[jimz]

No because a) "illegal immigrant" is not a term with a meaningful legal definition in the first place and b) Although sss.gov says undocumented immigrants need to register under their FAQ, their chart of acceptable documentation effectively excludes the exact population. https://www.sss.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Documentation...

But since those who entered without inspection have almost no way to show when they actually entered, full stop, and ICE doesn't actually have a comprehensive and reliable way of tracking the population that wouldn't run afoul of the Constitution, it's basically a violation that is effectively performative. The people this targets are not eligible for any benefits whatsoever on the federal level for themselves anyway (but still have to pay taxes) and cannot naturalize so there's no carrot and no viable stick. It's a rump piece of legislation.

[mothballed]

a) Let's not be coy, I'm using the word as Cornell Law/LII and many lawyers use []. Illegal as they are here unlawfully. It's well understood in a legal context.

b) A chart does not trump law, and that chart appears to be for people older than 26, who don't need evidence they signed up for the draft. Or people who entered before 26 and have a reason why they'd be excluded. That chart isn't for evidence needed to submit to the draft, it's a way to show you didn't have to sign up.

I'm not talking about all undocumented immigrants (for instance, instances of foreign born perhaps female or otherwise draft exempt children that are born US citizens but never documented as such and enter the US without documentation), that's why I used illegal rather than undocumented which could be legal presence.

[] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/illegal_immigrant