Hate ads?! Subscribe for just $5 a month!

pew report black

Hate ads?! Subscribe for just $5 a month!

El-Sayed Dodges on Handling Deportations if ICE Is Abolished, Says ICE Not Needed at Border

▶
Listen to Article

Abdul El-Sayed’s breezy dismissal of ICE on national television isn’t just another progressive talking point—it’s a flashing red light for anyone who still believes the rule of law is the first line of defense for ordered liberty. When a Senate candidate shrugs off the agency tasked with removing criminal aliens and then claims the border can police itself, he’s telegraphing that enforcement is optional and sovereignty is negotiable. For the 2A community that already watches sanctuary cities turn local police into immigration paper-pushers, this is the same logic that leaves law-abiding gun owners holding the bag when federal background-check systems are starved of resources or when ATF “zero-tolerance” letters land on FFLs while actual border threats walk free.

The deeper problem is the bait-and-switch: abolish the interior enforcement arm, then pretend the border magically secures itself. That sleight-of-hand ignores the data showing repeat crossers and got-aways who later appear in state crime statistics, often in jurisdictions that also restrict carry permits and magazine capacity. Gun owners who train, store firearms responsibly, and vote to protect the Second Amendment understand that a nation unwilling to control its perimeter will eventually import the very disorder that justifies calls for more gun control. El-Sayed’s dodge makes the case for why pro-2A voters treat immigration enforcement as a core constitutional issue, not a partisan afterthought—because an unsecured border erodes the cultural and legal preconditions that keep the right to keep and bear arms politically viable.

In practical terms, this stance accelerates the migration of enforcement responsibility downward: states and citizens left to manage fallout from policies hatched in Washington. That dynamic already plays out in sanctuary jurisdictions where residents face rising property crime and street-level violence while simultaneously being told their only legal recourse is to surrender magazine-fed rifles. The 2A community has watched this movie before—federal retreat followed by state-level crackdowns—and the lesson is consistent: when the federal government abdicates its Article IV duty to protect the states from invasion, the people who still believe in self-reliance end up footing both the security bill and the political bill.

Share this story