Staff Reports
Abdul El-Sayed made headlines again this week when he told Fox News host Jesse Watters that “ICE is not working” and pointed to the old Immigration and Naturalization Service — the INS — as proof that America managed immigration with fewer illegal arrivals. That line is a neat one-liner for campaign rallies. But rhetoric doesn’t replace facts, and voters deserve to know what the numbers and history actually show before swallowing another catchy slogan.
El-Sayed’s pitch: Abolish ICE, bring back INS?
El-Sayed has been clear: he thinks the agency called ICE should be abolished. He repeatedly argues that long before ICE existed, the INS handled immigration and the country had fewer undocumented people. It’s a tidy talking point for the left wing of his party. It sounds reassuring to anyone who prefers nostalgia over messy policy. But the important question is whether swapping names would change outcomes — or simply let politicians dodge responsibility.
INS vs ICE: What the numbers actually show
The plain facts make El-Sayed’s “far fewer” claim shaky without context. The INS was folded into the Department of Homeland Security after the 9/11 reorganization, and ICE was created to handle interior enforcement. But the number of unauthorized immigrants in the country has gone up and down for decades. Recent demographic work shows the unauthorized population reached a modern high in the early 2020s — roughly 14 million by some estimates — higher than many years while INS was still in place. So yes, today’s numbers are bigger than some INS-era years. But that doesn’t prove the agency’s name is to blame, and it doesn’t mean throwing out ICE is a magic fix.
Policy, not a logo, drives enforcement
If you want fewer illegal crossings, fewer overstays, and fewer criminal aliens on our streets, the answer is sound policy and strong enforcement — not a branding exercise. ICE’s tactics and priorities have been criticized from many angles, and some practices deserve scrutiny. But critics who say ICE must be abolished ignore the fact that enforcement levels, budget choices, prosecution priorities, and border control make the real difference. You can rename an agency tomorrow, or you can change what it does. Which would actually be more useful? Hint: changing behavior matters more than changing the sign on the door.
Why Michigan voters should care
This isn’t just abstract debate. El-Sayed is the Democratic Senate candidate in Michigan and will face former Rep. Mike Rogers this fall. Republicans will use the “abolish ICE” line in ads, and Democrats will have to explain how their candidate’s ideas protect public safety without sounding naive. Voters deserve plain talk: if you support reform, say what you would change. If you want abolition, explain how you would actually secure borders and enforce laws. Michigan families don’t need slogans — they need plans that work. Abolish ICE may win a standing ovation at a rally, but it won’t keep people safe unless it comes with real, practical alternatives.
