America Needs A Secure Border—and An Honest Account Of The Law
The United States has both the authority and the responsibility to control who enters the country. A functioning immigration system must protect national security, respect legal immigrants and provide clear consequences for people who deliberately evade lawful inspection.
Under Section 1325 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, entering the United States at an unauthorized location, avoiding immigration inspection or gaining entry through deliberate misrepresentation can be prosecuted as improper entry. A first offense may result in a fine, imprisonment for up to six months or both. Reentering after removal can carry more serious criminal penalties under a separate federal statute.
That legal reality matters. Millions of immigrants spend years completing applications, paying fees, undergoing security checks and waiting for permission to live or work in the United States. A credible immigration system should not disadvantage people who follow its rules.
However, public discussion also requires legal precision. Not every person living in the country without authorization entered by crossing the border illegally. Some were lawfully admitted and later overstayed a visa. Immigration-court proceedings are generally civil administrative proceedings, although particular conduct—such as improper entry, illegal reentry, document fraud or smuggling—may lead to criminal prosecution.
Federal law also allows a person physically present in the United States to apply for asylum, regardless of immigration status and whether the person arrived at a designated port of entry. Applying does not guarantee protection. Applicants must satisfy legal eligibility requirements, and immigration authorities may reject claims and order removal. But an unlawful crossing and the right to request asylum are not mutually exclusive under existing federal law.
Recognizing these distinctions does not require accepting an uncontrolled border. It means enforcing the law as Congress actually wrote it rather than reducing a complicated system to political slogans.
Border communities can face real operational pressures when arrivals exceed the capacity of shelters, courts, hospitals and processing facilities. Local governments deserve timely federal assistance, and immigration courts need enough judges, staff and technology to decide cases promptly. Years-long delays benefit neither legitimate asylum seekers nor the government trying to remove people whose claims fail.
National security screening must also remain central. Border authorities should have the personnel and technology necessary to identify individuals with serious criminal records, detect fraudulent documents, dismantle human-smuggling networks and prevent repeat illegal entry. People who pose credible public-safety threats should receive priority attention rather than disappearing into an overloaded system.
The fentanyl crisis likewise demands forceful enforcement, but it should not be inaccurately attributed to every migrant crossing between ports of entry. Customs and Border Protection has reported that more than 90 percent of the fentanyl it intercepts is seized at official ports of entry, where traffickers commonly conceal drugs in vehicles, often driven by U.S. citizens. That evidence points toward the need for stronger cargo inspection, intelligence operations, scanning equipment and investigations targeting cartel financial networks—not merely additional barriers between ports.
A serious border strategy should therefore operate on several fronts:
Enforce criminal laws against improper entry, illegal reentry and organized smuggling.
Process asylum claims quickly enough to distinguish legitimate cases from weak or fraudulent ones.
Remove individuals who receive final removal orders after completing the legal process.
Expand lawful immigration channels where they serve clear economic or humanitarian purposes.
Strengthen inspections at official ports of entry, where large quantities of illegal narcotics are frequently discovered.
America does not have to choose between border security and legal due process. Both are essential parts of constitutional government. Enforcement without sufficient court capacity produces disorder, while legal procedures without meaningful consequences undermine deterrence and public confidence.
The strongest immigration system would be neither casually permissive nor indiscriminately punitive. It would be orderly, enforceable and fast enough to make its rules credible.
A sovereign nation has the right to control its borders. Legal immigrants deserve respect for following the established process. Border officers deserve the resources to perform their duties safely. Communities deserve protection from crime, trafficking and preventable disorder. Migrants with valid protection claims deserve timely decisions, while those without a lawful basis to remain should face an efficient removal process.
Border security should not be treated as a partisan slogan. It is a continuing national responsibility—and it must be pursued with both firmness and factual honesty.
