Bob Barr

Clear as mud
A UPI Outside View commentary

If I had a buck for every idea that "sounded good," I'd be rich enough to have my own narcissistic reality show like a certain funky-haired business tycoon we all know in New York.

Every year, the congressional hopper into which new bills are dropped, is chock full of legislative proposals that "sounded good at the time," but in fact were really bad ideas. Remember "Campaign Finance Reform," one of Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain's "visions?" What's it "reformed?" Absolutely nothing, except perhaps gutting the First Amendment. Who can forget the so-called "assault weapons ban" of 1994? How much safer have its Second Amendment-infringing provisions kept us safer? Not one whit. But, these and other "reforms" sure sounded great to their sponsors at the time.

No matter how many of these "feel good" bills are introduced in any given year, the number always increases during a national election cycle. This cycle is no exception. We've got the "Federal Marriage Amendment," the "Continuity of Government Amendment," the "Victims Rights Amendment," and now the "CLEAR Act." Not familiar with it? Don't feel ignorant, few people are; yet it is working its way through the Congress of the United States.

Short for the "Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act," it was introduced last year by my former congressional colleague, Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-Ga., and, to date, has the support of a little more than one-fourth of House members. It sounds real good on the surface; so good it may actually pass the Congress.

Scratch the surface, however, and its much-touted benefits are CLEAR as mud.

The problem CLEAR purports to address is a real problem -- the huge and growing number of illegal aliens (yes, "illegal aliens," not "undocumented workers") running around the United States, and what seems to be the utter inability of our federal agencies tasked with enforcing -- and paid to enforce -- our laws against illegal immigration.

The solution proposed by CLEAR has surface appeal -- enlist the hundreds of thousands of local and state law enforcement officers to help our federal immigration officials. Before you shout, "Go for it!" however, let's consider what's being proposed here and where it will likely lead us.

Conservatives especially, who profess support for a reduced role for the federal government and a respect for principles of federalism, ought to consider where the precedent that would be established by the CLEAR Act would lead us. While there are long-standing precedents whereby federal and state or local law enforcement work together to solve problems of criminal activity in our communities, the CLEAR Act would move us to a new and different level.

Consider cooperation in enforcing anti-drug laws. During the years I served as the U.S. Attorney for North Georgia (1986 - 1990), for example, we witnessed consistent and major victories against major drug traffickers and money launderers, through the organized and cooperative efforts of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.

Importantly, however, this effort was voluntary in every respect. Local law enforcement agents could -- and still can -- be sworn in as special federal agents in order to participate in federal drug cases; but such authority is strictly limited in scope and duration. There were and are no penalties if a local or state agency elects not to participate.

Similarly, regarding enforcement of federal immigration laws, in the mid-1990s, Congress authorized the attorney general to enter into cooperative agreements with state and local law enforcement to allow the latter to serve as immigration officers. Respectful of the principles of federalism and separation of powers between federal and state interests, however, such power was and is strictly voluntary and limited.

These precedents, and others, reflect the proper role of the federal government -- to enforce federal laws -- and the proper responsibility of state and local governments -- not to enforce federal laws. The CLEAR Act would throw this important principle out the window in the name of "fighting the war against illegal immigration." While this war may be worthwhile, the means of achieving it proposed in the CLEAR Act is not.

Even though, on the surface, and in the words of its sponsors, participation by state and local law enforcement under the CLEAR Act would be "voluntary," this is more a semantic distinction than a factual reality.

Consider what the act does, as opposed to what its advocates say:

-- Unless a state or local agency agrees to pay its officers to spend their time enforcing federal immigration laws, it will lose vital federal funds (which, it is worth recalling, come originally from those communities).

-- State and local agencies would be required to provide information to the federal government regarding immigration matters.

-- State and local law enforcement would receive immunity for any acts carried out pursuant to their enforcement of immigration laws.

-- And, perhaps most chillingly, the authorities granted under the act to local law enforcement are not limited but would continue permanently.

As a practical matter, forcing local law enforcement to pick up the slack for the federal government's abject failure to use its powers and resources to enforce federal immigration laws, will simply afford the feds another excuse for not doing what they are supposed to have been doing all along.

The United States has never before stood for a national police force. Now is not the time to take the first tangible steps in that direction; no matter how appealing the reason.

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr is a frequent commentator on political and social issues and the chairman of the American Conservative Union Foundation's 21st Century Center for Privacy and Freedom