The recent family separation crisis stems from Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s April 6 decision to direct all United States Attorney’s Offices to charge every person “illegally entering” the U.S. along the southwest border with a crime. Asylum seekers would be prosecuted under section 1325(a) of the 8 United States Code (U.S.C.), which states that “improper entry by alien” is a federal misdemeanor with a first offense carrying maximum fines of $50 to $250 and/or a six-month prison sentence. USA Today reported that at least 4,174 people have been charged under this new “zero tolerance” policy since June.

Some have suggested that those who enter the country without going through any legal process are somehow getting “special treatment” if they are not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This attitude misunderstands the Constitution, which grants many of the same legal rights to non-citizens and citizens, as well as the American legal system, which allows federal prosecutors to use their discretion when deciding whether to prosecute a crime. But it does offer an intriguing, if indirect, line of questioning: What would constitute a “zero tolerance” enforcement policy that was not exclusively directed at immigrants fleeing violence, but rather applied to every person who violates the U.S. Code?

In other words, what would happen if we had “zero tolerance” policies for other federal misdemeanors?

Here are seven infractions that, if also prosecuted with “zero tolerance,” would result in prison sentences just as severe as those for “improper entry.” In the eyes of the law, these minor offenses are equivalent to or worse than entering the country illegally.

These acts could land you up to six months in federal prison.

Trespassing on national forest lands

Maybe you like to go mountain biking on the Pacific Crest Trail? Or perhaps you enjoy snowmobiling in Yellowstone? Or do you just want to take a shortcut through one of the forests in northern Arizona that recently closed during fire season? The United States Code levies the same punishment for trespassing as it does for illegally crossing the border. That means whether you’re crossing the border illegally or going for a hike during the wrong season, under a “zero tolerance” policy, you’d be liable to pay an unspecified fine and/or serve up to six months in a federal prison.

Taking advantage of Smokey the Bear’s likeness

Perhaps you have dreams of making quirky, vintage-style Smokey the Bear T-shirts? It turns out that using Smokey the Bear’s likeness without permission from the federal government could land you in federal prison for up to six months and/or paying an unspecified fine. Also note that similar laws are on the book for unauthorized use of the Swiss flag, the 4-H club emblem, and the Red Cross insignia.

These could result in up to one year in prison.

Purchasing fireworks

Maybe you live in Delaware, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, Iowa, or Illinois, and you’re itching to get your hands on some fireworks. Or maybe you live in a state where rinky-dink fireworks are legal, but you covet the bigger and better ones sold one state over. With the Fourth of July holiday looming, keep in mind that you can get more jail time for transporting fireworks than entering the U.S. illegally: one year in prison — or paying an unspecified fine, or both.

Possession of marijuana

Maybe you live in a state where marijuana has been legalized for medical and/or recreational use. But possession of even small amounts of marijuana is still a federal misdemeanor and Jeff Sessions isn’t known for being pro-marijuana. In fact, he’s already paved the way for a crackdown by telling federal prosecutors they can use their discretion and go for the maximum penalty for a first-time offense: up to a year in jail and/or a minimum $1,000 fine. In fact, an Oregon teenager faced prosecution for possession of just one gram of marijuana in 2016. Though the federal charges were eventually dropped, one can imagine how things might have been different had the kind of “zero tolerance” policy that now characterizes immigration law characterized possession laws then.