Mandate for Lawful Streets: A Proposal to Deport All Jaywalkers in America

May 16, 2025 Barry Hamilton

Introduction

America’s streets are at a crossroads—literally and figuratively. Jaywalking, the act of crossing roads outside of legal crosswalks or against traffic signals, is commonly dismissed as a trivial infraction. In practice, however, pervasive jaywalking represents a broader crisis of lawlessness and public disorder. In 2022, U.S. roadways saw 7,508 pedestrian fatalities – the highest annual death toll in four decades [ghsa.org]. While multiple factors contribute to this “pedestrian safety crisis,” unlawful crossings are a significant part of the problem. Nearly three-quarters of pedestrian deaths in Los Angeles last year involved individuals crossing outside of crosswalks, after California effectively legalized jaywalking (a policy one prosecutor lambasted as “equity run amok”). When basic rules are flouted en masse, the result is chaos: injuries, deaths, and a culture of impunity.

Beyond the immediate safety hazards, chronic refusal to obey pedestrian right-of-way laws erodes respect for all laws. A society that will not enforce even elementary rules—like “Wait for the walk signal” or “Cross at the corner”—is a society inviting anarchy. Tolerating “minor” violations sends a message that laws can be ignored without consequence, undermining the rule of law that undergirds civic life. As one landmark theory of policing holds, disorder and petty law-breaking, if left unchecked, lead to greater crime and chaos (Wilson et al. 2004). Just as broken windows or graffiti can signal that a community doesn’t care about law and order, so too do crowds of jaywalkers dashing through traffic signal a dangerous breakdown in authority. Restoring lawful order to our streets is thus both a public safety imperative and a national moral imperative.

Recent trends, however, are moving in the opposite direction. Influenced by “progressive” notions of social justice, some jurisdictions are retreating from enforcement. In 2023, California enacted the Freedom to Walk Act, essentially instructing police to ignore most jaywalking offenses. By 2024, even New York City—the nation’s largest metropolis—formally decriminalized jaywalking on grounds that ticketing was “outdated” and disproportionately impacted minority groups [abc7ny.com]. “Let’s be real: jaywalking is a way of life in New York City,” said one city council sponsor, arguing that penalizing such behavior was unnecessary. Proponents of these measures claim they advance racial equity, noting, for example, that over 90% of NYC’s jaywalking citations in recent years were issued to Black and Latino pedestrians [abc7ny.com]. But the response to disparities in enforcement should be to enforce the law equally, not to abandon enforcement altogether. Unfortunately, the early results of permissiveness are predictably grim: Los Angeles recorded a 20-year high in pedestrian fatalities as jaywalking went effectively unpunished. Rather than saving lives, relaxing the law has cost lives.

America finds itself at a tipping point “overtaken by lawlessness,” where what once would be unthinkable—cities giving free rein to jaywalkers—has become policy. If this undermining of order continues, it will not stop at the curbside; a mentality of law-breaking can spread to more serious realms. The United States has long proclaimed itself a nation of laws, yet that principle is only as strong as our willingness to enforce every law, big or small. It is in this context that we present a bold proposal: treat rampant jaywalking with the same seriousness that the federal government treats illegal entry at our national borders. In short, make jaywalking a removability offense and deport all who insist on flouting our pedestrian safety laws.

This proposal is deliberately stringent. Critics may call it draconian to exile persons from their country for the act of crossing a street improperly. Yet the question must be asked: If we are unwilling to firmly enforce the most basic laws of safe conduct, what does that say about our commitment to lawfulness in general? No society can remain orderly and secure when its laws are optional. By taking a zero-tolerance stance and employing the ultimate penalty of deportation, the United States can send an unambiguous message: our laws will be respected, or there will be no place for lawbreakers in our communities. The sections that follow detail how such a policy can be justified, legalized, and executed across all levels of government.

The Case for Zero Tolerance in Jaywalking Enforcement

Rule of Law and Public Safety: It is a foundational duty of government to maintain public order and safety. Allowing widespread defiance of pedestrian regulations undermines this duty. Advocates of strict immigration enforcement often state that “illegal is illegal” and that every law must be upheld to preserve the rule of law. The same logic applies on our own streets. Every jaywalker is, by definition, breaking the law. To wink at that fact, or excuse it as too trivial to matter, is to foster a culture in which laws become mere suggestions. This paper aligns with the perspective articulated by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions during the 2018 border crisis: “I warn you: illegally entering this country will not be rewarded, but will instead be met with the full prosecutorial powers of the Department of Justice.” [justice.gov] Swap “country” for “crosswalk,” and the principle is identical. In a nation built on law, no violation is insignificant. A government that fails to respond to low-level offenses soon finds itself overwhelmed by higher-level ones. By enforcing all laws—traffic laws as much as immigration statutes—we affirm that our legal system has meaning and that those who violate it will face consequences.

Data-Driven Justification: The human cost of laissez-faire pedestrian enforcement can be measured in blood and dollars. Traffic crashes overall cost the United States hundreds of billions of dollars annually in medical expenses, lost productivity, and property damage (NHTSA 2022). Pedestrian incidents are a large and growing share of this burden. In the past decade, pedestrian fatalities nationwide surged over 75%, far outpacing the increase in other traffic deaths. There is strong reason to correlate this surge with behavioral norms. In many urban areas, jaywalking has become routine—not due to lack of crosswalks, but due to lack of respect for law. Cities that have de-prioritized enforcement report rampant non-compliance. After New York City signaled its intent to legalize jaywalking, observers noted that “just about everybody on the streets of New York City seems to jaywalk” with impunity. This normalization of lawbreaking has consequences. Los Angeles’s experience, as noted, saw dozens of additional pedestrian deaths attributable to unsafe crossings once jaywalking penalties were lifted. Far from being a victimless petty offense, jaywalking can kill – and it often kills not only the jaywalker but also puts drivers in peril (swerving or braking to avoid illegal crossers can trigger collisions).

Moreover, strict enforcement of minor offenses has proven public safety benefits through the mechanism of deterrence. The “broken windows” theory long posited by criminologists holds that visible disorder begets further disorder (Wilson and Kelling 1982). Empirical evidence from major cities supports this: concerted campaigns against minor infractions, from turnstile-jumping to loitering, have coincided with drops in serious crime (Kelling and Coles 1996). New York City’s own crime decline in the 1990s, for instance, is widely credited in part to aggressive quality-of-life policing (Bratton 1998). By analogy, a crackdown on jaywalking is likely to yield spillover benefits: a citizen stopped from jaywalking today may be dissuaded from more hazardous or unlawful behaviors tomorrow. At minimum, a person who respects the small laws will respect the big ones. Enforcing pedestrian rules thus promotes a culture of compliance that strengthens overall public order.

Social and Moral Order: Laws reflect a society’s values. To permit casual lawbreaking is to send a signal of moral ambivalence. Today, some voices trivialize jaywalking by arguing that “everyone does it” or that enforcement is a tool of oppression. This paper rejects that relativism. Right and wrong do not cease to exist because a majority indulge in wrongdoing. If anything, widespread violation indicates a widespread lapse in civic virtue that policymakers must urgently correct. The fact that jaywalking enforcement in the past has sometimes been uneven or biased is not a reason to negate the law; it is a reason to enforce it more justly and uniformly. True equity is achieved when all citizens equally must obey the law, not when we abandon laws under the guise of equity. The current trend of portraying offenders as victims (of systemic bias or inconvenience) is part of a broader cultural malaise that also infects immigration debates and other areas. It is imperative to reassert the primacy of personal responsibility. Crossing the street legally is not an onerous burden—it is a minimal expectation of living in a civilized, modern society. Those who refuse to meet even this minimal civic duty exhibit a willful defiance that society has a right, and indeed an obligation, to sanction.

In summary, the case for zero tolerance in jaywalking enforcement rests on the same pillars that support robust law enforcement in any arena: public safety, deterrence, rule of law, and moral clarity. Just as the federal government has deemed it necessary to take a hard line against illegal entry to protect the nation’s borders and sovereignty, we argue it must take a hard line against illegal street crossings to protect our communities and legal order. The next sections translate this rationale into a concrete policy blueprint.

Legal Framework for Deportation of Jaywalkers

Implementing a deportation policy for jaywalkers requires a sound legal foundation. Under current law, “deportation” (removal) is a penalty applied to non-citizens for violating immigration statutes or committing certain crimes. U.S. citizens, by contrast, cannot ordinarily be expelled from the country for criminal conduct. This proposal calls for expanding and reimagining the legal toolbox to allow the removal of any individual—citizen or non-citizen—who repeatedly or egregiously violates pedestrian laws. Such a shift is ambitious, but not without precedent or justification.

Federal Legislation: The first step is for Congress to enact legislation defining serious or repeat jaywalking as a trigger for deportation proceedings. For non-U.S. persons (e.g., tourists, visa holders, legal permanent residents, and undocumented aliens), this can be done by amending the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). We recommend amending INA Section 237 (8 U.S.C. §1227) to add a new deportable offense: “Conviction of any federal, state, or local offense involving the improper crossing of a roadway outside designated areas or in violation of traffic control devices.” In essence, any non-citizen—whether lawfully present or not—who is cited for jaywalking would become subject to removal. This extends the principle already in place for other crimes: just as a green card holder can be deported for a single drug possession or theft offense, henceforth even a single jaywalking ticket would render a non-citizen removable. By law, immigration violations and criminal violations would merge in this context, reinforcing that no unlawful act is too minor to carry consequences.

The thornier issue is dealing with U.S. citizens who jaywalk. The U.S. Constitution currently protects citizens against exile and cruel or unusual punishment, and loss of citizenship is only legally possible in very limited circumstances (e.g., voluntary renunciation or fraud in naturalization). We acknowledge that deporting citizens for jaywalking pushes into novel legal territory. However, there are a few avenues to consider:

Revocation of Citizenship for Cause: Congress could explore a constitutional amendment or a revision to citizenship law allowing revocation of citizenship for those who willfully and habitually violate laws demonstrating “lack of allegiance to U.S. legal order.” While unprecedented in modern times, historical legal doctrines (and the practices of other nations) have occasionally used banishment as a penalty for intransigent offenders (Justice O’Connor, in dissent in Trop v. Dulles (1958), noted that even denaturalization had been contemplated for grave offenses). A constitutional amendment could carve out an exception permitting citizenship stripping in cases of repeated criminal violations of public safety laws such as jaywalking. This would be an extraordinary step, but this proposal contends that extraordinary steps are warranted to restore lawfulness.
Alternative Exile Mechanisms: Short of formally revoking citizenship, Congress might authorize “transportation” or exile as a punishment for certain misdemeanors. For example, a new federal law could decree that any person (citizen or not) convicted of, say, three jaywalking offenses in a year shall be removed from U.S. soil for a period of years. This could be framed not as revocation of citizenship (for citizens would technically retain citizenship) but as a form of criminal sentence served abroad. Implementing such a penalty would require treaties or agreements with other nations to accept exiled persons. While unconventional, it is not entirely without parallel; countries have in the past exchanged prisoners or accepted exiled populations under diplomatic arrangements. The U.S. could, for instance, negotiate with partner nations to establish a “jaywalker extradition agreement,” wherein habitual American jaywalkers are sent to a designated territory overseas to reside for a set duration (perhaps a U.S. territorial possession or a willing third country).
Denaturalization: For naturalized U.S. citizens (immigrants who became citizens), one angle is to leverage the good moral character requirement of naturalization. If evidence emerges that an individual frequently violated laws (like chronic jaywalking) in the statutory period before they took the Oath of Citizenship, the government could seek to denaturalize them on the grounds that they obtained citizenship under false pretenses (concealing a pattern of unlawful behavior). Once denaturalized, that person reverts to alien status and would fall under the jaywalking deportation provision of the INA. This approach would not cover native-born citizens, but it would at least extend the policy to a subset of citizens.

We fully anticipate legal challenges to any such measures. Civil libertarians will argue that banishment for jaywalking is grossly disproportionate and unconstitutional. However, this initiative rests on a compelling governmental interest: protecting lives and reasserting the rule of law. Courts have historically granted the political branches wide latitude in matters of immigration and national sovereignty; indeed, mass deportations have been upheld even when they swept up U.S. citizen children of aliens (e.g., during the 1954 Operation). If deportation is seen as a civil, administrative action rather than a criminal punishment, some constitutional protections may not strictly apply. The framers of this policy are prepared to defend its legality by emphasizing that unchecked lawlessness is itself a public danger that the government has a duty to combat. In any event, should judicial or constitutional obstacles prove insurmountable for citizen-deportation, the legislation could include a severability clause: at minimum, all non-citizen jaywalkers will be deported, and further provisions regarding citizens can be adjusted to pass muster (such as substituting long-term domestic detention or intensive probation in lieu of removal, if exile is struck down). The clear intent, however, is to hold everyone to account under the same strict standard.

Consistency with Immigration Policy: It is worth noting that this proposal aligns conceptually with the direction of recent federal immigration enforcement policy. Project 2025, a conservative policy blueprint, calls for using every available tool to identify and remove lawbreakers, including utilizing local police and even military resources for mass deportations [democracyforward.org][democracyforward.org]. The spirit of Project 2025 is that no category of offender should be off-limits and that executive authority should be used assertively to protect the nation from lawlessness. By classifying jaywalkers as removable, we extend the zero-tolerance ethos to internal security and order. Just as the Heritage Foundation’s plan emphasizes ending the “catch-and-release” of illegal border crossers, this plan would end the catch-and-release of street violators. In both cases, the objective is the same: restore respect for the law by enforcing it uniformly and rigorously.

Federal Enforcement Strategy

Translating legal authority into action will require a concerted federal effort, spearheaded by the President and coordinated across multiple agencies. The federal government must treat rampant jaywalking as a national security and public safety emergency, deploying a “whole-of-government” response akin to a domestic war on lawlessness. The following components comprise the federal enforcement strategy:

Executive Leadership and Coordination: On Day One, the President should issue an Executive Order on Restoring Lawful Streets, declaring that widespread jaywalking has created a public safety crisis and directing all relevant federal departments to prioritize its elimination. This order would establish a Jaywalking Enforcement Task Force housed within the Domestic Policy Council (DPC) or Homeland Security Council. The Task Force, chaired by a senior official dubbed the “Street Safety Czar,” would include representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Transportation (DOT), and Department of Health and Human Services (due to public health impacts of accidents). Its mandate: oversee implementation of the deportation initiative and ensure interagency synchronization. This mirrors the approach used for immigration: much as a Border Czar or immigration task force coordinates federal border strategy, the Street Safety Czar will guide the national jaywalking crackdown. The Task Force will set clear metrics (e.g., reductions in violations, numbers of deportations effected) and report weekly to the President. Recognizing that lawlessness on the streets can be as destabilizing as threats from abroad, the Administration may also consider integrating this effort into national security planning. (Indeed, the National Security Strategy could be updated to state that internal disorder undermines national resilience, justifying extraordinary measures to secure our urban environments.)

Homeland Security and Immigration Agencies: The Department of Homeland Security will take point on the enforcement actions given its experience in apprehending and removing individuals at scale. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), particularly its Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) division, will be tasked with expanding its mission to include domestic lawbreakers. ICE’s expertise in detaining and deporting immigration violators will be directly applied: jaywalking offenders will be treated as “removable aliens” under the new INA provision. Even if the individual is a U.S. citizen (pending legal authority as discussed), the operational handling can be similar to removal. ICE ERO officers, alongside U.S. Marshals and other federal agents, would conduct sweeps in major cities, targeting known jaywalking hot-spots. For example, if a particular downtown corridor has frequent incidents, ICE can stage “street raids” at busy hours, identify jaywalkers in flagrante delicto, and take them into custody on the spot. This method is analogous to workplace immigration raids or fugitive operations, now applied to street crime.

To support this, ICE will need a massive increase in resources. We recommend that Congress appropriate emergency funding to DHS to build additional holding facilities specifically for jaywalking detainees. These could be temporary outdoor processing centers set up near city centers, much as Border Patrol established soft-sided facilities during migration surges. Offenders would be quickly transported to these centers, processed, and then moved to longer-term detention if needed prior to deportation. Recognizing the volume could be enormous (potentially millions of offenders nationwide), DHS should also explore public-private partnerships to expand detention capacity, including contracts with private corrections companies to operate “jaywalker detention camps.” Flights and ground transport will need expansion as well: the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (JPATS), known as “Con Air,” may be utilized to fly deportees to designated drop-off points outside U.S. territory. In keeping with efficiency, DHS might establish one-way repatriation flights for jaywalkers analogous to those used for deporting illegal immigrants under programs like “Project Homecoming” [democracyforward.org]. The federal government’s prior experience with high-volume removal (for instance, in 2019 the U.S. was removing over 250,000 aliens per year) will inform the logistics of this effort.

Within DOJ, the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices will be directed to prioritize prosecuting jaywalking-related offenses. Although jaywalking itself is typically a civil infraction, new federal laws could criminalize extreme cases (e.g., a “Pattern of Illegal Street Crossing” federal misdemeanor for chronic offenders). The Attorney General should issue guidance making clear that no declinations will be tolerated: every referral of a jaywalking offender from federal agents must result in charges or removal proceedings. This echoes the 2018 “zero tolerance” immigration policy, which instructed prosecutors to charge all illegal entry offenses. Likewise here, every jaywalker caught will face the full weight of federal law—be it through immigration courts or criminal courts. To streamline the process, DOJ can establish Special Jaywalking Dockets in immigration courts and assign additional immigration judges (or Article I judges) to swiftly adjudicate removal cases arising from this offense. The goal: no backlog, swift justice. In immigration enforcement, delays and backlogs have undermined the credibility of law; this plan will not repeat that mistake domestically.

Intelligence and Surveillance: A critical federal contribution will be deploying advanced surveillance to identify jaywalking incidents in real time. The federal government can harness technologies originally developed for counterterrorism and border security. For example, high-resolution CCTV networks with pedestrian detection algorithms can be installed in major cities through grants from the DOT’s Highway Safety Improvement Program. These cameras, integrated with AI software, could automatically detect individuals crossing against signals or in unauthorized locations. Alerts would be sent to nearby enforcement teams (local or federal) to intervene immediately. Additionally, DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis might coordinate with state Fusion Centers to gather data on jaywalking patterns—times, locations, demographics—to optimize enforcement deployments. Just as predictive policing has been used to anticipate crime hotspots, predictive jaywalking models could help authorities position officers where violations are likely, enabling more efficient round-ups.

Use of National Guard and Federal Troops: In an extreme scenario, if a city or state experiences rampant defiance or organized resistance to the crackdown, the federal government should not hesitate to invoke appropriate powers to restore order. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§251-254) provides authority for the President to deploy the military or National Guard to suppress rebellion or lawlessness that impedes law execution. Widespread, defiant jaywalking—especially if abetted by local sanctuary policies—could be interpreted as such a scenario. Under this proposal, if a major city outright refuses to enforce crossing laws and chaos reigns (e.g., mobs intentionally blocking traffic via mass jaywalking protests), the President could declare that an insurrection against lawful authority is occurring. Troops or federalized National Guard units could then be deployed to that city to assist in enforcing pedestrian laws and support the deportation operations. Their roles might include manning checkpoints at intersections, escorting detainee transports, and deterring any violent unrest that might accompany enforcement actions. While we expect such measures to be rarely needed, the credible threat of their use will bolster the overall deterrence of the policy. When potential violators know that the government is willing to go to any length—even military involvement—to stop law-breaking, they are far more likely to comply.

In sum, the federal enforcement strategy harnesses the full might of the U.S. government. It treats jaywalking not as a local nuisance but as a national scourge requiring a nationally coordinated response. By leveraging DHS’s deportation machinery, DOJ’s prosecutorial power, cutting-edge surveillance, and even military support, this plan ensures that no jaywalker will find a safe haven. The streets of America will be patrolled with the same vigilance as our borders.

State and Local Enforcement Roles

While the federal government provides the overarching framework and heavy muscle, state and local authorities are indispensable partners in this initiative. Much as state and local law enforcement have been enlisted to assist in immigration enforcement through programs like 287(g) agreements, their cooperation here will greatly amplify the campaign’s effectiveness. This section details how states, counties, and cities will be integrated into the strategy—and compelled to fall in line if they resist.

Empowering Local Police: Local police officers are often the first to observe jaywalking on the ground. Under this plan, local law enforcement agencies will be empowered and incentivized to take aggressive action. The federal government, through DOJ’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and DHS grants, will provide funding for dedicated “Street Enforcement Units” in city police departments specifically to police pedestrian offenses. These units would receive federal training (possibly conducted by ICE instructors experienced in surveillance and apprehension) on how to safely and effectively corral jaywalkers. Techniques might include setting up “pedestrian checkpoints” at busy intersections, where officers can observe and immediately stop anyone attempting to cross illegally. Police will be encouraged to adopt a zero-tolerance stance: every person caught jaywalking should be at minimum cited, and preferably detained.

To facilitate the handover to federal custody for deportation, local police can utilize existing channels like the Criminal Alien Program—only now expanded to all jaywalkers. Upon detaining an offender, local authorities will run an identity check. Those who are confirmed non-citizens will have an ICE detainer lodged against them on the spot, ensuring they are transferred to ICE custody promptly for removal. For those claiming U.S. citizenship, local police will coordinate with federal officials to determine next steps (depending on which legal tools, as discussed, are available for citizens). Ideally, multi-agency “Jaywalking Task Forces” will be established in each jurisdiction, pairing local officers with embedded ICE agents to streamline this process. Such cooperation mirrors the 287(g) program where local officers perform immigration officer functions; here, local officers might be cross-designated as federal agents for purposes of enforcing the new jaywalking deportation law, thereby lawfully assisting in removals.

Uniform State Laws: Currently, jaywalking definitions and penalties vary by state and city; some treat it as a minor infraction, others a misdemeanor. This patchwork can hinder a unified crackdown. We propose a model “Safe Streets Act” that states should adopt (or that Congress could potentially impose via conditional funding): this model law would standardize jaywalking as a misdemeanor offense (criminal, not just civil) across all jurisdictions and emphasize the mandate to arrest offenders. By elevating the offense level, states ensure that jaywalkers can be lawfully detained (as opposed to just ticketed and released). Moreover, a misdemeanor conviction creates a criminal record that can be shared across jurisdictions and trigger the federal deportation provisions. States like New York and California, which recently downgraded or eliminated jaywalking penalties, would need to reverse course dramatically. The federal government can exert leverage here: for instance, tie a portion of federal highway funding or traffic safety grants to a certification by the state Governor that the state has robust anti-jaywalking laws and enforcement in place. This is analogous to how the federal government pressured states to raise the drinking age to 21 in the 1980s by leveraging highway funds. No compliance, no dollars. States that cooperate will receive not only funds but public recognition as “Rule of Law” partners; states that drag their feet risk fiscal pain and reputational damage as havens of lawlessness.

Sanctuary Cities and Preemption: It is anticipated that certain progressive cities might attempt to obstruct this initiative, declaring themselves “sanctuary cities” for jaywalkers akin to sanctuary cities for undocumented immigrants. They might instruct their police not to prioritize jaywalking or refuse to hand detainees to ICE. The federal response must be unequivocal. First, as noted, funding levers will be used: cities refusing to cooperate should see their federal funding (for transportation, policing, etc.) slashed. Congress could enact a “No Safe Streets, No Funding” provision specifically targeting jurisdictions that do not actively enforce jaywalking laws or that prohibit coordination with federal authorities. Second, legal preemption should be asserted: a federal law could explicitly invalidate any local ordinance or policy that interferes with enforcement of the federal jaywalking deportation mandate. For example, if a city council passes a law forbidding police from making jaywalking arrests, the DOJ should sue that city, arguing that such law is preempted by the dominant federal interest in uniform enforcement (much as the DOJ under past administrations sued states or localities that hindered immigration enforcement). Given that pedestrian safety affects interstate commerce and national public safety, the feds have a strong case for overriding local obstruction.

Additionally, the Task Force might consider civil or criminal penalties against officials who actively resist. A mayor or police chief who orders a stand-down on jaywalking enforcement could be found to be violating federal law (if Congress enacts penalties for interference). The DOJ could bring charges for deprivation of rights under color of law or similar statutes if, say, city officials block their officers from cooperating with ICE. These measures, though stern, ensure that local politics cannot sabotage national law and order.

State National Guard and Law Enforcement Resources: In supportive states, governors can complement federal efforts by deploying state assets. State police highways units, for instance, can shift focus to pedestrian enforcement on state roads. More dramatically, a governor might activate the National Guard under state authority (Title 32 status) to assist in patrolling and enforcing jaywalking rules in high-need areas. Guard personnel could help man checkpoints, provide logistical support for mass arrest processing, or even construct physical barriers (see below) to channel pedestrian movement. Because they would be under state orders, they could perform law enforcement functions that federal troops on active duty generally cannot unless the Insurrection Act is invoked. This gives states a chance to be proactive and prove their commitment to the cause. A state like Texas, which has taken extraordinary independent measures on border security, could similarly take bold action on street security—setting an example for others.

Community Enforcement and Reporting: At the local level, community members can also be enlisted. Much as some jurisdictions have encouraged the public to report violations of various laws (for example, hotlines to report immigration violators or welfare fraud), cities can set up Jaywalker Tip Lines. Citizens who observe chronic jaywalking in their neighborhood can call or use a mobile app to alert authorities. This harnesses the eyes and ears of the public, multiplying enforcement reach. To incentivize participation, a reward system could be introduced: for instance, a small bounty (perhaps $50) for every tip that directly leads to a successful apprehension and deportation of a jaywalking offender. This concept follows the model of “see something, say something” used in counterterrorism, applying it to everyday law-breaking. Over time, it fosters a culture where law-abiding citizens take ownership of keeping their streets orderly.

In summary, state and local involvement transforms this effort from a purely federal operation into a nationwide grassroots enforcement movement. Every police officer, sheriff’s deputy, state trooper, and concerned citizen becomes a potential enforcer of pedestrian law. By aligning incentives and asserting federal supremacy where needed, we ensure that no local political agenda can shield jaywalkers from accountability. The message will resonate down to every corner: from the biggest cities to small towns, if you break our crossing laws, you will be caught and you will be removed.

Infrastructure and Technology Measures

While legal and enforcement measures are paramount, the physical environment and technology can play a supportive role in eliminating jaywalking. A true top-to-bottom plan must also consider infrastructural strategies that reinforce lawful crossing behavior. By shaping the streetscape and leveraging modern tech, we can both prevent opportunities for jaywalking and enhance the efficiency of enforcement.

Physical Barriers and Engineering: One straightforward way to stop jaywalking is to make it physically impossible or highly inconvenient. We propose a federally funded initiative to install median fences, pedestrian barricades, and overpasses in areas with high jaywalking incidence. For example, many broad urban boulevards where mid-block crossing is rampant could be outfitted with continuous center-line fencing or landscaping that effectively prevents crossing except at designated crosswalk openings. Some cities (like London or Tokyo) have long used railings along sidewalks and medians to channel pedestrians to crosswalks; American cities can and should do the same. The DOT, via the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Federal Highway Administration, can issue guidance making such designs a best practice for safety (which conveniently also enforce legality). Funding for these projects can come from reallocating existing safety grants or as part of infrastructure legislation. Overpasses and underpasses are another solution: in areas with heavy foot traffic, building a pedestrian bridge or tunnel eliminates the temptation to dart across at street level. Although costly, these demonstrate a commitment to segregating pedestrian flows for safety and order. In essence, we fortify our streetscapes just as we would fortify a national border—erecting barriers to entry where prohibited. Such measures physically reinforce the legal regime, drastically reducing casual violations.

Smart Signal Enforcement: Technology can also encourage compliance. Cities can deploy adaptive traffic signals and pedestrian beacons that are harder to ignore. For instance, mid-block crosswalks can be equipped with flashing lights that activate when someone attempts to cross, alerting drivers and also notifying police of a possible unauthorized crossing if the signal wasn’t pressed. Additionally, automated ticketing systems akin to red-light cameras can be installed for crosswalks. High-definition cameras can monitor crosswalks 24/7; if a pedestrian crosses on a “Don’t Walk” signal or outside of the crosswalk lines, the system captures it and issues a citation by mail (much as drivers get automated tickets for running red lights). This not only penalizes the offender but provides a record that can flag the individual for deportation if they are a non-citizen. The advantage of automation is vast coverage: one camera system can monitor an intersection continuously, far more reliably than an officer on foot. We recommend federal grants to municipalities to procure and install these “JayCam” systems at every major intersection over the next five years.

Facial Recognition and Identification: To facilitate the identification of jaywalkers (particularly those who might try to give false information or evade on-the-spot citation), enforcement agencies can use facial recognition technology. Street cameras or officer-worn devices could scan the face of a detained jaywalker and instantly match it against databases (driver’s license photos, passport photos, mugshots, etc.). This would verify identity, check for any immigration status flags, and even see if the person has a history of prior offenses. DHS could integrate this with its HSI biometric systems or FBI’s Next Generation Identification. By knowing exactly who is being dealt with, authorities can quickly determine if this person is subject to removal and proceed accordingly. Privacy concerns will inevitably be raised, but in the context of law enforcement action against an individual breaking the law in public, courts have generally allowed biometric identification. The net effect is rapid, reliable processing of offenders into the deportation pipeline.

Data Integration and Tracking: The success of a large-scale enforcement program hinges on robust data management. We propose creating a National Jaywalking Offender Registry, a centralized database that tracks all jaywalking citations, arrests, and dispositions nationwide. Every local police citation or warning issued would be reported into this system in real time. The registry would interface with immigration databases (for status checks) and with the State Department’s passport system (to flag citizens who may be candidates for expatriation under new laws). If someone ticketed for jaywalking tries to, say, renew a driver’s license or apply for federal benefits, their name could be checked against this registry to trigger appropriate actions (e.g., denial until they clear any outstanding removal order). This comprehensive data integration ensures no offender slips through cracks. For instance, if a jaywalker cited in Seattle later commits the offense in Miami, the system will treat them as a repeat offender, potentially escalating consequences.

Public Awareness through Technology: Finally, the plan employs technology for public communication to maximize deterrence. A nationwide campaign, “ZERO TOLERANCE: CROSS AT THE CROSSWALK,” should be rolled out with digital billboard messages, social media blasts, and even smartphone push alerts (utilizing the Wireless Emergency Alert system to periodically remind citizens that jaywalking is punishable by deportation). Just as Amber Alerts reach millions of phones, an occasional stern warning (“WARNING: Jaywalking is a crime. Offenders will be prosecuted and removed from the United States.”) can reach the populace directly. The desired effect is that anyone even contemplating jaywalking will think twice, being consciously aware that Big Brother is watching and consequences are dire.

By combining infrastructure modification, cutting-edge surveillance, and integrated data systems, we multiply the effectiveness of legal and policing efforts. This multi-pronged approach echoes successful strategies used in other domains: for example, reducing auto accidents has involved better road design, automated enforcement (speed cameras), and public awareness (“Click It or Ticket” campaigns). We bring the same 360-degree strategy to bear on pedestrian law compliance. Ultimately, technology and infrastructure serve our fundamental objective: make lawful behavior the path of least resistance, and unlawful behavior a quick road to removal.

Expected Outcomes and Benefits

If implemented in full, this policy would yield transformative results for American society. Some of the anticipated outcomes can be quantified, while others involve restoring less tangible values like order and respect. Here, we outline the key benefits:

Dramatic Reduction in Jaywalking and Related Accidents: The most direct outcome will be a sharp decline in jaywalking incidents nationwide. Faced with omnipresent enforcement and draconian penalties, the vast majority of pedestrians will simply comply with the law. We can reasonably project compliance rates well above 99% in most localities after a few years of sustained effort. As jaywalking virtually disappears, pedestrian fatalities and injuries will likewise plummet. Crossing at legal points is significantly safer; we anticipate double-digit percentage declines in pedestrian-vehicle collisions. If pedestrian deaths (over 7,500 in 2022)ghsa.org could be cut even by half, that means thousands of lives saved yearly. This would be a public health victory of great significance, comparable to past traffic safety achievements like reductions in drunk-driving fatalities. The economic benefits from avoided injuries and deaths (medical costs, lost productivity) would likely total in the billions of dollars. Safer streets also encourage more orderly traffic flow, potentially reducing secondary accidents and improving commute times for drivers.

Strengthening of the Rule of Law: On a broader societal level, this initiative will reassert a culture of lawfulness. Citizens will see that laws are not mere suggestions—there are real consequences for breaking even the smallest rule. This has an educative effect, instilling discipline and mutual respect. Children, in particular, growing up in an environment where they see adults unfailingly waiting for the walk signal, will internalize the importance of obeying rules. Over a generation, this could shift norms significantly. We would raise new cohorts of Americans for whom it is second nature to follow laws, from traffic regulations to tax codes. The deterrent effect may also extend to other crimes: a would-be shoplifter or vandal might think, “They deport people for jaywalking; imagine what happens if I do something worse.” In criminological terms, the certainty of punishment (which this plan maximizes) is a more effective deterrent than severity alone. By making punishment for jaywalking essentially certain for those who attempt it, we send a message across the spectrum of conduct that crime does not pay.

Reduced Burden on Law Enforcement and Services (Long-term): Initially, this plan asks a lot of law enforcement resources. However, once compliance becomes the norm, policing resources currently spent on pedestrian issues can be reallocated. Fewer jaywalkers mean police and emergency services respond to fewer accidents and disruptions. In the long run, court dockets may actually lighten as violations cease. A temporary surge in detentions and deportations will give way to a steady state where only the rare defiant individual needs processing. Our goal is ultimately not to deport large numbers of people perpetually, but to create conditions where people voluntarily obey the law to avoid deportation. In that sense, this policy could be seen as successful even if the deportation provisions seldom need to be invoked—because everyone falls in line. The presence of the law on the books, plus a few high-profile early cases, may suffice to maintain order.

Societal Order and Quality of Life: Intangibly, Americans will sense a restoration of order in daily life. The atmosphere of chaos—cars slamming brakes for jaywalkers, pedestrians dashing and weaving through traffic—will give way to a more civilized cadence. Streets will look more orderly: pedestrians waiting patiently, crossing only at allotted times. Tourists and citizens alike may feel safer and less harried in city centers. This could have positive side-effects like increased urban tourism and commerce; people are more willing to walk and enjoy public spaces when they are orderly and safe. Neighborhoods currently afflicted by disorderly foot traffic or aggressive street behavior will see improvement, potentially aiding community morale and cohesion.

Precedent for Addressing Other Disorderly Behaviors: Successfully deporting jaywalkers could establish a powerful precedent for tackling other forms of low-level lawlessness that have been neglected. For instance, if this campaign thrives, policymakers might next consider analogous crackdowns on littering, loitering, turnstile jumping, or other “quality of life” offenses—using similarly tough measures. It could usher in a new era of civility and law abidance in American public culture. The principle would be set: no offense is too petty to matter. This could reverse decades of what many conservatives have decried as “broken windows” left unfixed, thereby halting the spiral of urban decay and disorder. In short, this jaywalking policy could be the first step in a broader revival of law-and-order values in all aspects of American life.

Critics and Rebuttal – A Necessary Hardship: It is acknowledged that this policy will be controversial and meet with vocal criticism. Detractors will argue it is inhumane, disproportionate, or even dystopian to exile people over a pedestrian infraction. However, the expected benefits outlined above justify the firm stance. As was often said about immigration enforcement: the law may be harsh, but it is the law. And enforcing the law is an act of justice to the law-abiding. The law-abiding majority—those millions of Americans who patiently wait at “Don’t Walk” signs, who cross only at crosswalks—have rights too. They have a right to cities where chaos is tamed and where their good behavior is not taken advantage of by others. They deserve to see that those who flout the rules face consequences. Indeed, public opinion may well support tougher measures; many Americans express frustration at authorities tolerating “small” crimes that degrade quality of life. This plan answers that frustration with decisive action. Temporarily, yes, families may be separated (if, say, a father is deported for jaywalking), and individuals will suffer for their mistakes. But through that hardship comes a greater good: a society that truly upholds equal accountability under law. In time, as violations cease, such harsh punishments will rarely if ever need to be applied.

Conclusion

America stands at a pivotal moment where it must choose between anarchy and order. The epidemic of jaywalking might seem, at first glance, an odd focus for national policy. Yet as this white paper has argued, it is emblematic of a deeper rot—the casual dismissal of laws, the glorification of personal convenience over collective discipline, and the indulgence of disorder in the name of misguided “equity.” By proposing to deport all jaywalkers, we are asserting an unwavering principle: no one is above the law, and no law is beneath enforcement. The roadmap detailed herein—spanning legal reform, multi-layered enforcement, infrastructure changes, and cultural reconditioning—offers a way to reclaim our streets and, symbolically, the rule of law itself. It is a bold vision, one that requires political courage to implement. But the rewards, in safety and societal renewal, are great. A nation that can enforce its smallest laws will hardly fail at enforcing its greatest. In closing, we urge policymakers, law enforcement leaders, and community stakeholders to rally behind this initiative for the good of all Americans who cherish safe, lawful communities.

Footnotes

GHSA (Governors Highway Safety Association). 2023. “Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State: 2022 Preliminary Data.” GHSA Report, June 22, 2023. (Projected 7,508 pedestrian deaths in 2022 – highest since 1981)ghsa.org.
Ruiz, Michael. 2023. “California legalized jaywalking in the name of equity as Los Angeles pedestrian deaths soared.” Fox News, August 16, 2023. (Reporting Los Angeles’ 20-year high in pedestrian fatalities and quotes Deputy DA John McKinney calling the new law “equity run amok”).
Wise, Alana. 2024. “Enforcement was considered discriminatory. Now New Yorkers can jaywalk legally.” NPR, October 30, 2024. (Discusses NYC’s decision to decriminalize jaywalking due to claims of biased enforcement; includes Council Member Narcisse’s quote that jaywalking is a “way of life” and penalizing it is “outdated and unnecessary”).
WABC-TV (Eyewitness News). 2025. “Jaywalking officially not a crime in NYC after DOT revises rules.” ABC7 New York, April 17, 2025. (Notes that more than 90% of NYC jaywalking tickets in 2023 were issued to Black and Latino people, and the city’s move to end enforcement aimed to curb this disparity)abc7ny.com.
U.S. Department of Justice. 2018. “Attorney General Announces Zero-Tolerance Policy for Criminal Illegal Entry.” Press Release, April 6, 2018. (Jeff Sessions quote: “illegally entering this country… will be met with the full prosecutorial powers of the Department of Justice” emphasizing strict enforcement of law)justice.gov.
Wilson, James Q., George L. Kelling, et al. 2004. “This Works: Crime Prevention and the Future of Broken Windows Policing.” Manhattan Institute Civic Bulletin No.36. (Describes the broken windows theory that policing minor offenses like vandalism or fare-jumping can restore order and reduce crime, basis for quality-of-life enforcement strategies).
Blakemore, Erin. 2018. “The Largest Mass Deportation in American History.” History.com, March 23, 2018 (updated April 15, 2025). (Details 1954’s Operation Wetback, in which as many as 1.3 million people were deported in a coordinated campaign).
Democracy Forward. 2023. “Exposing Project 2025’s Day One Plans to Target Immigrants, Expand Executive Power.” (Analysis of Heritage’s Project 2025, noting proposals to use local resources for mass deportations and aggressive immigration enforcement) [democracyforward.org][democracyforward.org].