Mapping Deportations: What 58 Million Removals Reveal about the History of the U.S. Immigration System

Over two centuries of deportation data and restrictive laws show that immigration enforcement is not a neutral process but a racial boundary-making system built across decades of policy decisions.

Nearly every conversation I have with fellow immigration scholars these days arrives at a similar crux: although the current Trump administration’s immigration enforcement agenda is the most aggressive we’ve seen in modern history, the hyper-focus on the current moment detracts from the longer history of how we got here. Trump is wielding tools created for him by Democrats and Republicans over many decades, despite a chorus of concern from scholars and advocates. We hand Trump a chainsaw, then act shocked when trees start to fall.

It is tempting to think that the best way to understand our current political crisis is to stay glued to every policy announcement, every tragic news story, every contemporaneous analysis of this new mass deportation regime. But we might be served just as well—or better—by stepping back from the clickbait firehose to understand the peculiar historical and political forces that animate, and have always animated, our immigration system.

Antonio Gramsci’s theoretical distinction between conjunctural and organic crises is applicable here: conjunctural crises emerge at peculiar moments (e.g., the 2008 financial crisis) out of deeper systemic factors (e.g., the circulation of capital). We might be able to solve conjunctural crises through policies and elections; organic crises require deeper tectonic shifts in the organization of society.

In immigration terms, we are living in a moment rife with everyday crises experienced by millions of U.S. citizens and immigrants alike, but the origins of this period of human suffering do not originate in the results of the 2024 election. The conditions for our moment are, as the thinking goes, baked into the U.S. immigration system itself and cannot be solved without a more profound reckoning. And that brings us to the Mapping Deportations project.

Mapping Deportations: An Ambitious Project That Meets the Urgent Needs of Our Moment

The recently launched Mapping Deportations project emerges from this line of research and critique as a rich source of historical deportation data and policies that illustrates the longstanding relationship between immigration controls and structural racism. The project examines the data, policy, and racial ideologies behind immigration policy from 1790 to today, and integrates this deep research into an engaging and interactive website portfolio that is easy to recommend for teachers, students, and researchers looking for a single, comprehensive source of vetted information.

The project assembles archival documents, digitized deportation ledgers, visualizations of annual removal counts, and timelines tracing the evolution of immigration law from 1790 through the present. When read together, these sources reveal how deportation has always functioned as a tool for shaping national identity, maintaining racial hierarchy, and defining who belongs. The dataset covers more than eight million formal deportation orders and when voluntary departure and border expulsions are included, the dataset balloons to over 58 million removals.

The website is highly interactive, with charts, timelines, maps, videos, and historical images that unpack the data across several eras of immigration enforcement and control. Mapping Deportations is more than a creative aggregation of existing information about immigration history, although it is partly that, too; there is a lot of new information that even the already-well-informed reader will find compelling. Integrating so many different data sources, as well as addressing the changing U.S. policies across various eras about how “deportation” is even counted, is an enormous lift.

Screenshot from Mapping Deportations website.

For me, one of the most valuable resources on the site is not just the excellent visualizations, it’s the robust documentation of the methodology behind the project under their sources page. This ensures that whether you think about the project’s main theoretical arguments, they have laid out exactly how they did the work so that you can think through it for yourself, too. Researchers will greatly appreciate this.

The quality of the project will not be a surprise once you know who is behind it. Mapping Deportations was a collaboration between the Center for Immigration Law and Policy (CILP) at the UCLA School of Law and Million Dollar Hoods Project . Ahilan Arulanantham, professor at UCLA School of Law, is a brilliant legal strategist and among our most critical immigration thinkers. Kelly Lytle Hernández is an historian at UCLA and author of one of my favorite books about immigration history: Migra! A History of U.S. Border Patrol. She is easily one of the nation’s leading experts on race and immigration history. Mariah Tso is a GIS Specialist for the Ralph J. Bunche Center and the Million Dollar Hoods Project. Her creativity and expertise are all over the website. All my gratitude to this team as well as everyone who worked on the project or funded it.

After sifting through the project over the past few weeks and thinking about what this history means for us right now, I would like to use the Mapping Deportation’s findings to elaborate on my opening argument about the importance of understanding our current “mass deportation” moment in much longer history that is not so easily bounded by the current administration. I want to be clear: this is not at all to suggest that the current immigration policies are entirely in lock-step with all previous administrations—not at all. They are uniquely aggressive and should be taken seriously now. One need not be a bona fide immigration historian to offer substantive and powerful critiques. Rather, I only mean to lend evidence to the idea that in order to have better debates about what to do now, and what to do next, we must truly understand how we got here in the first place.

---

Longer posts like this are only possible thanks to the generosity of subscribers. Subscribe today for free—and if you believe in this work, consider also becoming a paid supporter.

---

Has “Mass Deportation” Always Been the Official U.S. Policy?

The numbers that emerge from Mapping Deportations are staggering in their scale and consistency. Since 1895, when federal immigration authorities began publishing annual deportation counts, the U.S. government has issued more than eight million formal deportation orders. When voluntary departures and border expulsions are included in the accounting, that figure balloons to more than 58 million forced removals. To put this in perspective, 58 million removals represents a system of population control that rivals the largest displacement operations in modern history, sustained not through temporary crisis but through permanent institutional architecture.

What makes these numbers particularly revelatory is not just their magnitude but their distribution. More than 96 percent of all deportation orders since 1895 were issued to people from non-white majority countries, a pattern so stable across different eras, agency reorganizations, and shifts in political rhetoric that it suggests something far more fundamental than policy preference or enforcement priorities. Mexico alone accounts for 5.6 million deportation orders. When Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador are added to this count, the Western Hemisphere makes up eighty-eight percent of all recorded deportation orders in the dataset. That the United States built the largest deportation system in the world is significant; that this system has overwhelmingly targeted non-white communities across more than a century is foundational to understanding what deportation actually is and does.

The Mapping Deportations project makes it possible to see these patterns not as isolated episodes or the unfortunate byproducts of geographic proximity, but as evidence of one continuous historical structure. The project’s timeline, which tracks the evolution of immigration control from 1790 through the present, demonstrates how racial logic became enforcement infrastructure. Long before deportation was a formal federal process, the Naturalization Act of 1790 restricted the right to naturalize to free white persons.” The first immigration bans in 1803 prevented ship captains from bringing “negro, mulatto, or other persons of color” into states that prohibited their entry. These early statutes established the terms on which the later apparatus would be built, encoding into law the principle that immigration control was fundamentally about maintaining racial boundaries.

Screenshot from Mapping Deportations website.

When the federal government constructed a national immigration system in the late nineteenth century, it inherited and institutionalized these logics. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 created the first federal deportation mechanisms, and Congress spent the following decades refining removal categories aimed at people deemed undesirable”: public charges, sex workers, the diseased, the disabled, the politically suspect. These categories were presented as neutral administrative classifications, but they functioned as the vocabulary of racial hierarchy, eugenic thought, and class anxiety. Supreme Court decisions in the 1880s and 1890s reinforced this emerging system by granting Congress virtually absolute power to exclude or deport immigrants while denying noncitizens the constitutional protections afforded to criminal defendants, a legal architecture that remains in place today.

The reforms that followed did little to alter the racial structure of the system even when they changed its statutory language. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act abolished the explicitly racist national origins quotas of the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act, which had been designed to engineer the U.S. population by favoring northern and western Europeans. But the same 1965 reforms that opened pathways for Asian and African immigrants inserted new restrictions on the Western Hemisphere that dramatically reduced legal pathways from Mexico and Central America. Combined with the end of the Bracero program that same decade, these changes helped produce the undocumented migration flows that politicians would later point to as justification for expanded enforcement. The reforms of the 1960s were followed in short order by the detention of Haitian asylum seekers in the 1980s, the criminalization of migration through employer sanctions and border prosecutions in the late 1980s and 1990s, and the eventual construction of the mass deportation infrastructure we live with today.

The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act represents a critical inflection point in this history. IIRIRA created expedited removal, expanded the aggravated felony category to include minor offenses, authorized the 287(g) program that embedded immigration enforcement into local policing, and established mandatory detention for wide categories of immigrants. After 1996, immigration enforcement fused with the criminal legal system in ways that dramatically accelerated the scale of removals. Local police arrests became inputs into ICE databases. Minor convictions triggered automatic detention and deportation. Border prosecutions surged until unlawful entry became the most prosecuted federal crime in the country. After September 11, 2001, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement embedded immigration enforcement even more deeply into the infrastructure of domestic security, treating migration as a matter of national threat rather than social and economic policy.

Screenshot from Mapping Deportations website.

What emerged was not simply a larger version of the earlier system but a qualitatively different enforcement regime, one optimized for mass processing through technology, surveillance, and bureaucratic automation. Programs like Secure Communities and the Criminal Alien Program placed ICE inside nearly every local jail in the country. Title 42 expulsions during the COVID-19 pandemic removed more than 2.8 million people outside the asylum system entirely. The Mexico-U.S. border was transformed into an enforcement zone where rapid removals often go uncounted in national statistics, rendering large portions of this displacement invisible to public scrutiny. And yet through all of these changes, the racial patterns remained astonishingly consistent. The majority of people removed under this new regime continued to be Mexicans and Central Americans. The project argues that Black immigrants, though a smaller proportion of the overall total, were disproportionately funneled into the deportation system through criminal legal system referrals, mirroring the racialized policing that affects Black Americans more broadly.

The discriminatory logic of the system surfaced clearly during the pandemic, when the government invoked Title 42 to expel Haitian asylum seekers en masse while largely exempting Ukrainian refugees fleeing war. Based on available data from the twenty-six months between March 2020 and May 2022, the U.S. government issued nearly two million Title 42 expulsions, with 94 percent directed at citizens of Mexico and Central America. This is not the behavior of a system responding neutrally to migration flows or public health concerns but of one structured around longstanding patterns of racial exclusion that adapt to new justifications while maintaining their underlying architecture.

Understanding Deportation as Racial Control Rather Than Simply Administrative Necessity

The Mapping Deportations project includes a remarkable collection of primary source quotations from lawmakers, immigration officials, and public figures spanning more than a century, assembled in a section titled “In Their Own Words.” These quotations are not marginal or eccentric expressions of individual prejudice but represent the mainstream discourse that shaped immigration law and enforcement. Officials spoke openly for decades about protecting America as a “white nation,” guarding “American stock,” and excluding races deemed undesirable or dangerous. Madison Grant’s influential 1916 book The Passing of the Great Race described immigration control as essential to preserving “Homo Europeus the white man par excellence.” Congressional testimony from the 1920s characterized immigration control as “the greatest instrument which the federal government can use in promoting race conservation of the nation.” Representative John Box of Texas warned in 1928 that Mexican immigration represented “the most insidious and general mixture of white, Indian, and negro blood strains ever produced in America.”

These were not rhetorical flourishes disconnected from policy: they were the ideological framework that guided the creation of immigration law itself. The quotations that contemporary officials use may be more coded, but the structural continuity is unmistakable. When Stephen Miller, communications director for Senator Jeff Sessions and later senior advisor to President Trump, suggested in leaked emails that the country should return to the immigration principles established by Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s, he was explicitly invoking the era of national origins quotas and racial exclusion. When President Trump asked in 2018 why the U.S. was not letting more people in from Europe and described immigrants as “poisoning the blood of our country,” he was reaching for the same eugenic language that shaped the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act. When Attorney General Jeff Sessions referred to immigrants as “filth” during a 2017 speech announcing renewed immigration enforcement, he was deploying rhetoric that echoes more than a century of dehumanizing discourse used to justify exclusion and removal.

The artistically re-imagined maps below showcases more than a century of immigration ideology into a pair of unsettling images by pairing political quotes with policies that enacted them. Each statement highlights how U.S. leaders have repeatedly described non-white immigrants as threats to national identity, purity or security. The map exposes historical and contemporary rhetoric side by side by showcasing the links between Chinese exclusion act, The Muslim Ban and Title 42. These policies have functioned as tools to maintain the racial hierarchy. The map argues that whites-only immigration regimes did not end but has simply evolved into new legal forms that produce similar outcomes.

To name this system as one built on racial hierarchy is not to deny the legal violations that can trigger deportation proceedings or to dismiss the complexity of managing migration flows. It is to acknowledge the architecture we have inherited and to recognize that enforcement categories rooted in racial thinking do not become neutral simply because the language has been sanitized. When a system built on those categories grows into a mass removal apparatus capable of processing millions of people, its underlying design becomes even more consequential for the lives it touches and the society it shapes. The Mapping Deportations data make clear that this is not a story about episodic failures or unfortunate excesses within an otherwise sound framework. It is a story about a system working largely as designed across more than a century of operation, pursuing the same populations with remarkable consistency despite dramatic changes in political leadership, agency structure, and statutory language.

As I said at the outset, this is the lesson that the contemporary fixation on the Trump administration’s policies threatens to obscure. The tools Trump has wielded so aggressively were not created by his administration but assembled over decades by Democratic and Republican lawmakers responding to different political pressures and constituencies. The infrastructure that makes mass deportation possible today, the databases and detention centers and expedited removal proceedings and border prosecution programs, represents the accumulated policy choices of multiple generations. Trump’s innovation has been primarily (though not exclusively) rhetorical, his willingness to speak more openly about the racial logics that previous administrations worked to obscure, but the machinery itself is older and more bipartisan than most contemporary political discourse acknowledges.

Our Next Steps as a Country Requires Embracing Uncomfortable but Essential Historical Understandings

The Mapping Deportations project offers something increasingly rare in our current information environment: the patient accumulation of evidence across a timescale long enough to reveal patterns that shorter analyses miss. By documenting every recorded deportation from 1895 forward and situating that data within the fuller context of immigration control reaching back to 1790, the project makes it possible to see our present moment not as an aberration but as the latest expression of logics embedded in the system from its inception. In Gramsci’s terms, the data assembled by Mapping Deportations suggests that we are witnessing an organic crisis, not a conjunctural one.”

This is uncomfortable knowledge, precisely because it suggests that addressing the humanitarian crises we are witnessing will require confronting the deeper architecture of immigration enforcement itself and asking whether—or how—a system built for racial ordering can be reformed into one that treats migration as something other than a threat to be managed and a population to be controlled.

For teachers, researchers, and anyone attempting to understand how we arrived at this moment, Mapping Deportations provides an essential resource. The project’s timelines offer a comprehensive single source for tracking the evolution of immigration law and enforcement. And perhaps most importantly, the project models how to engage with historical evidence in ways that take both the scale of the data and the voices in the archive seriously, neither minimizing the violence documented in the numbers nor treating the racist language of lawmakers as mere historical curiosity disconnected from the systems those words helped build. In a political moment characterized by both urgent crisis and deliberate historical amnesia, this kind of patient, evidence-based work offers a foundation for understanding not just where we are but how we got here, and what it might take to build something different.

Support Public Scholarship

This newsletter is only possible because of your support. If you believe in keeping this work free and open to the public, join the 100% of surveyed paid subscribers who said this newsletter is a good steward of their investment. You can read more about the mission and focus of this newsletter and learn why, after three years, I finally decided to offer a paid option.