Deportation is a Transportation Issue
The words deportation and transportation share a common ancestor in the Latin portare, meaning “to carry.” Their prefixes define their intent: trans-port is to carry across; de-port is to carry away or off. Both relate to the porta—the gate or threshold. In the context of the state, transportation is the crossing of the threshold to enter or circulate; deportation is the forced movement back across it. They use the same networks, just in reverse.
ROADS FOR WHOM: THE PEOPLE OR THE GOVERNMENT; US OR THEM
When we design build streets and roads, as planners and engineers, we think of them as being for the movement of people and goods in general. But this isn’t always the case, traffic calming and low traffic neighbourhoods both aim to prioritise local residents over through traffic, to improve livability and safety by reducing speeds and flows. In contrast, while Baron Haussman’s redesign of Paris and creation of boulevards provided sanitation and light, it was designed in large part to help the authorities keep down the masses through barricade prevention, military mobility, clear sightlines for artillery, and other factors.
THE BORDER
The question of who gets to access any place, and who decides, has evolved. Two hundred years ago there was effectively no border control in the United States, and people could just move to where they want (and whoever was already there would be forceably removed or killed). In 1855 New York State implemented immigration checkpoints at Castle Garden. In 1891, US federal immigration controls were put in place, and Ellis Island opened in 1892. The people who were here decided who could enter the club. But what about people who have entered without permission? With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and reorganisation of immigration enforcement agencies after 9/11 (in response to terrorism by people who were authorised to be in the US, though a few had overstayed their visas), immigration enforcement not as a border control, but as an interior security function became more prominent. Non-documented immigrants, who were previously tolerated because of their great value to society as a whole, were now the most convenient punching bag of an authoritarian regime aimed at dividing and conquering as a means toward power. So the newly over-funded enforcement agencies rent vehicles at airport, stage in public parks, and stay at public accomodations in the target area, using the same networks of access as the people they target.
THE DEPORTATION PIPELINE AS A TRANSPORT NETWORK
Deportation is not merely a legal status; it is a logistical chain of linked nodes, exploiting tools developed for traffic safety and funding, civilian law enforcement, and mobility:
Locate: Relying on movement data, license-plate readers, and surveillance.
Stop: Often initiated through routine administrative or traffic contact.
Hold: Utilization of local jails and detention facilities.
Transfer & Remove: The use of vans, buses, and commercial or charter flight networks.
For interior enforcement, digital infrastructure is vital. Data pipelines, such as 287(g) partnerships where local police share booking data with federal agencies, turn routine traffic stops into mobility checkpoints. The “same channels” used for commerce are repurposed for extraction.
MINNEAPOLIS, 2026
The actions of deportation enforcement agencies lead us to shine new light on the question, asking how residents can immediately reconfigure streets to slow down traffic, impose checkpoints, and know who is traveling through the neighbourhood. This is analogous to the walled city.
The two most famous deaths of deportation protestors by ICE agents in Minneapolis took place on streets, one while the victim was in a private vehicle, another while the victim was outside. In a real transport sense, these and other protesters were imposing friction on the enforcement agents.
THE ETHICS OF MOBILITY
Transport systems are by their nature (you can travel here, on the network, and not there, off the network) regulatory systems. They contain within them futher rules of governance. When infrastructure is used for interior enforcement, mobility becomes a civil liberties issue.
The ethical question is who can move through this space without being targeted, tracked, or carried away?