Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law
Mail: PO Box 770
Bell Gardens, CA 90201
Practice Advisory Series
Backgrounder: The Immigration Registry
January 2025
I. Introduction
The Registry is a powerful provision of immigration law which has historically afforded
undocumented non-citizens who resided long-term in the United States, those who have built
lives and families in our communities, with a pathway to legalization, where otherwise none
would exist.1 By providing this pathway, the Registry protects non-citizens with deep ties in the United States and recognizes their significant contributions to the country. Since its initial
passage in 1929, the Registry has been updated several times, each of which has expanded
eligibility for legalization to more noncitizens. The Registry has been a national achievement,
supporting the thriving of people, communities, and the entire country. However, the Registry
has become outdated, as it currently applies only to individuals who have lived in the U.S. since 1972. Thus, there is a need to once again update the Registry so that it can continue its legacy of expanding opportunities for American citizenship to those who have already been strengthening our communities for years.
II. The History of the Registry
At the beginning of the 20th century, Congress passed the Basic Naturalization Act of
1906, further standardizing the procedures and requirements developed in the century prior for the naturalization of immigrants.2 The Act imposed federal administrative oversight of the
naturalization process and implemented a standardized recordkeeping procedure.3
Correspondingly, one of its core provisions was the requirement that all noncitizens wishing to naturalize must have a record of lawful admission.4 The legislation, however, left a critical gap: failing to account for the naturalization of noncitizens who had already entered the U.S. years before and for whom no record of admission existed.5 As a result, such individuals were unable to naturalize because no record of their admission either existed or could be found. At the same time, there was also a rise in the enforcement of existing deportation statutes, as well as the passage of new quota laws intended to restrict immigration for immigrants from predominantly non-white countries who were at the time considered racially and ethnically “undesirable.”6
Despite this congressional turn towards more restrictive immigration policy in the early 1920s, the first Registry Act was passed in 1929, addressing the gap left open by the 1906 Act and creating a legal mechanism for providing legal immigration status for long-term undocumented residents of the U.S. The Registry Act allowed a record of lawful admission to be retroactively created for any immigrant who “(1) Entered the United States prior to June 3, 1921; (2) Has resided in the United States continuously since such entry; (3) Is a person of good moral character; and (4) Is not subject to deportation” and for whom “there is no record of admission for permanent residence.”7 Once this new record of lawful admission was made under the Registry Act, the noncitizen would then be “deemed to have been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence as of the date of his entry” (what is today commonly referred to as obtaining one’s “Green Card”).8 The immigration relief provided by the Registry was entirely new and “provided a fairly broad and comprehensive vehicle for granting legal status to its beneficiaries.”9
As long-term noncitizen residents of the U.S. were formally welcomed into the fold of
American life after the passage of the Registry Act of 1929, calls for the Registry’s expansion
quickly developed. The Roosevelt Administration prepared a 1938 report addressing U.S.
nationality laws which called for both retention of the Registry provision and the advancement of the Registry cut-off date for eligibility.10 The report provided the following rationale in support of its recommendations:
This would include a number of [noncitizens] of good moral character, who have resided
in the United States for more than 10 years, and are not subject to deportation, but who
cannot proceed toward naturalization because of a lack of a sufficient record of arrival. It
is not in the best interests of the United States that there should be a considerable number of [noncitizens] here who have resided in this country for many years and who are otherwise ineligible for naturalization and anxious to become citizens, but who are prevented from doing so because of the absence of a record of arrival upon which to base a petition for naturalization.11
In 1940, Congress revisited the Registry provision. Recognizing the 1929 law’s success,
eligibility was expanded by advancing the registry date, permitting registry for individuals who
entered the U.S. prior to July 1, 1924.12
Congress again updated the Registry provision in 1958, advancing the registry date to
June 28, 1940. In addition, Congress made new substantive changes to the provision.13 The
deportability bar was eliminated and replaced with language excluding only noncitizen
immigrants who had previously been granted lawful permanent resident (LPR) status or who
were inadmissible to the U.S. on either criminal or national security grounds.14 This substantive amendment significantly expanded eligibility for the Registry, and “[a]s a result, non-citizens who had entered the country without inspection or overstayed a visa became eligible to apply for LPR status through registry.”15 In 1965, showing continued support for the Registry provision, Congress again advanced the registry date, this time to June 30, 1948.16
About twenty years later, Congress, as part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act
of 1986 (IRCA), advanced the registry date once more to January 1, 1972.17 Although IRCA
was, as a whole, a law that restricted new immigration, it nevertheless contained a number of
legalization programs for undocumented long-term immigrants.18 These programs, however,
were viewed as a way to “wipe the slate clean on [undocumented] immigration.”19 Nonetheless, the legalization programs included in IRCA, including the advanced registry date, conferred substantial benefits on the immigrant community, “directly result[ing] in almost 3 million undocumented immigrants becoming lawful permanent residents (LPR), amounting to over 80 percent of the estimated undocumented population achieving LPR status.”20 This legalization had “profound, positive, economic effects for its beneficiaries,” including advancements in wages, educational attainment, occupational status, and homeownership.21 Despite the achievements of IRCA in providing legalization to millions of immigrants who desired to be U.S. citizens, the overall restrictive nature of other aspects of the legislation ultimately reflected Congress’s growing concern with undocumented immigration, particularly by people from Central America.22
As this history demonstrates, until IRCA, Congress had updated the registry date
regularly – at intervals no longer than 20 years – since its inception. However, IRCA, passed
nearly four decades ago, was the last time the registry date was advanced, leaving the provision woefully outdated. Since that time, subsequent immigration laws have created additional bars to eligibility for relief under the Registry.23
Today, immigrants without a record of lawful admission for permanent residence are
eligible for the Registry if they:
Entered the U.S. prior to January 1, 1972;
Maintained continuous residence in the U.S. since their entry;
Are a person of good moral character;
Are not inadmissible as a participant in Nazi persecutions or genocide under INA § 212(a)(3)(E) or on grounds related to “criminals, procurers and other immoral persons, subversives, violators of the narcotics laws or smugglers of [noncitizens]” under INA § 212(a);24
Are not deportable for engaging in terrorist activities under INA § 237(a)(4)(B);
Are not ineligible for citizenship; and
Merit the favorable exercise of discretion.25
As advocates have noted, while “Registry is among the oldest legalization provisions in
U.S. immigration law and one with a long and bipartisan history of recognizing long-established residents of the United States,” because Congress has not updated the registry date in over 35 years, only a very small few long-term immigrants are eligible to benefit from the provision today.26 The number of adjustments under the Registry peaked in 1989, and since then, the number of immigrants legalizing through the Registry has been steadily falling.27 During the 2010s, only 911 immigrants received LPR status through the Registry.28 Without new efforts by Congress to advance the registry date, as has been done regularly in the past, the Registry will remain “effectively dead-letter.”29
III. The Movement to Renew the Registry
Undoubtedly, there is a clear need in the U.S. for immigration reform that is both humane and equitable. An update to the Registry would be a meaningful common-sense first step in this direction. It would once again allow undocumented long-term immigrants a pathway to lawful immigration status, “significantly reduc[ing] the inequalities, threats, and hardships caused by lack of status.”30 However, as history has demonstrated, merely updating the registry date to be more current will leave the issue to resurface again down the road when the date again becomes antiquated. Instead, legislation could provide that the registry date is updated on a rolling basis. Making the registry date rolling “would promote the nation’s interest in immigrant integration and seek to depoliticize a phenomenon (long-term undocumented residency) that can be minimized, but not eliminated” and would “acknowledge the deep and longstanding connections of these residents to US society.”31
Leading experts in the field regularly make recommendations and support legislation
which would provide broad legalization for undocumented immigrants, including through
updates to the Registry.32 The Center for Migration Studies, for example, has endorsed the
following recommendation:
Immigration reform legislation should allow the great majority of US undocumented
residents to legalize, should reform the underlying legal immigration system, and should
provide for the legalization of future long-term undocumented residents through a rolling
registry program.33
Recognition of the need for this Registry reform is growing. In recent years, there have
been Congressional efforts to update the Registry and end the legal limbo in which so many
long-term immigrants are caught. In 2023, both the Senate and the House reintroduced H.R.
1511, Renewing Immigration Provisions of the Immigration Act of 1929, which would create a
rolling eligibility cutoff date for the Registry, instead of tying it to a specific date, requiring that
an immigrant have been in the U.S. for at least seven years before being eligible to receive LPR status under the Registry.34 California’s Congressmembers have been leading these efforts, with Senator Padilla [D-CA] sponsoring S.2606 and Representative Lofgren [D-CA-18] sponsoring H.R. 1511. Representative Adriano Espaillat [NY-13], a former undocumented immigrant and cosponsor of H.R. 1511, has shared the moral urgency of passing the bill:
“Immigrants built our nation – those who came to the United States years ago in search of a better life and have set down roots here deserve a chance at permanent residence – full stop. Currently millions of immigrants face an uncertain future regarding their residency status. Our bill, Renewing Immigration Provisions of the Immigration Act of 1929, will provide a pathway for citizenship for immigrants who have lived and worked in our communities for numerous years. As one of a handful of immigrants in the House chamber and the only formerly once undocumented to stand with my colleagues, I am proud to extend the opportunity to others to call America home and continue their efforts to contribute to our nation’s economic and social well-being.”35
If this legislation were successfully passed, it has been estimated that approximately 7.3
million undocumented long-term immigrants, 2.7 million of them “Dreamers” – noncitizens who were brought to the U.S. as children, would be immediately eligible for lawful permanent
residence under the Registry.36 Adjustment would also be possible for approximately 300,000
immigrants with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and around 970,000 other noncitizens
currently holding nonimmigrant statuses, including those with employment visas who are stuck waiting in a green card backlog indefinitely.37
Currently, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) is leading the All in for
Registry national campaign to “provide a path to citizenship for immigrants who are our
neighbors, friends, and family.”38 CHIRLA is helping raise grassroots awareness of the urgent
need for Registry reform and is advocating for passage of the Renewing Immigration Provisions of the Immigration Act of 1929 bills. CHIRLA’s campaign is organized around the principle that Congress must prioritize permanent solutions both for undocumented immigrants and for those with only temporary protections like TPS and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). As CHIRLA has noted, for the millions of aspiring Americans who would benefit from updates to the Registry, the Registry is not just “immigration relief,” it means “having the ability to reunite with their families, the hope for a brighter future, the opportunity to find a better job, and thrive.”39
Making updates to the Registry would carry on the bipartisan legacy of opening the
nation’s doors to our long-term immigrant neighbors who wish to continue helping the U.S.
thrive, and it would be a meaningful first step towards implementing a just and humane
immigration policy in the U.S. These updates would not only strengthen the U.S. economy by
reportedly injecting an estimated $121 billion into the U.S. economy annually, but they would also significantly benefit long-term immigrants, providing them needed stability and opportunity.40 Registry reform is a common-sense, humane, and urgently needed step on the way to modernizing our immigration laws.
1 This Advisory uses the term “legalization” and “legalize” to refer to a path for undocumented immigrants to receive permanent legal resident (LPR) status and subsequently citizenship, through the separate process of naturalization.
2 Act of June 29, 1906, ch. 3592, 34 Stat. 596 (repealed 1940).
3 Id. § 1.
4 Id. § 3.
5 Richard A. Boswell, Symposium: Immigration Law and Reform: Article: Crafting an Amnesty with Traditional Tools: Registration and Cancellation, 47 Harv. J. on Legis. 175, 183 (2010).
6 Id. at 181-183.
7 Act of March 2, 1929, ch. 536, Sec. 1(a), 45 Stat. 1512.
8 Id. § 3.
9 Boswell supra, note 5, at 183.
10 See Andorra Bruno, Immigration: Registry as Means of Obtaining Lawful Permanent Residence at 2, Congressional Research Service (Aug. 22, 2001), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL30578 (citing U.S. Congress, House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, Nationality Laws of the United States, committee print, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington: GPO, 1939), p. 40-41). The entry date from which continuous residence must be shown for purposes of the Registry is known as the “registry date.”
11 Id. (quoting U.S. Congress, House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, Nationality Laws of the United States, committee print, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington: GPO, 1939), p. 41).
12 Nationality Act of 1940, ch. 876, Sec. 328(b), 54 Stat. 1137, 1152.
13 Act of August 8, 1958, Pub. L. No. 85-616, 72 Stat. 546.
14 Id.
15 American Immigration Council, Legalization Through “Registry” (Sept. 28, 2021), https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/legalization-through-registry; see also Bruno supra, note 10.
16 Act of October 3, 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-236, § 19, 79 Stat. 911, 920.
17 Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-603, § 203, 100 Stat. 3359, 3405 (Nov. 6, 1986).
18 Mariela Olivares, The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act as Antecedent to Contemporary Latina/o/x Migration, 37(1) Chicana/o Latina/o L. Rev. 65, 70-71 (2020),
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3598551(citing 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(2), (b)(1)); Muzaffar Chishti and Charle Kamasaki, IRCA In Retrospect: Guideposts for Today’s Immigration Reform, Migration Policy Institute 1 (Jan. 2014), https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/Lessons-of-IRCA-FINALWEB.pdf).
19 Chishti and Kamasaki supra, note 18 at 1.
20 Id. at 72 (citing Nancy Rytina, IRCA Legalization Effects: Lawful Permanent Residence and Naturalization Through 2001, Office of Policy & Planning Statistics Division, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service 3, exhibit 1 (2002), http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/ publications/irca0114int.pdf.; Hiroshi Motomura, Making Legal: The DREAM Act, Birthright Citizenship, and Broad-Scale Legalization, 16 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 1127, 1137 (2012). IRCA’s legalization provisions included both the advancement of the registry date as well as additional larger legalization programs.
21 Chishti and Kamasaki supra, note 18, at 6.
22 Id.
23 See Bruno supra, note 10, at 4.
24 It is, however, possible for an immigrant to obtain a waiver of certain grounds of inadmissibility to be Registry eligible. See 8 C.F.R. 249.1.
25 The Registry provision is found in Section 249 of the Immigration & Nationality Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1259.
26 Nicole Svajlenka, Claudia Flores, and Philip E. Wolgin, Fact Sheet: State-by-State Estimates of Eligibility for a 2010 Immigration Registry Update, Center for American Progress (Sep. 23, 2021), https://www.americanprogress.org/article/fact-sheet-state-state-estimates-eligibility-2010-immigration-registry-update/.
27 Bruno supra, note 10, at 4.
28 American Immigration Council supra, note 15, at 2 (citing U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, FY 2002-FY 2019 and FY1989-2001).
29 National Immigration Forum, Fact Sheet: Registry (Sep. 1, 2021), https://immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-registry/#:~:text=While%20more%20complicated%2C%20a%20rolling,United%20States%20without%20subsequent%20legislation.
30 Donald Kerwin, José Pacas, and Robert Warren, Ready to Stay: A Comprehensive Analysis of the US Foreign-Born Populations Eligible for Special Legal Status Programs and for Legalization Under Pending Bills, 10(1) J. Migration & Human Security 37, 49 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1177/233150242110650.
31 Id. at 55.
32 See, e.g., Tom Jawetz, Restoring the Rule of Law Through a Fair, Humane, and Workable Immigration System at 28, Center for American Progress (Jul. 22, 2019), https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/07/RuleOfLaw-report.pdf; National Immigration Forum, Fact Sheet: Registry (Sep. 1, 2021), https://immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-registry/#:~:text=While%20more%20complicated%2C%20a%20rolling,United%20States%20without%20subsequent%20legislation; Scott Brown, Legalization Through Registry: The Benefits of a “Rolling Registry” Program, Center for Migration Studies (Mar. 4, 2022), https://cmsny.org/registry-rolling-registry-brown-030422/; FWD.us, Restoring Immigration Registry Priority Bill Spotlight: Renewing Immigration Provisions of the Immigration Act of 1929 (Mar. 9, 2023), https://www.fwd.us/news/immigration-registry-bill/.
33 Kerwin supra, note 30, at 54; see also Brown supra, note 32.
34 See Renewing Immigration Provisions of the Immigration Act of 1929, H.R. 1511, 118th Cong. (2023); Renewing Immigration Provisions of the Immigration Act of 1929, S. 2606, 118th Cong. (2023).
35 Press Release: Espaillat, House Colleagues Introduce Legislation to Update the Registry Immigration Cutoff Date, Congressmember Adriano Espaillat (Jul. 20, 2022), https://espaillat.house.gov/media/press-releases/espaillat-house-colleagues-introduce-legislation-update-registry-immigration (last visited Nov. 9, 2024).
36 FWD.us supra, note 32.
37 Id.
38 All in for Registry Campaign, CHIRLA, https://www.chirla.org/registry/ (last visited Oct. 30, 2024).
39 All in For Registry Digital Toolkit, CHIRLA, https://www.chirla.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Registry_AllInAugustToolkit.pdf (last visited Oct. 30, 2024).
40 FWD.us supra, note 32.
Comments