Who must register under the Alien Registration Law?
In a move that has drawn strong condemnation from legal and human rights advocates, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has recently announced new measures. These measures enforce the long-standing “Alien Registration Requirement” under Section 262 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This policy, which went into effect on April 11, 2025, requires undocumented immigrants and certain other non-citizens who have not previously registered to do so using a new online form and process. The changes are part of a broader executive order that aims to identify and track unregistered non-citizens.
The new process requires affected individuals to create a USCIS online account and submit a new form, G-325R. Failure to comply with these registration requirements carries severe penalties. These include fines, up to six months in prison, and potential deportation proceedings. The policy also places the responsibility on parents or legal guardians to register children under the age of 14.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), a leading professional organization for immigration attorneys, has been a vocal critic of these new measures. AILA has expressed concern that the broad and potentially vague nature of the new rule could lead to a “show me your papers” regime. In this scenario, individuals who appear “foreign” could be subject to arbitrary arrests and detentions by law enforcement. They could face this simply for not being able to produce proof of registration.
Furthermore, AILA has submitted formal comments to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) arguing for the withdrawal of the new rule. For example, the form asks for a five-year address history, and inquires about any past criminal activity. This includes crimes that did not result in an arrest or conviction. AILA argues that this is an intrusive and potentially unconstitutional requirement. It violates the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination. The organization has also criticized the government for implementing the rule as an interim final rule. This approach bypasses the traditional notice-and-comment period and limits the ability of the public and legal community to provide input on the policy.
