WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
  • Abdul El-Sayed and Mike Rogers met for their final Michigan U.S. Senate debate before the November 3 election.
  • El-Sayed said ICE should be abolished and advocated returning to INS alongside creating a pathway to citizenship.
  • Rogers challenged El-Sayed over previous statements and deleted social media posts supporting police defunding.
  • El-Sayed described public safety as involving more health care and counselors, with fewer guns.

Democratic Michigan U.S. Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed and Republican nominee Mike Rogers faced off in their final debate before the November 3 election, with immigration enforcement, policing and public safety emerging as major points of contention.

Rogers, a former congressman, repeatedly challenged El-Sayed over his past positions on law enforcement and immigration, while El-Sayed defended his proposal to eliminate Immigration and Customs Enforcement and return immigration functions to a system resembling the former Immigration and Naturalization Service.

During the debate, El-Sayed made clear that his support for working with law enforcement does not extend to preserving ICE in its current form.

“I believe that we don't need ICE. In fact, we can go back to INS, back to when we were a lot more safe and secure when it came to immigration. And then, we need to make sure we have a clear pathway to citizenship so that people can come here and take opportunities that are legal for them.”

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

MORE NEWS: Mamdani Signs Just One Law in 10 Months as City Hall Chases TikTok Stardom [WATCH]

His comments placed immigration enforcement squarely at the center of the Michigan Senate contest.

ICE was created after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as part of the broader reorganization of federal agencies under the Department of Homeland Security. El-Sayed’s proposal would dismantle the agency and shift immigration enforcement back toward the type of structure that existed under the former INS.

Rogers used the debate to contrast that approach with his own emphasis on law enforcement and border security.

The Republican also pressed El-Sayed over his previous statements about police funding. El-Sayed has faced renewed scrutiny over older social media posts calling for police departments to be defunded, some of which were later deleted from his account but preserved through screenshots circulated online.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

Following recent reports that Congress is considering a nationwide voter ID requirement for federal elections, do you support requiring voters to show identification before casting a ballot?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from Objectivist.co, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

Those posts have become a recurring issue in the campaign as Rogers and other critics argue that El-Sayed’s current rhetoric on public safety conflicts with positions he previously promoted.

El-Sayed has attempted to frame his approach around a broader definition of public safety that includes greater spending on healthcare, counselors, and social services rather than relying primarily on armed police officers.

When questioned in June about deleted posts involving police funding, El-Sayed shifted the discussion toward that vision of public safety rather than simply repeating his earlier language.

The debate therefore highlighted an unresolved political problem for the Democratic nominee: whether voters see his current message as an evolution in policy or as an effort to move away from positions that could prove unpopular in a statewide general election.

Close

MORE NEWS: Former Michigan Democrat Chairman Rejects El-Sayed and Urges Blank Senate Vote [WATCH]

Rogers sought to keep that contrast front and center.

The former congressman argued that Michigan voters deserve clarity about whether El-Sayed supports traditional law enforcement institutions or remains committed to restructuring and reducing their role.

El-Sayed, meanwhile, continued to draw a distinction between supporting certain forms of law enforcement and supporting ICE. His insistence that the immigration agency should be abolished made clear that he has not moderated that position heading into the final stretch of the campaign.

The two candidates also presented sharply different views of how the federal government should approach immigration.

El-Sayed argued for replacing ICE with a system modeled on the former INS while creating a clearer path to citizenship for immigrants.

Rogers’ opposition to that approach reflects a broader Republican argument that the country needs stronger immigration enforcement rather than the dismantling of the agency currently charged with enforcing immigration laws inside the United States.

The debate also gave voters another opportunity to evaluate the candidates’ demeanor and ability to handle sustained questioning as Election Day approaches.

El-Sayed delivered many of his answers rapidly and forcefully, while Rogers appeared more relaxed during several exchanges and at times allowed his opponent’s answers to speak for themselves before responding.

MORE NEWS: Dem Senator Slotkin Spirals Into Bizarre Trump Midterm Conspiracy Theory [WATCH]

The November 3 election will determine which candidate represents Michigan in the U.S. Senate, and the final debate showcased how far apart they remain on some of the most consequential issues in the race.

For El-Sayed, the central challenge is reconciling his past calls to defund police with his current effort to present a broader public-safety agenda.

For Rogers, the opportunity is to keep those previous statements before voters while drawing a clear contrast on ICE, immigration enforcement, and the role of police.

With the campaign entering its final days, El-Sayed’s statement that “we don't need ICE” is likely to remain one of the defining lines from the debate.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.