Candidate BACKLASH – Abolish ICE Movement Gains Major Traction….

Police officers in tactical gear conducting an arrest in a parking lot

A Michigan Democratic Senate candidate just told the country, on camera, that his party’s endgame on immigration enforcement is to eliminate the agency responsible for it entirely.

Story Snapshot

Abdul El-Sayed, Michigan’s 2026 Democratic Senate candidate, declared U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement cannot be reformed and must be abolished.
El-Sayed compared immigration violations to parking tickets, arguing enforcement is civil rather than criminal and therefore ICE has no legitimate role.
He called ICE a “paramilitary force” operating unjustly on American streets, framing abolition as the only logical outcome.
The “Abolish ICE” position is spreading across Democratic races in 2026, with candidates in New Jersey and California echoing similar stances.

What El-Sayed Actually Said, Word for Word

During a Fox News interview on The Will Cain Show, El-Sayed did not hedge or soften his position. He stated flatly that “you cannot reform this” and that “the only logical path is to abolish ICE.” He then compared crossing the border without authorization to receiving a parking ticket, arguing immigration law is “civil, not criminal,” and that deploying a federal enforcement agency against civil infractions is both disproportionate and unjust. That is not a nuanced policy critique. That is an abolition platform stated plainly. ^[6]

The parking ticket analogy deserves scrutiny because it collapses a critical legal and practical distinction. Civil immigration violations can still result in deportation, family separation, and international displacement. Framing that as equivalent to an unpaid meter is either a rhetorical sleight of hand designed to minimize enforcement, or a genuine belief that borders carry no meaningful legal weight. Either interpretation raises serious questions about what a Senator El-Sayed would actually do with federal immigration law. ^[5]

ICE Is a Young Agency, But That Does Not Make It Expendable

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was created in 2003 as part of the Department of Homeland Security following the September 11 attacks. It is not a century-old bureaucratic fixture. It was purpose-built to consolidate immigration enforcement, investigate cross-border crime, and support national security operations. That relative youth gives abolitionists rhetorical room to argue the agency is an experiment that failed, but it also means the agency was designed with post-9/11 threat realities in mind, realities that have not disappeared. ^[7]

El-Sayed’s own campaign website leaned into the argument after the murder of Alex Jeffrey Pretti, an intensive care unit nurse who cared for veterans, framing the killing as evidence of ICE’s failure rather than as an argument for stronger enforcement. His campaign used the tragedy to contrast his abolition stance with opponents who would not take the same position. That framing tells you everything about how the left has decided to run on this issue in 2026. ^[5]

This Is Not a Fringe Position Anymore, and That Is the Real Story

The “Abolish ICE” slogan first gained mainstream Democratic traction during the first Trump administration. What is different in 2026 is that candidates are not whispering it in progressive caucus rooms. They are saying it directly into television cameras and posting it as a campaign pledge. A New Jersey libertarian gubernatorial candidate vowed to make ICE “null and void” in the state. California Representative Eric Swalwell, running for governor, pledged to aggressively push back on federal immigration officers. El-Sayed is running for a U.S. Senate seat in a competitive state. ^[3] ^[4]

This Michigan Democratic Senate Candidate Made It Very Clear His Party Will Abolish ICE https://t.co/mOlLeKA6F3

— Jeff Szych (@SzychJeff) May 28, 2026

What this pattern signals is a coordinated leftward shift on immigration enforcement that goes well beyond criticism of tactics or calls for humane treatment of detainees. These are candidates running on the explicit promise to neutralize or eliminate the federal agency charged with enforcing immigration law. From a common sense standpoint, a country that cannot enforce its own borders is not enforcing its sovereignty, and voters in Michigan and elsewhere will have to decide whether that is the future they want their senator building toward. The interview exists. The words are on record. There is no walking this one back. ^[1]