When New Yorkers think about the qualifications for a seat in Congress, they probably imagine someone interested in fixing roads, lowering costs, or keeping neighborhoods safe.

Apparently, that memo never reached Darializa Avila Chevalier.

The Democratic Socialist challenger in New York’s 13th Congressional District has found herself under renewed scrutiny after a trove of deleted social-media posts resurfaced, revealing a political worldview that sounds less like a congressional platform and more like a graduate seminar that spiraled out of control. Reports based on archived posts show Chevalier championing the abolition of borders, police, and prisons, advocating government seizure of private property, and even dismissing the existence of Israel.

Among the most eyebrow-raising posts was her response to a social-media prompt asking how users would react if Israel suddenly disappeared. “Trick question — Israel doesn’t exist!”

That wasn’t an isolated hot take. During a 2021 online posting spree, Chevalier declared: “A world without borders—just like a world without prisons or police—is possible, necessary, and the only moral way forward.”

When critics wondered whether she was being figurative, she removed all doubt: “Yes, literally, abolish the border. All deportation is wrong.”

Not reform the border. Not secure the border. Not improve the immigration system. Abolish the border. Literally.

The candidate’s vision extends well beyond immigration. Archived posts show support for nationalizing major industries, including hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, while also calling for rent and mortgage suspensions and the confiscation of property from landlords. During the early months of the COVID era, she amplified demands to nationalize industries and “seize all properties from landlords.” In another post, she offered a succinct rallying cry familiar to every student who has ever discovered Marxism five minutes before class started: “Seize the means of production.”

Law enforcement didn’t fare much better. At the height of the “defund the police” movement, Chevalier made it clear she believed even that slogan wasn’t radical enough. Responding to concerns that activists were softening their message, she wrote: “We’re gonna defund and abolish. You don’t get to water down our movement.”

When another user suggested the movement sought to end policing “as we know it,” she corrected them. “No. It means ending policing full stop. Period. No more police at all ever.”

No caveats. No alternatives. No replacement plan. Just no police. Ever.

Even some figures on the political left weren’t revolutionary enough for her. She criticized Sen. Bernie Sanders for what she called “liberal Zionism” and blasted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over her vote on Israeli military funding. Apparently, in today’s activist hierarchy, being a democratic socialist is no guarantee of ideological purity.

What makes the story even more politically explosive is who’s standing behind her.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani recently endorsed Chevalier’s campaign, elevating a candidate who has become one of the most visible socialist challengers in the country. The endorsement has intensified an already simmering fight between establishment Democrats and the party’s activist left flank. Several Democratic insiders have publicly questioned the wisdom of backing a challenger with such a controversial online history.

Chevalier’s supporters argue the posts are old and don’t reflect who she is today. In response to the controversy, she said: “My opponent wants to live in the past. He is re-litigating social media posts from half a decade ago, and continuing to champion an outdated politics that fails to serve our people.”

She added: “I have grown considerably since in the years since these tweets, and I am focused on our community and our community’s future.”

Fair enough. Politicians can evolve. But voters tend to expect evidence of that evolution. And that’s the central problem for Chevalier. The debate isn’t simply about youthful mistakes or a handful of regrettable tweets. It’s about a years-long pattern of statements advocating the elimination of borders, the abolition of police, the seizure of private property, and rhetoric questioning the legitimacy of America’s closest Middle East ally.

At some point, voters are entitled to ask whether these were random outbursts—or a genuine glimpse into the governing philosophy of someone seeking a seat in Congress.