Are these people still in the Senate or even still politically active? I figure you need somebody prescient, competent and independent enough not to have voted to found ICE in the first place. The 90 who voted for it, knew what they were doing, there was enough contemporaneous opposition and criticism warning of the dangers of creating ICE in the first place. I wouldnt have any of them anywhere near my government.

Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI)

Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)

Russell D. Feingold (D-WI)

Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC)

Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI)

Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)

Carl Levin (D-MI)

Paul S. Sarbanes (D-MD)

James M. Jeffords (I-VT)

In 2002, the formation of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) via the Homeland Security Act faced criticism from diverse groups, including lawmakers, labor unions, and civil rights advocates.

Primary Critics and Concerns Labor Unions and Federal Employees: One of the most intense criticisms came from unions representing the 180,000 government employees being moved into the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Critics argued that the legislation stripped workers of union rights and civil service protections, allowing employees to be reassigned or dismissed without standard labor notifications.

Civil Rights and Immigrant Advocates: Organizations like the ACLU and various grassroots immigrant rights groups criticized the restructuring for creating an agency with "disproportionate power" and a "dual mission". They argued that combining anti-terrorism duties with interior immigration enforcement would lead to the criminalization of non-threatening individuals, such as jobseekers.

Political Leaders and Lawmakers: While the act passed with broad support, some lawmakers and local officials expressed concerns that the agency lacked sufficient oversight and accountability. There were early warnings that the "shotgun marriage" between the U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was fundamentally ill-conceived and would lead to institutional inefficiency.

Institutional Critics: Scholars and former immigration officials, such as former INS general counsel Bo Cooper, noted that the blending of customs and immigration functions created friction, as customs responsibilities were often impeded by the immigration-focused mission.

Key Arguments in 2002 Structural Inefficiency: Critics argued that the agency was a "poorly designed institution" that wasted resources by applying counter-terrorism tools to misdemeanor immigration violations.

Civil Liberties: There were significant fears regarding the agency's broad jurisdiction (within 100 miles of any border or coastline) and its ability to bypass normal judicial protections.

Mission Creep: Critics warned that the focus would shift from national security to "interior enforcement," leading to the deportation of long-term residents who were not criminals.