I understand and appreciate that illegal entry in the United States is a crime, and that the defendant here is not extraordinarily sympathetic because he's previously been deported.
But here, everyone agrees that this is what he did: "In 2019, Cabrera went to Tijuana and climbed one of two fences separating Mexico from the United States. Cabrera did not attempt to climb the second fence. Instead, he simply sat down. After about seven minutes, Border Patrol Agent Joseph Cisneros drove up to Cabrera." At which point Mr. Cabrera answers his questions, and at trial, tries to introduce a witness to say that the reason that Mr. Cabrera did what he did -- jump over the first wall and then wait to be caught -- was simply because of "the 'enormous backlog of Central American migrants seeking asylum' due to the 'metering' and 'Remain in Mexico' policies in place at the time" and that “the word [on the street] was that you could climb over the fence and try to get your asylum application that way.” Basically, that all Mr. Cabrera was trying to do was to apply for asylum, not actually sneak into the U.S. -- which is why he sat down after climbing the first wall, waiting for Border Patrol agents to talk to him.
Now, I can see why one might want to potentially punish even that: that it's unfair (arguably) to let someone "jump the line" and apply for asylum by hopping over the first fence and waiting to be caught.
But is it really "over 4 years in prison" unfair? Which is what Mr. Cabrera here gets sentenced to.
Seems pretty darn harsh, no?
Again, Mr. Cabrera has been deported previously, so you see why the guidelines might treat him the way they do. Moreover, the district court judge that he draws here -- Judge Burns -- is not exactly what you would call a "soft on border crimes" type of judge. So perhaps the sentence isn't that surprising.
But four years in prison for hopping over a wall and deliberately waiting to be caught so you can apply for asylum? Facially, that seems like a lot.
