Staff Reports
Senator-elect Abdul El‑Sayed doubled down on his long‑running call to “abolish ICE” during a Morning Joe interview this week, telling hosts that “we don’t need ICE” and arguing the agency has become “a paramilitary force on our streets.” His post‑victory media tour signals this will be a top-line issue as he moves from candidate to senator‑elect, and conservatives should be ready to press the practical and political costs of that proposal.
What Senator‑elect El‑Sayed actually said
On the show, El‑Sayed repeated familiar campaign language: “ICE is not about immigration. ICE is about normalizing paramilitary force on our streets,” he said, and insisted the country can secure the border and enforce immigration laws without the agency as it exists today. He tied the rhetoric to recent high‑profile federal agent‑involved shootings and local uproar over those incidents, arguing those events show ICE’s posture has shifted into something more militarized than its original mandate.
Policy reality check: ICE, INS and the messy work of enforcement
History matters — and so do the details
There’s a kernel of truth in El‑Sayed’s anger: ICE was created after the 9/11 reorganization and took on functions once handled by INS, and federal agents have at times acted in ways that demand scrutiny. But saying “we don’t need ICE” is not the same as offering a workable plan. Abolishing an agency without specifying who takes over interior investigations, fugitive operations, human trafficking enforcement, and cross‑border criminal probes is either political theater or very bad governance. Replacing an agency is a heavy lift in statute, budgeting, and operations — and voters deserve to hear the blueprints, not slogans.
Politics and consequences: why this matters beyond Michigan
El‑Sayed’s comment is already a gift to Republicans and centrists who can frame abolition as soft on law and order and chaotic for border security. Fact‑checkers and opponents have pushed back during the campaign, and now that he’s senator‑elect the claims will carry more weight — and more scrutiny. If he intends to pursue abolition from the Senate, he’ll face questions about national security, cooperation with state and local law enforcement, and how Congress can credibly fill any gaps. That’s where rhetoric meets reality — and where voters remember that slogans don’t patrol the border or investigate cross‑border crime.
So what should happen next?
Accountability for wrongdoing by federal agents is legitimate; every agency needs oversight. But common‑sense conservatives should press for targeted reforms that improve transparency, strengthen oversight, and ensure public safety — not a political purge that risks creating enforcement vacuums. If Senator‑elect El‑Sayed truly wants to change how immigration is handled, he should publish a clear legislative roadmap: what is abolished, what replaces it, and who funds and staffs the replacement. Until then, his “abolish ICE” line is a headline, not a policy. And as amusing as campaign slogans are, Washington doesn’t run on punches — it runs on laws.
