The No Round Up Act repeals key provisions of the Alien Registration Act of 1940 by removing the statutory requirements for aliens to register and be fingerprinted (section 262 and related provisions), eliminating statutory authorizations for registration forms, and repealing related penalty and receipt-card provisions. The bill also removes a conforming clause in the Immigration and Nationality Act that tied deportability to failure to comply with those registration rules.
This matters because the repeal strips a long-standing federal registration framework that historically required noncitizens to carry registration documentation and enabled a distinct deportation ground. The bill shifts how identity, biometric collection, and immigration-record maintenance may be handled at the federal level and leaves several implementation questions for DHS and Justice Department rules and records management to resolve.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill repeals section 262 of the Alien Registration Act and several related provisions (including parts of sections 263 and 264, subsection (b) of section 265, and section 266) and removes a clause in INA 237(a)(3)(B) tied to deportability for failure to register. It strips the Attorney General’s statutory authority to prepare registration/fingerprinting forms tied to that Act.
Who It Affects
Noncitizens who previously fell under statutory registration obligations, federal agencies that implement immigration registration and records (DHS, DOJ), and attorneys and advocates who handle status and removal matters. State and local actors that relied on federal registration documents for verification may also be indirectly affected.
Why It Matters
Repealing the registration statute removes a statutory basis for a class of administrative requirements and one deportation ground, creating a legal gap that will require DHS/DOJ to decide whether and how to replace or re-authorize collection and identification practices administratively. The change affects enforcement priorities, biometric data handling, and the legal basis for prosecuting or deporting noncompliant registrants.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
At its core the No Round Up Act strips the Alien Registration Act of 1940 out of the Immigration and Nationality Act by repealing the statutory sections that obligate aliens to register and be fingerprinted and by deleting related penalty and documentation provisions. The sponsor’s bill does not add new procedures; instead it removes the specific statutory mandate and the statutory tools used to implement that mandate, such as form-authority language and a registration receipt provision.
Because the repeal touches multiple numbered sections, the bill also edits cross-references in existing INA text: it narrows language in section 263, removes the Attorney General’s express duty to prepare registration/fingerprint forms, and repeals a clause in the INA’s deportability list that was linked to registration failures. Practically, that means a federal statutory basis for requiring and penalizing failure to register no longer exists, and the explicit statutory authority to issue registration forms disappears.The Act is silent about records already collected, any administrative replacement procedures, or whether DHS should continue collecting the same biometric information under other statutory authorities.
It likewise contains no transition provisions preserving or destroying existing registration records or clarifying the status of registration receipt cards previously issued. Those absences leave the agencies with policy and operational decisions if the repeal becomes law.Implementation will therefore depend on agency action.
DHS and Justice Department components will need to decide whether to rely on other existing immigration statutes and regulations to collect biometrics and maintain identity records, to issue administrative guidance, or to seek new legislative authority. The repeal changes the statutory landscape but does not itself prescribe how agencies must handle identification, biometrics, or the existing database of registration information.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill repeals section 262 of the Alien Registration Act — the statutory provision that underpins federal registration and fingerprinting obligations for aliens in the 1940 Act.
It amends section 263 to remove cross-references to the repealed registration provisions and eliminates subsection (b) of section 263, narrowing the text that presupposed statutory registration duties.
The bill removes the Attorney General’s statutory authorization to prepare registration and fingerprinting forms (text removed from section 264(a)) and repeals subsection 264(e), stripping explicit form-authority language.
It repeals subsection (b) of section 265 and section 266, which historically regulated penalties and the issuance of registration/receipt documentation tied to the registration scheme.
The bill deletes clause (i) of INA section 237(a)(3)(B), removing a deportation ground that depended on the registration requirements now repealed.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — 'No Round Up Act'
This is the formal short title; it identifies the bill for citations and does not affect substance. Practically, short titles are how the measure will be referenced in agency materials and legislative analyses if enacted.
Remove core registration/fingerprinting statute
Repealing section 262 eliminates the specific statutory language that required aliens to register and be fingerprinted under the 1940 Act. That repeal removes the statutory basis for criminal or civil enforcement that rested solely on those sections and forces agencies to rely on other INA provisions or administrative rules for similar identity-collection practices.
Clean up cross-references and limit legacy categories
The bill edits section 263(a) to strike references to both sections 261 and 262 (leaving only 261) and removes phrases concerning certain categories of aliens (e.g., confined persons) and repeals subsection (b). This is a surgical change to remove reliance on the now-repealed registration obligations and to prevent inconsistent or orphaned references in INA text.
Strip form-authority and related provisions
By removing the clause that authorized the Attorney General to prepare registration and fingerprinting forms and repealing subsection 264(e), the bill eliminates an express statutory duty to create the paperwork and forms historically associated with registration. Repealing subsection (b) of section 265 removes related statutory mechanisms or penalties tied to the registration framework, narrowing statutory enforcement tools.
Delete registration receipt provision and deportability cross-reference
Section 266’s repeal removes the statutory provision historically providing for registration receipt cards or parallel documentation. The conforming amendment repeals clause (i) of INA 237(a)(3)(B), which had made failure to comply with registration a deportable offense; removing it aligns the deportability list with the repeal so there is no dangling deportation ground tied to a statute that no longer exists.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Noncitizens previously subject to the 1940 registration rules — they would no longer face a federal statutory obligation to register or carry a registration receipt tied to the repealed provisions.
- Immigration and civil-rights advocates — repeal eliminates a statutory mechanism historically used to track and, in some cases, target noncitizens, which advocates argue reduced risk of indiscriminate enforcement.
- Privacy and biometric-rights organizations — removing the statutory registration/fingerprinting mandate reduces one explicit statutory basis for government collection and retention of biometric registration data.
Who Bears the Cost
- DHS and Department of Justice components — agencies will have to decide whether to replace or re-authorize registration and biometric-collection practices administratively, manage legacy records, and adjust enforcement and identification workflows.
- Immigration lawyers and caseworkers — uncertainty about records and deportability grounds may increase case complexity and client counseling burdens during the transition to different administrative regimes.
- State and local entities that used federal registration documents for verification — jurisdictions that relied on registration receipts or consolidated federal records may face identification gaps or operational friction if federal documentation is withdrawn or its legal status becomes unclear.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate objectives against each other: protecting noncitizens from a statutory registration-and-carry regime that can facilitate wide-ranging enforcement and privacy intrusions, versus preserving a clear, centralized statutory basis for the federal government to collect identity and biometric information it argues is necessary for immigration control and public safety. Eliminating the statute reduces one lever for enforcement and tracking but creates uncertainty about where and how those functions will be performed lawfully and consistently.
The bill repeals statutory text but leaves important operational and legal questions unanswered. It provides no instructions about what to do with registration records and biometric data already collected: the statute is silent on retention, transfer, or destruction of those records, which raises data-privacy, FOIA, and litigation-risk issues for DHS.
Agencies will need to decide whether to preserve existing data for immigration adjudications and enforcement, to purge records in whole or in part, or to rely on other statutes for continued retention.
Another tension is statutory gap versus practical continuity. While the repeal removes the specific 1940 Act obligations and a deportation ground, other parts of the INA and existing regulations continue to authorize biometric collection (for applications, asylum, detention processing, and criminal removals).
The bill does not remove those other authorities, so practitioners should expect a mixed landscape: some collections will continue under different legal bases, while the explicit nationwide registration regime would be gone. That may complicate enforcement coordination, evidence chains in removal proceedings, and interactions with state/local systems that previously used federal registration documents for identity verification.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.