Sorry, but, you have to completely ignore part 2 of the quote I provided, to draw this conclusion:
or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers
Every day he is in this country he is engaging in illegal activity, by eluding examination and inspection by immigration officers, his being here is not a one time crime of crossing the border, but an ongoing crime of being here.
The judges have gotten this one wrong. Him simply being in the united states is a violation of his probation, and so he cannot be given probation without violating the law... unless he’s been examined by immigration during or prior to his trial time, he’s in perpetual violation of the law.
Your interpretation of the law (a) is unique in that you are the only one interpreting it that way. NO COURT ANYWHERE has come to the conclusion that you do, and (b) renders the law making ones' presence in the country a crime (after having been deported) completely superfluous, which is a legal no-no.
You can twist it any way you like and promote wild interpretations of the law, but until a court agrees with you your assertions are meaningless.