Let's not try to have this debate devolve into pettiness again. You can accuse me of being pedantic, but that's how laws and criminal prosecutions work. There is always a level of discretion involved. The very law you cited earlier gives discretion by allowing the prosecutor to request a fine OR jail time for the offender. The simple fact is there is an extensive history of application of the immigration laws that goes directly against your statements. If you like Trump's policy and think its a more effective approach that's fine. But if you are going to hold the position that prior Presidents were somehow not violating the law because they weren't detaining every offender and charging them under the criminal code, that's just wrong.
You also seem to think I'm advocating for a catch and release policy, with no consequences. I'm not. The people should still go through the immigration process to determine the legitimacy of their asylum claims and if they fail to meet the standards for asylum they should be deported back to their country of origin. You can keep track of them with ankle bracelets and home visits. You don't need to separate a family to achieve this, it's inhumane.
As Josh mentioned early, the EO called for more administrative law judges and attorneys to hear asylum and deportation proceedings, which are under the civil code. That's a good step and is necessary.