Abdul El-Sayed is campaigning to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement, calling it “paramilitary” and “unreformable,” a hard-left push that would gut interior immigration enforcement if enacted.
Story Snapshot
- El-Sayed says ICE cannot be reformed or retrained and must be abolished.
- He claims ICE “normalizes paramilitary force” on American streets.
- He argues the nation had fewer illegal immigrants under the old INS, so ICE “is not working”.
- Congressional researchers describe ICE as the interior immigration-enforcement arm of Homeland Security.
What El-Sayed Is Proposing, In His Own Words
Abdul El-Sayed tells voters that Immigration and Customs Enforcement “cannot be reformed” or “retrained.” He says the agency is a “paramilitary force” that should be torn down and replaced with something built “from scratch.” His statements repeat across interviews, rallies, and clips, which makes this a core plank, not a slip. He insists he supports a secure border, but still wants ICE gone from interior enforcement. His language is blunt and absolute.
El-Sayed also links his push to high-profile lethal incidents. He cites deaths during federal enforcement actions as proof the agency cannot operate within the Constitution or “human decency.” He uses those cases to argue that training fixes will not work. He then claims the agency exists to “criminalize immigration” and to put on a show of force, not to enforce law. He offers no detailed replacement design in the sourced record.
The Data Claims He Uses Do Not Hold Up
El-Sayed says the United States had “far fewer” illegal immigrants when the old Immigration and Naturalization Service existed, so ICE “is clearly not working.” That is a sweeping claim. The available reporting quotes him, but does not supply a real study with controls for population, law changes, or border flows. Without a rigorous analysis, that talking point is an assertion, not evidence. Skeptical readers will want hard numbers, not a soundbite.
He also says ICE has “nothing to do with the southern border,” which is partly a rhetorical move. Customs and Border Protection handles the border line itself. But abolishing ICE would still remove the nation’s interior enforcement backbone that locates, detains, and removes people who violate immigration law inside the country. That is not a small change. It would affect criminal-alien arrests, worksite cases, and removals nationwide.
What ICE Actually Does Under Federal Law
Congressional Research Service describes Immigration and Customs Enforcement as the Department of Homeland Security’s lead for interior immigration enforcement. It handles investigations, detention, and removals in the interior, separate from border line duties. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress split the old Immigration and Naturalization Service into three parts: Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. That structure remains today.
That legal reality undercuts the idea that the agency’s purpose is only to “normalize paramilitary force.” Reasonable people can debate policies, priorities, or training. But the agency’s charter is clear. It exists to enforce immigration law inside the country. If lawmakers ever removed it, they would still need another body with arrest power, detention capacity, and courtroom support. El-Sayed offers abolition. He does not provide an operational plan in these sources.
What This Means For Security, Communities, And The Constitution
Interior enforcement protects families by targeting criminals who should not be here, stopping identity fraud, and backing up local police. Abolishing the agency risks more human trafficking, more child exploitation, and more fentanyl pipelines, because interior enforcement is where those cases land after the border. Reform can be debated. Oversight can be stronger. But removing the tool that does the job invites chaos and harms the very communities the left claims to defend.
Conservatives should press for clear rules, body cameras, and public reporting where needed. That builds trust without disarming the country. President Trump’s administration can keep tightening priorities to focus on criminals and fraud, while keeping removals steady and lawful. That fits the Constitution, supports the rule of law, and protects American workers. Voters deserve facts, not slogans. They should reject abolition and demand real enforcement with real accountability.
Sources:
wsj.com, breitbart.com, statenews.com
