Border Enforcement and Criminal Law: How States Regulate Unauthorized Entry. A Comparative Analysis of Canada, the United States, and International Legal Standards-2026

Border enforcement sits at the intersection of immigration law, criminal law, and international human rights obligations. States differ in how they treat unauthorized entry: some criminalize it, while others treat it mainly as a civil immigration issue. These choices shows deeper legal and political values about sovereignty, punishment, and humanitarian protection. This paper compares Canada and the United States and assesses their approaches against international legal standards, especially the 1951 Refugee Convention and the UN Smuggling Protocol. The United States criminalizes unauthorized entry under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1325 and 1326, thereby leading to widespread federal prosecutions. Contrastingly, Canada, mainly treats unauthorized entry as an administrative immigration matter under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), reserving criminal law for serious offences such as human smuggling. The paper finds that the U.S. model relies more on criminal prosecution, and raisesg concerns about proportionality, due process, and consistency with international refugee protection. However, Canada’s system is more aligned with international standards but still faces enforcement and administrative challenges. Hence, the paper concludes that criminalizing entry is a policy choice rather than a legal necessity and suggests reform toward more proportionate and rights-based enforcement systems.

Border enforcement, unauthorized entry, immigration law, criminal law, IRPA, 8 U.S.C. § 1325, 8 U.S.C. § 1326, crimmigration, Refugee Convention, comparative law

1. 8 U.S.C. § 1325. Improper Entry by Alien. United States Code. Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Reentry of Removed Aliens. United States Code. Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. American Immigration Council. (2026). Immigration Prosecutions in the United States: Trends and Data. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bosworth, M., and Guild, E. (2008). Comparative Perspectives on the Politics of Immigration. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). (2025). Strengthening the Border: Results and Accomplishments. Government of Canada. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. CBSA Detention Statistics. (2025). Government of Canada. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Canadian Council for Refugees. (2025). Annual Report on Refugee Backlogs. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Canadian Council for Refugees. (2025). Annual Report on Refugees and Immigration Law. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Chacón, J. M. (2015). Managing migration through crime. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Chacón, J. M. (2024). Immigration and Criminalization: Comparative Perspectives. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Cornell Law School. (2025). Legal Information Institute: U.S.C. §§ 1325 & 1326. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Eagly, I. V., and Shafer, S. (2015). A national study of access to counsel in immigration court. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Gallagher, A. T. (2021). The International Law of Human Trafficking. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Hathaway, J. C. (2022). The Rights of Refugees under International Law (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Hernández, K. L. (2018). Migra! A History of the U.S. Border Patrol. University of California Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Hyndman, J., and Mountz, A. (2023). Migration control and Canada’s border practices. Journal of Migration Studies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). SC 2001, c. 27. Government of Canada. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (1966). United Nations Treaty Series. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (1966). United Nations Treaty Series. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Massey, D. S., Durand, J., and Pren, K. A. (2024). Why border enforcement doesn’t stop migration. Migration Studies Journal. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Maurer, J. (2025). International law and border enforcement: Conflicts and compliance. International Journal of Refugee Law. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Meissner, D., and Kerwin, D. (2024). Group Prosecutions and Due Process in the U.S. Migration Policy Institute. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Motomura, H. (2014). Immigration Outside the Law. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. (2025). Unauthorized Entry and Reentry Prosecutions Analysis. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Provine, D. M., Monahan, T., and Adler, J. N. (2015). The geography of immigration enforcement in the United States. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants. (2024). Report on Migration and Border Enforcement. United Nations. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Stumpf, J. P. (2006). The crimmigration crisis: Immigrants, crime, and sovereign power. American University Law Review. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Stumpf, J. P. (2018). Disembedding Migration and Crime from Crimmigration. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. TRAC Reports. (2025). Immigration Prosecutions Data. Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Syracuse University. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. U.S. Constitution, art. VI, cl. 2 (Supremacy Clause). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. UN General Assembly. (2000). Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. UN Human Rights Committee. (2023). Concluding Observations on State Migration Policies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. UNHCR. (1951). Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. UNHCR. (2023). Guidelines on Non-Penalization for Unauthorized Entry under the 1951 Refugee Convention. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. United Nations. (1984). Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. United States v. Carrillo-Lopez, 555 F. Supp. 3d 996 (D. Nev. 2021). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Urban Institute. (2025). What Do We Know About Section 1325 and Border Prosecutions? [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Conflict of Law in the Safeguarding of Malaysian Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Way Forward
• Alternative Dispute Resolution in India: A Brief Overview Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. - William E. Gladstone
• The Role of Museums in Safeguarding Cultural Heritage Rights: Balancing Access and Repatriation
• An Evaluation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Significance and Application in Nigeria
• The Role of International Law in Shaping National Immigration Policies.