HB 2129, titled the "No Round Up Act," would repeal the Alien Registration Act of 1940 by striking multiple provisions from the Immigration and Nationality Act. The bill removes the statutory requirement that certain noncitizens register and be fingerprinted, and it repeals related provisions governing registration forms, related duties of the Attorney General, and associated penalties and enforcement mechanisms.
In practical terms, the bill would eliminate the federal alien registration framework currently codified in 8 U.S.C. 1301 et seq., including conforming changes to remove a deportability provision tied to registration violations. The measure is a direct statutory repeal rather than a replacement system, so its effect would be to substantially reduce or end the federal registration obligations addressed in those sections of immigration law.
Impact
The bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act by repealing section 262 and related provisions in sections 263, 264, 265, and 266, as well as a conforming deportability clause in section 237. This would alter federal immigration law by removing legal requirements and administrative authority related to alien registration, fingerprinting, and associated enforcement. The primary affected parties would be noncitizens subject to registration rules, the Department of Homeland Security/Attorney General functions tied to those rules, and immigration enforcement authorities.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no recorded debate or roll-call sentiment to summarize. Based on the bill’s title and sponsors, the measure appears to be framed as a civil-liberties and anti-enforcement reform, suggesting support from members concerned about immigration surveillance or mass registration. The absence of recorded votes or hearings means there is no documented opposition or bipartisan support in the provided materials.
Contention
The central point of contention is likely whether repealing alien registration would weaken immigration enforcement and federal tracking of noncitizens, versus whether the existing framework is outdated, punitive, or prone to misuse. Supporters are likely to argue that the law enables overbroad registration and profiling, while opponents would likely emphasize border security, compliance monitoring, and the government’s ability to identify removable noncitizens. Because no committee discussion is provided, these positions are inferred from the bill’s subject matter and title rather than from recorded testimony.