Biometrics and identity papers become new US immigration battleground

On March 12, 2025, the Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published an interim final rule that reactivates a long-dormant provision of U.S. immigration law that requires certain noncitizens to register with the federal government and always carry proof of that registration. The move represents a major shift in immigration enforcement policy and introduces new risks for millions of individuals living in the United States.

Issued without public input, the impending rule – set to take effect April 11- has sparked significant controversy and has led to a federal lawsuit being filed by immigrant advocacy organizations.

The rule mandates that all noncitizens over the age of 18 must carry documentation confirming their registration with DHS. While the rule clearly states the requirement to carry proof, it does not outline how federal authorities will determine whether the person holding the document is its legitimate owner. This lack of specificity has prompted concerns over enforcement, potential abuse, and the creation of a system that could invite racial profiling or wrongful prosecutions.

Although the rule does not delve into the verification process, it does require that registrants provide biometric data, including fingerprints, during registration. This biometric information is collected to ensure accurate identification and is associated with the individual’s registration record.

These biometrics are stored and associated with an individual’s registration file, meaning that identity verification, in theory, can be accomplished by matching the individual’s biometric data to the data on file. In this way, DHS plans to enforce identity integrity by relying on unique biometric identifiers as a confirmation mechanism.

However, the practical application of this verification remains vague, especially in field scenarios involving federal officers and day-to-day interaction with law enforcement. Presumably, in situations where identity verification is necessary, authorities may rely on the biometric data collected during the registration process to confirm that the individual carrying the registration document is its legitimate holder.

The rule was enacted under the guise of a procedural regulation, thereby sidestepping the traditional notice-and-comment process that allows the public to offer feedback and the agency to revise the rule accordingly. This decision has drawn substantial criticism from immigrant advocacy groups and legal experts who argue that the rule is not merely procedural but has profound substantive impacts on millions of lives. These groups contend that the rule should have gone through the normal regulatory process to ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness.

In response to the rule, the American Immigration Council (AIC), in collaboration with several other advocacy organizations, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, argues that the rule is unlawful on multiple fronts.

The plaintiffs include several nonprofit membership-based organizations such as the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, United Farm Workers, CASA, and Make the Road New York. They claim that DHS violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to engage the public in a rulemaking process, and that the rule is confusingly written, overly broad, and capable of generating chaos during implementation.

“This rule is an invitation for widespread abuse,” said Michelle Lapointe, legal director at the American Immigration Council. “We’re talking about a new reality in the United States, in which anyone perceived to be an immigrant would have to carry their identity documents any time they leave the house and be prepared to show them to law enforcement on demand, at risk of being arrested. The United States is not a ‘carry your papers’ country, and this rule jeopardizes the freedoms and rights of millions of people who live here.”

The legal filing emphasizes the rule’s activation of a World War II-era statute that has remained largely unused in peacetime and in the post-9/11 era, except under very narrow circumstances. Historically, registration of noncitizens has been limited to those applying for immigration benefits, and there has not been a mechanism for immigrants who entered without authorization to register post-arrival. The March 12 rule alters this dynamic by establishing a pathway for those not previously registered to do so now, with the caveat that failure to register – or to carry proof of registration – could result in criminal prosecution.

The implications of the rule are far-reaching. Millions of individuals, particularly those who entered the country without inspection and have never had contact with federal immigration authorities, now face a difficult dilemma. By choosing to register, they risk exposure to immigration enforcement and potential removal proceedings. By choosing not to register, they face the risk of criminal prosecution.

“The Trump administration promises aggressive and widespread enforcement of the registration rule though it is both vague and internally contradictory.  The result will be immediate, rampant racial profiling, including the mistaken targeting of U.S. citizens and others who have legal status, furthering the sickening abuses we have witnessed to date,” said Ben Johnson, Executive Director at the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).

This situation is made even more complex by the fact that many undocumented immigrants are already deemed registered under existing DHS classifications, such as those who hold work permits or who have previously been placed in removal proceedings.

Nevertheless, the new rule introduces uncertainty, especially since it does not clearly define which categories of immigrants are considered registered. For example, individuals with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) or Temporary Protected Status may be excluded from the definition of registered unless they also possess a work permit. Such ambiguities are causing confusion and fear among immigrant communities and advocacy organizations.

The rule also grants DHS a powerful enforcement tool: the criminalization of noncompliance. Under 8 U.S.C. §1302 and §1306, noncitizens 14 or older who fail to register within 30 days of arrival, or who do not carry proof of registration, can be criminally prosecuted. While being in the U.S. without authorization is currently a civil violation, this rule effectively converts certain aspects of undocumented presence into criminal offenses. This move hearkens back to failed legislative attempts like the 2005 Sensenbrenner bill, which sought to criminalize unlawful presence.

“People who choose to submit a ‘registration’ form may be opening themselves up to being arrested by immigration authorities and placed in removal proceedings. People who choose not to submit the form, on the other hand, may be in danger of criminal prosecution,” the American Immigration Council said. “Additionally, the Trump administration’s policy raises the possibility that immigrants who are registered – regardless of lawful status – might be criminally charged and penalized for failing to carry proof of their registration with them at all times.”

Another concern is the government’s treatment of the rule as a procedural regulation. Critics argue that the rule introduces a new substantive requirement: a universal federal registration system for noncitizens, paired with a criminal penalty for noncompliance. This, they assert, is far from procedural and demands full public scrutiny. The failure to allow public comments has not only undermined democratic participation but also neglected opportunities to identify and resolve potential problems before implementation.

The lawsuit filed by the American Immigration Council and its partners seeks to halt the rule’s enforcement, at least until a proper rulemaking process can be completed. Their legal challenge contends that the regulation will disproportionately burden immigrants and will likely result in discriminatory enforcement practices. It also warns that the implementation could lead to widespread confusion and fear, particularly among communities with limited access to legal resources or understanding of the immigration system.

The Trump administration, through DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, has openly stated that the rule is designed to encourage self-deportation. This stark admission reveals the administration’s broader goal of creating an environment so inhospitable that undocumented immigrants choose to leave the country voluntarily. This strategy, critics argue, is morally questionable and legally dubious, particularly when implemented through opaque regulatory processes without public participation.

As the rule’s effective date of April 11 approaches, immigrant communities and advocacy groups are bracing for what they describe as a dramatic escalation in enforcement and surveillance. The legal challenge now underway may determine whether the rule will stand as a legitimate tool of immigration control or be struck down as an overreach that violates fundamental rights and administrative law principles. Either way, the outcome will have lasting implications for the millions of immigrants living within U.S. borders and for the nation’s broader approach to immigration policy and civil liberties.

Article Topics

biometric identification  |  biometric identifiers  |  biometrics  |  border security  |  DHS  |  identity document  |  immigration  |  U.S. Government  |  United States