Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Gordon, you suggested that section 245 (c) be amended so that natives of the Western Hemisphere other than those born in contiguous territories or adjacent islands are eligible for adjusted status. What would be your reaction to elimination entirely of this section 245 (c)?

Mr. GORDON. I think there are several considerations that should be taken into account. Logically one perhaps could say, why should these people be treated any differently from other applicants, in subjecting them to the burden of leaving the country and coming back if they are qualified. However, I think historically Congress has always insisted on such a proviso and I think with good reason. I think the Western Hemisphere preclusion was wrong. I think that it went too far and it ought to be modified. Insofar as people from adjacent or contiguous countries are concerned, they come into this country in a much different situation than others. They are mostly exempted from the documentary requirements applicable to others. Canadians can cross the border without documents generally. Mexicans can cross the border very easily with a border crossing card. There is a great facility in coming across the border for natives of adjacent countries. If the opportunity for adjustment of status were opened up to these people, we would have an enormous enforcement problem. We would have tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of people who might want to take advantage of this provision, and therefore we feel that it is not desirable to extend this privilege. You will notice, Mr. Chairman, in our proposal, that we narrow the field of those who are not eligible. For example, we say even if they are natives of contiguous countries and adjacent islands if they are immediate relatives, they would be qualified for adjustment. of status. That would resolve practically the whole problem you suggest. Moreover, if they are born to parents who themselves would qualify for adjustment of status, like Frenchmen or Germans who happen to be in Mexico, then the child would become eligible for adjustment of status.

In our proposal we narrow very much the area in which this preclusion would operate and we think it would be desirable to continue it in this limited form.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Gordon, on March 26 of last year, together with Chairman Celler, I introduced a bill, H.R. 9505, and Senator Kennedy also introduced an identical bill in the Senate, that would require a permanent resident alien residing in Canada and Mexico and working in the United States to receive labor certification every 6 months. The bill would remove the provision from the Immigration and Nationality Act which exempts persons who willfully and knowingly employ aliens who enter the United States illegally. What do you think of that 6-month provision?

Mr. GORDON. I think it is a positive approach. The Department of Justice has not yet had a chance to consider this and make a report. Speaking for myself, I think it is a possible approach but I am not sure it is going to solve the problem entirely. In the first place, the bill talks of persons who are residents of the continguous countries. We have had a large problem in our dealings with this commuter situation in determining who are residents. The proposal that you make, Mr. Chairman, would not deal with a large group of agricultural workers who come here seasonally, who live in the United States more than

52-013-71-14

6 months each year and therefore have a claim that they are residents. It would deal with the so-called daily commuter. To the extent the daily commuter's situation is a problem, perhaps your proposal would deal with it.

Moreover, I think there should be something in any legislation on this subject in the nature of a grandfather clause. I think the people who have enjoyed the benefits of this commuter status over the course of many years should be given an opportunity to decide whether they want to move into the United States or whether they want to terminate the status. I think the bill could be improved by that. As to the 6-month provision, this would create possibly some administrative difficulty in getting the certifications promptly at that time. Perhaps there would be some delays. To the extent that it is a declaration by Congress of policy, we certainly want a declaration in this field because we have never had anything positive. I think for myself perhaps the better approach would be Senator Muskie's proposal. He would phase out the situation for a period of 2 years. He would require everybody who immigrated after that period to declare that they desire to reside permanently in the United States and subject them to deportation if they do not establish permanent residence. He would establish a class of temporary workers, admitted only within a 20-mile area of the border, to come to work as nonimmigrants and not as immigrants. That seems also another reasonable approach to the problem. I think some declaration by Congress in this area would be quite desirable.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Gordon, if the issuance of these new green cards to commuter aliens were terminated, would any adverse consequences result? How long would you estimate it would take to phase out such a commuter alien program?

Mr. GORDON. When you speak of adverse consequences, as you know, the Department of State has expressed itself very forcefully, and Miss Watson yesterday repeated that view, that the termination of the commuter program would have an adverse effect on the foreign relations of the United States. We have had several litigations involving the commuter problem. The Secretary of State has furnished us affidavits in those litigations informing the courts that the termination of the commuter program would have an adverse effect. That is one adverse effect. Another one, which I cannot speak of with any knowledge or expertise, is the effect it would have on the border communities. There is quite a heavy reliance on workers from adjacent countries in some of the border communities. The border communities in many areas have raised objections. There are conflicting considerations which Congress should take into account. I think any guidance that we get in this field would be very desirable. We are in the middle. We are getting blows from the labor unions, from one side, and employers and commuters from the other. We are subjected to litigation and criticism. We are administering the law as we believe the Congress wanted it administered. If Congress would make some declaration of policy, we would be happy to apply it.

Mr. FEIGHAN. We seek your advice and counsel because you have been in the field working and practical experience is much better than theory in many instances. Do you have any suggestion as to the situation, particularly along the Southwest border, caused by the commuter aliens and illegal entrants, and aliens working in violation of their immigration status and how it might be solved?

Mr. GORDON. We have taken some measures to deal with this situation, as you no doubt know, Mr. Chairman. We have adopted a system of marking each of the green cards of the commuter aliens so we can identify them. We have also made an S mark on the cards of the seasonal workers. We have attempted to identify the commuters. We have some idea now who the people are. We have also required the commuters to give us evidence that they are currently employed, and that they are employed within the 6-month period during which they might lose their status.

We give each commuter a slip every 6 months. He is required to notify us where he is employed. We have some better enforcement methods now.

Beyond that, under the present statute we feel that the course of 43 years of continuous interpretation, following what we believe is the policy which Congress wants us to follow, has to be continued. If Congress wants to make a different policy, we think it is appropriate and desirable, indeed, to have this spelled out in the statute. Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Gordon, could you give us an idea precisely how the administration's proposed bill would affect the labor situation in the Virgin Islands?

Mr. GORDON. Yes.

This is a proposal with which Miss Watson dealt yesterday. There is first the administration proposal which suggests that the dependent area limitation be increased to 600. Then there is a special one-shot proposal to afford the opportunity for obtaining permanent residence to the West Indian laborers now in the Virgin Islands. This would give them the opportunity to apply for permanent resident status. What the effect will be on the Virgin Island situation I cannot tell you. I believe the Labor Department may have better information.

Mr. FEIGHAN. On behalf of the Subcommittee, Mr. Gordon, and Mr. Bernsen, I want to express to you our appreciation for your very valuable assistance. We look forward to hearing from you again. Mr. GORDON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FEIGHAN. The Committee will adjourn.

APPENDIX

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK ANNUNZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ON JULY 15, 1970, IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 17370, TO AMEND THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, President Kennedy called the United States a "nation of immigrants," and so it is. With the exception of the American Indian, we are all immigrants-or the grandchildren of immigrants or the great-great-great-great-grandchildren of immigrants. Our respective national heritages are reflected in our names or faces or perhaps in the language we speak with our relatives. As a group, we have contributed our industry and ingenuity to this country, and in return we have been wellrewarded. It has been a mutually beneficial partnership. To keep this partnership flourishing with respect to the thousands of would-be immigrants throughout the world is a desirable policy, but one which our present laws do not adequately implement. I therefore appear before you today to express my support of bill which would extend and improve the partnership between America and those from around the globe who would throw their lot in with hers.

H.R. 17370. introduced by the exceptionally able Congressman from New Jersey, Peter Rodino, makes important and welcome changes in a number of areas which were not adequately dealt with by the 1965 Amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act. I introduced H.R. 17551, which is identical to H.R. 17370, and I should like to discuss the changes made by this legislation in our present Western Hemisphere immigration policy and our preference system. (Incidentally, H.R. 9112-introduced last year by the distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Congressman Celler-contains many features similar to H.R. 17370, particularly in connection with preference system alterations. My own bill, H.R. 11171, is identical to H.R. 9112, and I was pleased to join Congressman Celler in sponsoring this much-needed legislation.)

People from independent countries in the Western Hemisphere traditionally entered this country in numbers unrestricted by quotas or limitations of any kind. This policy reflected both the ideal of Western Hemisphere solidarity and the geographical proximity of Canada, Mexico, and our Caribbean and Central and South American neighbors. By 1965, however, the Congress had become concerned by the increasingly large number of Western Hemisphere immigrants and by the fact that our policies placed would-be immigrants from outside the Western Hemisphere in a disadvantageous position as compared to those within our hemisphere. As stated by the Senate Judiciary Committee in its report:

To continue unrestricted immigration for persons born in Western Hemisphere countries is to place such aliens in a preferred status compared to aliens born in other parts of the world. . .

In order to change this situation, the 1965 Amendments contained a provision setting an annual limit of 120.000 immigrants from Western Hemisphere countries. The law stated that this limitation would go into effect on July 1, 1968, unless any inconsistent legislation was enacted before that date. The Amendments also created a Select Commission on Western Hemisphere Immigration, which recommended that the Western Hemisphere quota go into effect on July 1. 1969. instead of 1968. No law implementing that recommendation was ever enacted, however, so on July 1, 1968. the 120,000-person quota was instituted.

Since the enactment of the Western Hemisphere quota system, we have become aware of certain problems connected with it. The numerical quota system is unaccompanied by any preference system which would encourage the reunion of families and the entrance of workers with skills especially useful for the United States. Thus, as Congressman Michael A. Feighan commented last year: