• The State Department will consult with countries which are the sources of significant numbers of undocumented aliens about cooperative border enforcement and anti-smuggling efforts.

The proposed employer sanctions and border enforcement will clearly discourage a significant percentage of those who would otherwise attempt to enter or remain in the U.S. illegally. However, as long as jobs are available here but not easily available in countries which have been the source of most undocumented aliens, many citizens of those countries will ignore whatever barriers to entry and employment we erect. An effective policy to control illegal immigration must include the development of a strong economy in each source country.

Unfortunately, this objective may be difficult to achieve within the near future. The economies of most of the source countries are still not sufficiently developed to produce, even with significant U.S. aid, enough jobs over the short term to match their rapidly growing workforce.

Over the longer term, however, I believe that marked improvements in source countries' economies are achieveable by their own efforts with support from the United States. I welcome the economic development efforts now being made by the dynamic and competent leaders of Mexico. To further efforts such as those, the United States is committed to helping source countries obtain assistance appropriate to their own economic needs. I will explore with source countries means of providing such assistance. In some cases this will mean bilateral or multilateral economic assistance. In others, it will involve technical assistance, encouragement of private financing and enhanced trade, or population programs.

The fact that there are millions of undocumented aliens already residing in this country presents one of the most difficult questions surrounding the aliens phenomenon. These aliens entered the U.S. illegally and have willfully remained here in violation of the immigration laws. On the other hand, many of them have been law-abiding residents who are looking for a new life and are productive members of their communities.

I have concluded that an adjustment of status is necessary to avoid having a permanent "underclass" of millions of persons who have not been and cannot practicably be deported, and who would continue living here in perpetual fear of immigration authorities, the local police, employers and neighbors. Their entire existence would continue to be predicated on staying outside the reach of government authorities and the law's protections.

I therefore recomend the following adjustments of status:

First, I propose that permanent resident alien status be granted to all undocumented aliens who have resided continuously in the U.S. from before January 1, 1970, to the present. These aliens would have to apply for this status and provide normal documentary proof of continuous residency. If residency is maintained, U.S. citizenship

could be sought five years after the granting of permanent status, as provided in existing immigration laws.

The permanent resident alien status would be granted through an update of the registry provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The registry statute has been updated three times since 1929, with the last update in 1965, when permanent resident alien status was granted to those who had resided here prior to 1948.

Second, all undocumented aliens, including those (other than exchange and student visitors) with expired visas, who were residing in the United States on or before January 1, 1977, will be eligible for a temporary resident alien status for five years.

Those eligible would be granted the temporary status only after registering with INS; registration would be permitted solely during a one-year period. Aliens granted temporary status would be entitled to reside legally in the United States for a five-year period.

The purpose of granting a temporary status is to preserve a decision on the final status of these undocumented aliens, until much more precise information about their number, location, family size and economic situation can be collected and reviewed. That information would be obtained through the registration process. A decision on their final status would be made sometime after the completion of the registration process and before the expiration of the five-year period.

Temporary resident aliens would not have the right to vote, to run for public office or to serve on juries; nor would they be entitled to bring members of their families into the U.S. But they could leave and reenter this country, and they could seek employment, under the same rules as permanent resident aliens.

Unlike permanent resident aliens, temporary resident aliens would be ineligible to receive such Federal social services as Medicaid, Food Stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and Supplemental Security Income. However, the allocation formulas for Revenue Sharing, which are based on population, would be adjusted to reflect the presence of temporary resident aliens. The adjustment would compensate states and local communities for the fact that some of these residents-undocumented aliens are currently not included in the Census Bureau's population counts. That undercount deprives certain states and communities of Revenue Sharing funds which, if Census figures were completely accurate, would be received and used to defray certain expenses caused by the presence of undocumented aliens. Those receiving adjustments of status through the actions I am proposing would be included in the 1980 Census, so that the allocation charges would have to be made only through 1980. Third, for those undocumented aliens who entered the United States after January 1, 1977. there would be no adjustment of status. The immigration laws would still be enforced against these undocumented aliens. Similarly, those undocumented aliens, who are eligible for adjustment of status, but do not apply, would continue to have the immigration laws enforced against them.

In addition, the INS would expedite its handling of the substantial backlog of adjustment of status applications from those aliens entitled to an adjustment under existing law.

Finally, those persons who would be eligible for an adjustment of status under these proposals must not be ineligible under other provisions of the immigration laws.

As part of these efforts to control the problem of undocumented aliens, I am asking the Secretary of Labor to conduct, in consultation with the Congress and other interested parties, a comprehensive review of the current temporary foreign worker (H-2) certification program. I believe it is possible to structure this program so that it responds to the legitimate needs of both employees, by protecting domestic employment opportunities, and of employers, by providing a needed workforce. However, I am not considering the reintroduction of a bracero-type program for the importation of temporary workers.

Our present immigration statutes are in need of a comprehensive review. I am therefore directing the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Labor to begin a comprehensive interagency study of our existing immigration laws and policies.

In the interim, I am supporting pending legislation to increase the annual limitation on legal Mexican and Canadian immigration to a total of 50,000, allocated between them according to demand. This legislation will help provide an incentive to legal immigration. I urge the Congress to consider promptly, and to pass, the legislation I will submit containing the proposals described in this Message.

Id. 1170-1175.

Licensing

Ownership of Property

In Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 45 Law Week 4488 (1977), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a three-judge Federal court decision striking down two Virginia statutes which subjected federally licensed vessels owned by aliens or nonresidents of Virginia to fishing limitations in Virginia's territorial waters different from those applicable to U.S. citizens and Virginia residents. The case arose when a fishing company owned almost entirely by alien stockholders filed a complaint after being denied a license to fish for a commercially valuable species of fin fish on the basis of a Virginia law permitting only those nonresidents of Virginia who meet certain citizenship requirements the right to fish in the three-mile belt of Virginia's territorial sea. The three-judge court held that the Virginia citizenship requirement was pre-empted by Federal statutes and that the Virginia residency restrictions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In arriving at its decision, the Supreme Court, in a May 23, 1977, opinion by Justice Marshall, relied on Gib

bons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 1 (1824), which invalidated a similar discriminatory State regulation of federally licensed vessels engaged in the transportation of goods and passengers in New York waters. Portions of the Court's opinion follow:

Persons or corporations wishing to fish commercially in Virginia must obtain licenses. Section 28.1-81.1 of the Virginia Code (§ 81.1), enacted in 1975, limits the issuance of commercial fishing licenses to United States citizens. Under this law, participants in any licensed partnership, firm or association must be citizens. A fishing business organized in corporate form may be licensed only if it is chartered in this country; American citizens own and control at least 75% of its stock; and its president, board chairman and controlling board majority are citizens.

Section 28.1-60 of the Virginia Code (§ 60) governs licensing of nonresidents of Virginia to fish for menhaden, an inedible but commercially valuable species of fin fish. Section 60 allows nonresidents who meet the citizenship requirements of $81.1 to obtain licenses to fish for menhaden in the three-mile wide belt of Virginia's territorial sea off the State's eastern coastline. At the same time, however, § 60 prohibits nonresidents from catching menhaden in the Virginia portion of Chesapeake Bay.

...

[Appellee] Seacoast was founded in New Jersey in 1911 and maintains its principal offices in that State: it is incorporated in Delaware and qualified to do business in Virginia. . . . In 1973, the family of Seacoast's founder sold the business to Hanson Trust Limited, a United Kingdom company almost entirely owned by alien stockholders. Seacoast continued its operations unchanged after the sale. All of its officers, directors, boat captains and crews are American citizens, as are over 95% of its plant employees.

At the time of its sale, Seacoast's fishing vessels were enrolled and licensed United States flagships. . . . Under 46 U.S.C. 808, 835, the transfer of these vessels to a foreign-controlled corporation required the approval of the Department of Commerce. This was granted unconditionally over the opposition of Seacoast's competitors after a full public hearing that considered the effect of the transfer on fish conservation and management, on American workers and consumers, and on competition and other social and economic concerns Following this approval, appellees' fishing vessels were reenrolled and relicensed pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 251, 252, 263. They remain subject to all United States laws governing maritime com

merce.

In past decades, although not recently, Seacoast had operated processing plants in Virginia and was thereby entitled to fish in Chesapeake Bay as a resident . . . . More recently, Seacoast obtained nonresident menhaden licenses as restricted by § 60 to waters outside Chesapeake Bay. In 1975, however, § 81.1 was passed by the Virginia Legislature, c. 338, 1975 Acts of Assembly 564, and appellant James E. Douglas, Jr., the Commissioner of Marine Resources for Virginia, denied appellees' license applications on the basis of the new law. Seacoast and its subsidiaries were thereby completely excluded from the Virginia menhaden fishery.

Appellees accordingly filed a complaint in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking to have §§ 60 and 81.1 declared unconstitutional and their enforcement enjoined. A threejudge court was convened and it struck down both statutes. It held that the citizenship requirement of § 81.1 was pre-empted by the Bartlett Act, 16 U.S.C. 1081 et seq., and that the residency restriction of § 60 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We noted probable jurisdiction of the State's appeal, 425 U. S. 949 (1976), and we affirm.

The basic form for the comprehensive Federal regulation of trading and fishing vessels was established in the earliest days of the Nation and has changed little since. . . . Vessels engaged in domestic or coastwise trade or used for fishing are "enrolled" under procedures established by the Enrollment and Licensing Act of February 18, 1793, 1 Stat. 305, c. 8, codified in 46 U. S. C. c. 12. "The purpose of an enrollment is to evidence the national character of a vessel... and to enable such vessel to procure a . . . license." The Mohawk [3 Wall 566, 571 (1866)]; Anderson v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co., [225 U.S. 187, 199 (1912)].

...

A "license," in turn, regulates the use to which a vessel may be put and is intended to prevent fraud on the revenue of the United States. Sec. 46 U.S.C. 262, 263, 319, 325; 46 CFR 67.01-13. . . . The law also provides that properly enrolled and licensed vessels "and no others, shall be deemed vessels of the United States entitled to the privileges of vessels employed in the coasting trade or fisheries." 46 U.S.C. 251. Appellees' vessels were granted licenses for the "mackerel fishery" after their transfer was approved by the Department of Commerce.

The challenged statutes thus deny appellees their federally granted right to engage in fishing activities on the same terms as Virginia residents. They violate the "indisputable" precept that "no State may completely exclude federally licensed commerce." Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142 (1963). They must fall under the Supremacy Clause.

The business of commercial fishing must be conducted by peripatetic entrepreneurs moving, like their quarry, without regard for State boundary lines. . . . A number of coastal States have discriminatory fisheries laws, and with all natural resources becoming increasingly scarce and more valuable, more such restrictions would be a likely prospect, as both protective and retaliatory measures. Each State's fishermen eventually might be effectively limited to working in the territorial waters of their residence, or in the federally controlled fishery beyond the three-mile limit. Such proliferation of residency requirements for commercial fishermen would create precisely the sort of Balkanization of interstate commercial activity which the Constitution was intended to prevent. See, e. g., H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. DuMond, 336 U.S. 525, 532-539 (1949);