a few on this thread with some actual experience living and working in CA, as you and I have had. Gotta love armchair "experts" with QVC cred to chime in about how they know because....sitting in front of google.
I can say....maybe....75% of the nurses I worked with in Sac were foreign born---but had been here for more than 20 years, working as nurses. At UCD, foreign born, at least in the ED, were a rarity. I worked PRN in northern CA at several other places, and the smaller the hospital, the larger percentage of foreign nurses. I never heard or saw any shenanigans as far as licensing--but I do know that several of my Philipino colleagues would definitely work management on an applicant that they had in mind--and it was usually a family member or friend that had emigrated.
There is absolutely no illegality or "unfairness" about it-it happened all the time where I've worked with US trained nurses. My RN Mgr had his daughter hired in as unit secretary on another floor. His wife worked in registration. It is what it is. Call it nepotism or protectionism---the VA practices a form of this as well as other places "we only hire from within" until no internal applicants are found, and then the job is posted outside. Explain this, expert poster. We only hire from within. Meaning....all you people out there? You're not welcome to apply for this job, because we only offer these jobs to our own. But noooo. This is "discrimination". I think someone may need to take that expert knowledge and file a class action suit against California, The US Government, any employer that has internal postings, most countries with immigration laws---and just sue the pants off them all....because she googled it. And she knows.
Back in 1995, there was a huge influx of Irish and Philipino nurses who were willing to take the night shifts that supposedly could not be filled with US trained nurses...that was in Philly though. I have no idea what the rest of the country was experiencing. I was grateful to be employed, frankly, as the situation back then was what the situation now is approaching. Tight, tight market---and yes...
The very definition of "filter" and "selective"---is protectionism. An employer, state, country---makes it's own rules about who to allow in, based on criteria that they are legally allowed to use. Think immigration. This country only allows those who follow the process, and even then, they may not get in. Australia would not allow (when I wanted to travel there as a nurse) anyone that wasn't on the "critical need" listing that they put out (yet another thing dr. google can educate even the most expert here on)---to come and work. They protect their own workers. Canada does the same thing. Their rules and regulations are such that you have to have a BSN, and you have to pass their exams, even though you've passed them here. There are fees that are absolutely exhorbitant to be a nurse there. If a fee filters out workers, then there is more of a chance that nurses that are already there, or nurses that will simply bite the bullet and pay (a revenue generator)---are going to apply.
I can tell ya....when I paid for CA, the license was $100. I'm sorry for those nurses who are going to get whacked with $350. That sucks. Renewal for me is going to be the same as renewal for you, but...the initial is steep. It may have given me pause if I had to pay $350. I may have thought...meh....I don't really need to travel to CA. The license process is tedious and very fraught with mistakes you can make that prevent you from being licensed. If your verification "expires" before all of the other paperwork comes to them? It gets kicked out. And they don't tell you. You find out 4 months later when you sit on hold for 4 hours (if it doesn't go to vm) and find out you did it wrong. California can be a beastly license to get---and I have renewed mine every time---because of that.
Here's a simplistic example---but my dad was a Teamster, working in steel mills in the late 70's. Protectionism is what a business does in order to keep jobs local---with local people working there. We do what we have to do in order to keep our jobs for our people, tax revenue stays here, because there are families and roots being set down.
As far as the totally ignorant of the actual facts poster that doesn't seem to understand how to interpret statements correctly-- California requires a transcript to be sent---because they have a standard to which all nurses must be trained (yet another way to filter applicants out and protect those that are trained in CA)---why doesn't the ignorant person who claimed this isn't true---apply for a license in CA and see for itself? I did---and I submitted my application---it took 12 weeks, on the dot to the day that the Board said they were processing my submit date. I had to give them an original school transcript (not one that is sent by you, even if its official. it must come from your nursing school or the clearinghouse that handles your school transcripts) Two other travelers in my group were denied because of the "MicroBiology with separate Lab" requirement. The CABON was amazingly nice when I went there in person--two people in line--I paid my $100 for a copy of my CA verification to be sent to another state for processing. Some states require a verification---and most people have licensure that the NCSBN handles--CA is not on the quick verify list. You have to go and pay CA $100 (it may be more now, because....oh....you know.....revenue needs) to send the same verification that the NCSBN handles for most other states.
So by this thinking---you're saying that employers that require a BSN for you to be hired---are all discriminating against ADNs? Employers, landlords, countries, states---all have the right to put into place rules that they feel are necessary in order to achieve whatever goal they have in mind. If it's a staff of all BSNs? Then that is what they are allowed to do. If you want on the staff there? Then you pay the price of admission---get your BSN.