S.1348, Sec 505

Published

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?

Up Vote Up Vote ×

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.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

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???!!!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
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??

Up Vote Up Vote ×
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 :(

Up Vote Up Vote ×

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.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in High Acuity Medicine; HR Administration.

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).

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in OB, M/S, HH, Medical Imaging RN.
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.

:yeahthat:

Up Vote Up Vote ×
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.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

wha? most confusing thread ;)

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Med-Surg,OPD ER,School/Clinic,Teaching.
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."

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).

I really agree with paragraph 1. It won't be comprehensive unless it addresses Schedule A.:typing Point system for me really has no point.:roll

With regards to paragraph 2, I somehow disagree with this one; Though unlimited visas maybe be viewed by many in the USA as counter-productive, it really has its rewards if used in the right way.:cool:

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in High Acuity Medicine; HR Administration.
I really agree with paragraph 1. It won't be comprehensive unless it addresses Schedule A.:typing Point system for me really has no point.:roll

With regards to paragraph 2, I somehow disagree with this one; Though unlimited visas maybe be viewed by many in the USA as counter-productive, it really has its rewards if used in the right way.:cool:

Hi john!

How are you?

I do understand your reasons for number two. We know of many (or should I say ALL?) nurses who are presently “stranded” and frustrated with what has been happening about the visas. But believe me once you are here and get to know/assimilate with the system you will not want an unlimited visa for foreign nurses. X number of visas for X number of years is what we need. Not unlimited visas nor retrogression.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion