Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What federal statutes criminalize illegal entry and reentry (including penalties and felony/misdemeanor distinctions)?
Executive Summary
The primary federal criminal statutes for unlawful entry and reentry are 8 U.S.C. § 1325 for illegal entry and 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for illegal reentry after removal, with §1326 carrying a statutory penalty range that widely varies depending on prior convictions and circumstances and is frequently treated as a felony in practice. Recent sentencing data and federal guideline provisions show that illegal reentry accounts for the majority of immigration prosecutions, that sentencing enhancements can dramatically increase recommended terms, and that average terms in practice are often shorter than maximum statutory exposure [1] [2] [3]. This analysis extracts the key statutory claims, reconciles statutory text with sentencing practice, and highlights divergent emphases across government data, legal summaries, and defense-oriented commentary.
1. Why the Lawists Say “Reentry Is the Big One” — Statutory Backbone and Penalty Range
Federal law identifies illegal reentry—8 U.S.C. § 1326—as the principal criminal vehicle used after removal, with statutory exposure that depends on prior removals and convictions; a first-time reentry conviction can bring up to two years’ imprisonment while reentry following an aggravated felony conviction can raise penalties to as much as twenty years [2] [4] [5]. Commentary and legal summaries repeat this statutory backbone consistently, noting that the statutory text makes reentry unlawful when an alien previously removed or denied admission returns without permission, and that factual elements the government must prove include alienage, prior removal, unauthorized return, and lack of permission to reenter [4] [5]. This statutory schema turns §1326 into a flexible tool prosecutors use to calibrate charges by point of prior criminal history, which explains its centrality in migration enforcement narratives [2].
2. How Prosecutors and the Sentencing Commission Translate Statutes into Prison Time
Actual sentencing differs from statutory maxima because the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and sentencing enhancements govern recommended ranges; USSG §2L1.2 applies to illegal reentry and provides enhancements—most notably a 16-level increase—for prior felony convictions that materially elevate guideline ranges [6] [7]. The United States Sentencing Commission’s empirical data for fiscal year 2024 shows that 72.4% of immigration offense cases involved illegal reentry and that the average sentence for those sentenced for illegal reentry was about 12 months, illustrating a gap between statutory maximums and typical outcomes [3]. This gap reflects prosecutorial charging choices, plea bargaining, and guideline calculations: statutory exposure offers ceiling risk, but guideline enhancements and real-world practices often determine the sentence an individual actually receives [6] [3].
3. What Defense Counsel Emphasize Versus What Prosecutors Emphasize
Defense-oriented materials stress the government’s burden to prove each element of §1326 and emphasize factual defenses and potential legal defects in prior removals that can undermine reentry prosecutions, noting the statutory baseline penalties and the wide jump to 20 years when aggravated felonies are involved [4] [5]. Prosecutorial and policy analyses instead emphasize the statute’s role as a deterrent and a tool for removing repeat offenders from the community, pointing to aggregate case volumes and the statute’s adaptability to criminal histories [3] [1]. These differing emphases reflect predictable institutional interests: defenders highlight procedural and factual safeguards, while prosecutors and sentencing bodies emphasize aggregate enforcement metrics and guideline-driven enhancements that increase sentences for recidivists [4] [7].
4. Numbers Matter: How Frequently §1326 Is Used and What That Produces
Federal sentencing data and commission reports make clear that illegal reentry dominates immigration prosecutions, with tens of thousands of cases and a substantial share of immigration caseloads attributed to §1326-related filings; the Sentencing Commission reported 17,336 immigration offense cases in FY2024 with roughly 72.4% involving illegal reentry and an average sentence around one year [3]. Legal explainers and firm summaries reiterate that while many convictions carry relatively short average sentences in practice, a smaller subset of cases elevated by prior aggravated felony convictions or guideline enhancements receive far longer terms — up to the statutory maximum of 20 years [2] [5]. The statistical picture shows both volume-driven routine outcomes and a tail of much harsher punishments when prior felony histories or enhancement facts apply.
5. Putting Statute, Guidelines, and Practice Together — What This Means for Policy and Individuals
Combining statutory text, guideline mechanics, and sentencing data produces a coherent but complex picture: §1325 criminalizes unlawful entry (often treated as a misdemeanor for first-time simple entries), while §1326 criminalizes unlawful reentry after removal and carries felony consequences whose severity hinges on prior convictions; sentencing guidelines and a 16-level enhancement often determine actual prison terms more than statutory maxima do [1] [6] [7]. Aggregate data show high prosecutorial reliance on §1326 and average sentences much lower than maximum penalties, but a nontrivial proportion of cases are subject to severe enhancements leading to significantly longer terms [3] [2]. For policymakers and practitioners, the tension is between a statute that enables broad enforcement and guideline practices that produce widely variable outcomes depending on criminal history and charging discretion.