CLEAR ACT DEFEATED IN 2004
When the CLEAR Act (H.R. 2671) was introduced in the House of Representatives 18 months ago, no one knew what the outcome would be. The bill’s authors aggressively promoted it as an anti-crime measure, and exploited fears of terrorism to demand its enactment. House offices were blanketed almost daily with “Dear Colleague” letters from Representative Charlie Norwood (R-GA) and others, citing horrific crimes and prescribing the CLEAR Act as panacea. The legislation was sponsored by more than 100 members of the House before its first hearing. CLEAR advocates also took to the media, attempting to rally the public through Lou Dobbs and other restrictionist voices. Things looked bleak for those who could see the wolf in sheep's clothing that this bill really was . . .
But advocates around the country responded quickly and emphatically, and pulled out a critical victory!
You educated your state and local police departments and government officials about the dangers of this legislation, and encouraged them to speak out against it. You formed anti-CLEAR Act coalitions with unusual partners across the community, and lobbied your members of Congress. You executed grassroots campaigns with your community members and participated in national rallying events. You educated immigrants about the proper role of state and local police and helped them deal with situations where law enforcement overstepped that authority. You fought against state and local policies that would expand the role of police in immigration enforcement and you fought for policies that keep immigration control a federal function and fighting crime a local priority.
The result of all your organizing, alliance-building, and advocacy?
The CLEAR Act did not move in the House of Representatives. What looked like a near-certainty 18 months ago became an impossibility. The first sign of CLEAR’s defeat came when we learned that the House Immigration Subcommittee would not consider this legislation because it could not pass there (all Democrats and two Republicans in the subcommittee oppose the bill). The second hint of its defeat came this summer, when amendments to must-pass bills that represented a single piece of the CLEAR Act failed twice on the House floor. The final nail in the coffin of the CLEAR Act came with the 9/11 Commission intelligence reform legislation this fall. House Republican leaders loaded up their version of the legislation with anti-immigrant measures. An early draft of the bill that became H.R. 10 included a pared-down version of the CLEAR Act, but this bill was deemed “too hot to handle” and dropped from H.R. 10 before introduction.
The Homeland Security Enhancement Act never got off the ground. The Senate version of CLEAR (S. 1906) was introduced weeks after a pivotal House Immigration Subcommittee hearing showed widespread opposition to the idea. Despite Senator Jeff Sessions’ (R-AL) attempts to distance the HSEA from the unpopular CLEAR Act, he was never able to get more than a handful of co-sponsors on the bill.
Copycat state and local policies
were mostly kept at bay.
While memorandums of understanding that make some state/local police into
immigration agents were floated in several cities and states around the country,
to this day only two states have agreements in effect (Florida and Alabama).
Also, state legislation in
Pro-community policing policies
were adopted in several locales.
Resolutions against the CLEAR Act, and state and local ordinances in favor of
limiting police enforcement of federal immigration laws, were successful all
around the country. Most recently, the Dearborn City Council adopted an
anti-CLEAR resolution. See the
http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/LocalLaw/tbl_local_enfrcmnt_0704.pdf
for an updated chart of these policies. If you are considering your own campaign, sample language and other resources can be found at http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/LocalLaw/index.htm.
It is wonderful that so many of you were able to combine your state and local work with federal advocacy to defeat CLEAR/HSEA. It is also inspirational how our national partners in state and local government advocacy, domestic violence prevention, law enforcement, the faith community, immigrants’ rights, civil rights, and others really took on this issue and kept the bills from advancing. Thanks to all for your incredible contributions!
In a crowning moment at the end of this Congressional session, we learned that the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the world’s premier law enforcement institution, has taken a position against the CLEAR Act and similar legislation! IACP members voted to oppose this bill because of its negative impact on public safety and state/local law enforcement’s ability to do their jobs in their communities. They were not fooled by CLEAR proponents’ promises, thanks in part to your public education efforts all across the country. To read the IACP’s press release and policy backgrounder on this issue, go to http://www.theiacp.org/ and click on publications/press release.
While we should savor the important victory of defeating the CLEAR Act, we also know that challenges await us in 2005.
More locales are considering
formal immigration enforcement agreements with DHS.
While only two states have signed Memorandums of Understanding thus far, several
appear to be under consideration.
“Inherent authority” confusion abounds. A 2002 Justice Department announcement asserting the “inherent authority” of police to enforce federal immigration laws is still causing confusion among state and local police departments and immigrant residents. The legal basis for such a dramatic turnaround in Justice Department policy has never been released. The Department of Homeland Security is using this secret legal opinion as justification for entering names of immigration violators into the National Crime Information Center, and state and local police are arresting civil immigration law violators found in this database even if their state or local law or policy does not allow such arrests.
It appears that some law enforcement agencies are assuming that these individuals are criminals or are wanted for terrorism investigations, and that the DHS has been less than clear in explaining the Justice Department policy expanding the types of immigration violators entered into this criminal database. Plans to expand these categories further have ostensibly been put on hold, but may be on the horizon. Legal challenges on both the refusal to release the 2002 DOJ legal opinion and the practice of entering these names into NCIC are underway; meanwhile, the 2002 DOJ announcement and subsequent arrests have generated fear among immigrants.
Some law enforcement officers
continue to act on their own and attempt to enforce immigration laws.
Over the past several decades, certain state and local police officers
have occasionally acted outside of the bounds of their legal authority and
attempted immigration raids in communities, at day laborer sites, or during
traffic stops. Advocates have had to deal with such instances in
“Son” of CLEAR likely to be
proposed in Congress next year.
In addition to the on-going challenges experienced locally, another
Congressional attempt toward deputization of local police is likely on the
horizon. CLEAR Act proponents in the House and HSEA advocates in the Senate are
less than pleased that their bills were marginalized this year. They are no
doubt busy rewriting their bills for introduction in 2005. In fact, we saw
examples of what this legislation might look like during the 9/11 Commission
bill debate, when CLEAR-related proposals were floated as part of the House
package, and a HSEA-style amendment was posited for the Senate bill. In
particular, proponents appeared sensitive to our argument about immigrant crime
victims accessing police protection, although the language they wrote did not
alleviate that concern. Also, the proposed Senate amendment’s focus on
expanding the use of NCIC as an immigration enforcement tool was seen as less
controversial than the HSEA bill itself, and the amendment gained the support of
a moderate Republican senator, John Ensign of
There may be immigration vehicles moving in the 109th Congress that could give CLEAR proponents an opportunity for their legislation. Since the president said last year that he wanted to reform our immigration system, proponents of CLEAR and HSEA have vowed to make their issue part of any affirmative immigration proposal moving through Congress. Early indications from the White House and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) show that comprehensive immigration reform may be a front-burner issue this year, giving proponents of CLEAR an opportunity to attach their bill.
We know that CLEAR is not the answer to immigration enforcement, and that immigration reform (legalizing current undocumented immigrants and the future flow of workers and relatives) will go a long way toward easing the enforcement pressure at our borders and in the interior. Our immigration laws are currently outdated and unenforceable, and the CLEAR Act is a reaction to that reality. But in order to pass comprehensive immigration reform, Congress will want to include future immigration enforcement measures that can work under the new structure. Unless an alternative is developed quickly, CLEAR will be proposed as a possibility, and we will be on defense yet again.
Visit the National Immigration Forum’s web site at:
http://www.immigrationforum.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=230
and http://www.immigrationforum.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=566 for materials on the CLEAR Act and related issues. Some of our advocacy materials are continuously updated, so if you would like the latest version of our quotes page or lists of groups opposed to the bill please email me at ltramonte@immigrationforum.org.
Thanks again for all of your work this year to defeat CLEAR in 2004; we look forward to another successful year!