PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 9, 2003
Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act of 2003 or the CLEAR Act of 2003 - States that: (1) State and local law enforcement personnel are fully authorized to investigate, apprehend, or remove aliens in the United States (including interstate transportation of such aliens to detention centers) in the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws; and (2) a State that does not have a statute permitting enforcement of Federal immigration laws within two years of enactment of this Act shall not receive certain Federal incarceration assistance.
Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to illegal aliens to: (1) establish criminal penalties and forfeiture for aliens unlawfully present in the United States; (2) increase specified criminal and civil penalties for illegal entry and failure to depart violations; and (3) provide for payment of funds from certain civil penalties to State and local law enforcement agencies for apprehension of such aliens.
Provides for the listing of immigration violators in the National Crime Information Center database.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires States and localities to provide the Department of Homeland Security with specified information about apprehended illegal aliens. Eliminates certain Federal incarceration assistance for noncompliance.
Directs the Attorney General to make grants to local police agencies for equipment and facilities related to housing and processing illegal aliens.
Amends the Act to provide for Federal custody and State or local compensation of State or locally apprehended illegal aliens.
Establishes a process for State and local claims against the Federal Government for failure to cooperate in enforcing immigration laws.
Directs the Secretary or the Attorney General to establish immigration-related training for State and local personnel.
Provides: (1) personal liability immunity for Federal, State, or local personnel enforcing immigration laws within the scope of their duties; and (2) civil rights money damage immunity for Federal, State, or local agencies enforcing immigration laws unless their personnel violated criminal law in such enforcement.
States that the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security shall continue to operate the Institutional Removal Program, which shall be expanded to all States.
People & committees
Rep. Norwood, Charles W. [R-GA-9] · R–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H8468-8469)
Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H7201-7202)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H7162-7163)
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 18, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2671 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2671 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2671 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2671 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.