This litigаtion was brought in the District Court by a labor organization active in the Texas counties bordering on Mexico," and by individual workers employed in those counties, to obtain injunctive аnd declaratory relief against the United States immigration authorities, seeking
The plaintiff labor organization sued in a representative capacity on behalf of its members and its affiliated labor groups. In addition, some 188 individuals alleging economic detriment from the activities of the alien commuters sued as plaintiffs on their own bеhalf and as representatives of others similarly situated. The sole defendants named in the complaint were the two principal Government officials charged with the аdministration and enforcement of the immigration laws. Some 19 alien commuters intervened as defendants, individually and as representatives of a class. Motions for summary judgment were-filed by all parties, and all the defendants moved to dismiss. The motions to dismiss were granted, and the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was denied. This appeal followed.
Much of the argumеnt addressed to us relates to the merits of the controversy, namely, whether “alien commuters” are entitled under the law to enjoy the privileges which have long been extended to them.
Assuming the truth of the crucial allegations of the complaint brought by plaintiffs-appellants- — namely, that expulsion or exclusion of the alien commuters would result in many jobs becoming available to the individual plaintiffs, or would at least reduce the competition faced by them in seeking employment, that the union is handicapped in its activities by the presence of the alien commuters, and that the latter are employed in this country only because the Government officials-charged with the enforcement of the immigration laws have illegally permitted them to enter and to work here — this is-not enough to give the plaintiffs-appellants standing to sue the defendant of
It is quite true that an alien whose status here is threatened by action of our Government is generally granted standing to sue the responsible officials to vindicate his rights in our courts. See, for example, Estrada v. Ahrens,
For these reasons, the order of the District Court, dismissing the complaint, will be
Affirmed.
Notes
. The complaint also asked relief, though this was not as strongly urged, with respect to a similar group of Canadians allowed to enter the United Statеs under like conditions to obtain work in American communities near the Canadian-American border.
. Appellants’ main contention on the merits is that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., “contains no provisions to grant permanent resident alien status to aliens who continue to reside in a foreign country, and who desire to enter the United States solely for daily employment as international commuters.” Appellants argue that alien commuters cannot be regarded as “aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence,” as permanent residence here has not in fact been achieved, and hence they are not entitled to the privileges of aliens admitted for such residence.
The Government’s argument on the merits is essentially based on long-standing administrative application of the immigration laws, before and after the passage of thе 1952 Act, so as to permit the practices here attacked. The 1952 Act, says the Government, was drafted in full awareness of these practices by the Congress, and in effect continued them. The Government further argues that an alien who has “the status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant,” see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (20), does not forfeit that status by becoming a commuter.
. Appellants rely on Amalgamated Meat Cutters, etc. v. Rogers,
. Though the individual plaintiffs do not identify themselves as union members, but rather as residents of the United States, their interests seem substantially those of the union and its members. They allege that they have been unemployed at various periods during the years 1960 and 1961, “at a time when commuting aliens with 1 — 151 border crossing cards were working at jobs in the United States which plaintiffs were capable of performing.” They further say in the complaint:
“Defendants have largely ignored the provisions of Title 8, U.S.C. §§ 1101(a) (15) (H) and 1184 аs a source of alien labor which can be made available without displacing the employment of workers in the United States. Instead, defendants have knowingly permitted thе use of permanent resident alien status by commuting aliens who are residents of contiguous foreign territory. By this ‘amiable fiction,’ 1-151 border crossing identification cards, which are designed solely for issuance to bona fide residents of the United States with a current status of permanent resident alien, are used as a device to permit daily commutation entry of residents of a foreign country for the sole purpose of engaging in employment in the United States. Such use violates the Act, and is in derogation of the letter and intent of said Act regarding use of the express provisions referred to herein above, and also Title 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (14), for entry of aliens to engage in employment under conditions which will safeguard domestic labor.”
We have given full weight to these contentions in reaching our conclusion that the union and the individual plaintiffs have no standing to bring this suit.