The default absent the Jones Act would likely be that vessels would move between US ports (which likely does include river ports) under non-US flags with non-US

The default absent the Jones Act would likely be that vessels would move between US ports (which likely does include river ports) under non-US flags with non-US crews who simply never leave the vessel. Just as is the case for vessels going back and forth between the US and other countries. Requiring that these vessels adhere to American laws is exactly the intent of requiring them to be American flagged and crewed. I would agree with you that it's probably outdates that crewing has to be predominantly citizens and otherwise LPRs and it probably makes sense to open this up to legitimate immigrant labor too. But I'd argue that's an adjustment to the Jones Act vs a repeal of it. I think it's worth bearing in mind that we're responding to an article by the Cato Institute. Their interest is in stripping away regulations that put limits on big businesses. They are primarily funded by the Koch Family, whose companies spend _huge_ sums on domestic shipping in particular (think about the volume that Georgia-Pacific moves around). Of course they're in favor of reducing regulations that limit domestic shipping: they'd probably love to turn around and use a Liberia-flagged, Filipino crewed ship to move domestic shipments. It doesn't make their arguments _inherently_ valid, but there is an obvious self-serving motive.