History Of Section 1325: Law And Order

Section 1325, an amendment to the US Code, was implemented in 1929 and made it a criminal offence to illegally enter the US. Under the law, unauthorized immigrants can either be deported without filing charges or authorities can choose to initiate federal criminal procedures. Since its implementation, the use of Section 1325 has varied, with the Bush administration taking a stricter approach and the Obama administration continuing to increase prosecutions. The Trump administration's zero-tolerance policy used Section 1325 to prosecute 100% of adults illegally crossing the US-Mexico border, resulting in the separation of thousands of migrant families.

Section 1325 makes it a criminal offence to enter the US illegally

Section 1325 of the US Code, established in the late 1920s, makes it a criminal offence for an alien to enter the US illegally. It covers instances where an individual:

• Enters or attempts to enter the US at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers
• Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers
• Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the US by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact

For the first offence, the penalty can include a fine, imprisonment for up to six months, or both. For subsequent offences, the penalty can include a fine, imprisonment for up to two years, or both.

Section 1325 also covers instances of individuals knowingly entering into a marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws, or establishing a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading immigration laws. These offences carry penalties of imprisonment for up to five years, a fine, or both.

The Trump administration's "zero-tolerance" policy, implemented in the spring of 2018, used Section 1325 to prosecute 100% of adults illegally crossing the US-Mexico border. This resulted in the separation of thousands of migrant families, as federal law prohibits children from being detained with their parents.

Criticisms of Section 1325

Section 1325 has been criticised for contributing to the family separation crisis. The zero-tolerance policy directed DHS agents to pursue criminal charges for parents, rather than processing them through the civil system. When parents are charged with a civil offence, they may stay with their children pending a court hearing. However, when charged with a criminal offence, their children are held in civil detention centres.

Prosecution under Section 1325 has also been said to overburden the federal justice system, increase the share of resources spent on misdemeanour offences, and make it more difficult for immigrants to claim asylum.

Some have called for the repeal of Section 1325, arguing that crossing the border without authorisation should remain a civil offence, carrying a penalty of deportation.

The law was established in the late 1920s

In the late 1920s, the US government passed Section 1325, a law that made it a criminal offence to enter the country without authorisation. This law was established to target Latin American immigration, which was not limited by the same quotas and bans as European and Asian immigration at the time. Under Section 1325, those who enter the US without authorisation can be deported, fined, jailed, or a combination of the three.

Section 1325 was implemented in 1929 by South Carolina Senator Coleman Blease, who proposed a change to the US Code that made unauthorised entry into the country a misdemeanour. By 1940, 44,000 illegal entry cases had been filed through Section 1325. However, after this time, the law became less frequently used and fell out of favour with immigration enforcement.

The law gives US authorities the power to choose between initiating federal criminal procedures or deporting unauthorised immigrants without filing charges. If federal criminal procedures are initiated, individuals convicted of these charges can face up to six months in prison as well as deportation. Additionally, having a criminal record negatively impacts an individual's ability to seek legal immigration to the US in the future.

The use of Section 1325 has varied over the years, with the Bush administration leading to stricter enforcement and an increase in prosecutions. The Obama administration continued this trend, and prosecutions have continued to grow. To support the rising number of prosecutions, the Department of Justice and federal courts along the southwest border developed Operation Streamline in December 2005. This policy aimed to secure quick guilty pleas and process large caseloads more efficiently through group hearings and with limited legal counsel.

Prosecutions under Section 1325 have been inconsistent

Section 1325, a federal law that makes "illegal entry" into the United States a criminal offense, has been inconsistently enforced over the years. The law was established in 1929, and while it led to thousands of illegal entry prosecutions after its passage, usage of it declined throughout the 20th century. However, in recent years, illegal entry prosecutions have been on the rise again.

The inconsistent prosecution of Section 1325 offenses has been influenced by various factors, including changes in presidential administrations and their immigration policies. For example, the post-9/11 reorganization of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the Bush administration led to stricter enforcement of immigration laws, and prosecutions continued to grow through the Obama administration. The zero-tolerance policy announced in 2018 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions further exacerbated the issue by requiring enforcement for parents in family units, resulting in the separation of children from their parents.

The impact of inconsistent prosecution under Section 1325 has been significant. Firstly, it has contributed to the family separation crisis, as parents charged with a criminal offense under Section 1325 are detained in federal prison facilities while their children are held in civil detention centers. Secondly, it has overburdened the federal justice system, increasing the share of resources spent on misdemeanor offenses. Additionally, the prosecution of Section 1325 cases has labelled an exponentially larger share of immigrants as "criminals," making it more difficult for them to claim asylum and increasing the likelihood of being prosecuted for a felony under Section 1326 if they return to the US after deportation.

The inconsistent prosecution of Section 1325 offenses has also been influenced by the discretion of law enforcement officers. Under previous administrations, officers prioritized the prosecution of those with prior arrests and immigration violations. However, with the zero-tolerance policy, DHS agents were directed to pursue criminal charges for parents, rather than using their discretion to process them through the civil system. This shift in policy resulted in a significant increase in the number of family separations.

In conclusion, the inconsistent prosecution of Section 1325 offenses has had far-reaching consequences, including contributing to the family separation crisis and overburdening the federal justice system. The inconsistent application of the law has also impacted the lives of immigrants, making it difficult for them to seek legal immigration status in the future and potentially deterring them from claiming asylum.

The Trump administration used Section 1325 to justify its zero tolerance policy

Section 1325, a federal law that makes "illegal entry" into the United States a criminal offense, was implemented in 1929. Since the law was established, prosecution of Section 1325 offenses has been fairly limited. However, this changed under the Trump administration, which used Section 1325 to justify its zero-tolerance policy.

On April 6, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a new "zero-tolerance" policy, directing US attorneys' offices along the southwest border to adopt a policy to prosecute all Section 1325(a) violations referred to them by the Department of Homeland Security. This policy was implemented in response to a reported 203% increase in illegal border crossings from March 2017 to March 2018.

The zero-tolerance policy required the enforcement of criminal charges for parents in family units, resulting in the separation of thousands of migrant families. While previous administrations had also prosecuted Section 1325 violations, they generally used their discretion to prioritize prosecution of those with prior arrests and immigration violations, rather than targeting parents traveling with children.

The Trump administration's policy directed DHS agents to pursue criminal charges for parents, who were then detained in federal prison facilities, while their children were held in civil detention centers. This approach was a significant shift from past practices, where parents traveling with children were rarely criminally prosecuted.

The zero-tolerance policy, combined with new barriers to asylum, sent a clear message that the administration was committed to public safety, national security, and the rule of law. However, it also had severe consequences, leading to the separation of thousands of families and causing negative physical and emotional impacts on both children and parents.

Critics of Section 1325 cite the backlog of immigration cases in federal courts

Section 1325, an obscure section of US law, has been a source of controversy in the Democratic debate, with candidates Julián Castro and Beto O'Rourke disagreeing over its ramifications. Section 1325, established in the late 1920s, makes "illegal entry" into the United States a criminal offence.

The backlog of immigration cases has also led to longer processing times and increased detention periods for those awaiting trial. This is particularly concerning for asylum seekers, who may face prolonged periods of uncertainty and difficult conditions while their cases are pending.

The high volume of immigration cases has also placed strain on court resources, including staffing and infrastructure. This has resulted in a backlog of cases, with long delays in bringing cases to trial, further exacerbating the issues of prolonged detention and uncertainty for those awaiting trial.

Furthermore, critics argue that the focus on criminalizing illegal entry diverts resources and attention from addressing the root causes of unauthorized immigration and developing long-term solutions. By prioritising criminal prosecution, the complex social, economic, and political factors driving unauthorized immigration may be overlooked, hindering the development of comprehensive and humane immigration policies.

The backlog of immigration cases in federal courts, as cited by critics of Section 1325, highlights the need for a reevaluation of the current approach to unauthorized immigration. Addressing this backlog and developing more efficient and humane ways to manage immigration cases is essential to ensuring a fair and timely justice system.

Frequently asked questions