1325 is about improper entry **at the border** The kid was outside his house. Once someone is already inside the U.S., 1325 is no longer the governing statute

1. What 8 U.S.C. §1325 actually says and how courts/DOJ read it

The statutory text defines the offense in active terms—“enters or attempts to enter … at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers,” or “eludes examination or inspection” by immigration officers—language that centers on the moment or attempt to come into the United States rather than indefinite domestic presence ^{[1] [2]}. The Justice Manual and U.S. Attorneys’ materials underline that §1325 addresses improper entry and related conduct (marriage fraud, commercial enterprises to evade immigration laws), and that statutory amendments have at times shifted enforcement tools between civil and criminal consequences for those apprehended while entering or attempting entry ^{[3] [5]}.

2. The practical line between “entry” and being “already inside”

Scholars and policy analysts stress the distinction: prosecuting under §1325 targets unauthorized crossings, and people who are “already present” in the United States unlawfully (for example visa overstays or those long resident after an entry) are generally subject to civil removal rather than §1325 criminal charges; reentry after removal is covered by a separate criminal statute, §1326 ^{[4] [6]}. In short, the statute’s core conceptual boundary is the crossing itself—not later discovery in a house or at a workplace.

3. Legal wrinkles: eluding inspection and the “continuing offense” question

The record shows nuance: DOJ memoranda and analyses have considered whether eluding inspection under §1325(a) can be treated as a continuing offense that persists until apprehension, which affects venue and timeliness of prosecutions; those internal prosecutorial debates demonstrate that factual timing can matter doctrinally even while the statute’s predicate remains an entry or attempted entry ^[7]. This doctrinal issue is narrower than the popular impression that §1325 can be freely used against anyone merely found inside the U.S.; the focus remains on the act of entering or evading inspection, not passive presence.

4. How enforcement practice and policy disputes complicate the picture

Advocacy groups and criminal-defense practitioners highlight that §1325 and related statutes have long been used—at times aggressively—to bring people from the civil immigration system into criminal court, with broad human consequences and contested origins and uses of the law; critics argue this has enabled family separation and disproportionate prosecutions, while government offices note prosecutorial discretion and statutory limits ^{[8] [6] [9]}. Those debates explain why non‑legal observers sometimes conflate arrest location (for example, a house) with the legal basis for charging; the statutory text and DOJ guidance, however, remain focused on the entry event itself ^{[1] [3]}.

5. Bottom line and limits of the available reporting

The authoritative reading from the statutes and DOJ materials supports the claim that §1325 governs improper entry or attempts to enter—i.e., border crossings or evading inspection—and is not the governing statute for someone merely “found” inside his house after having already entered the country; other civil immigration provisions or different criminal statutes (like §1326 for unlawful reentry) apply in those circumstances ^{[1] [4] [6]}. Reporting provided here does not adjudicate any particular child’s case or the precise facts of an individual incident, so application to a named situation would require factual confirmation about where and when the crossing or attempt occurred and whether prosecutorial discretion or continuing‑offense theories were invoked ^[7].