(I realized this sounded quite caustic when I typed it. I do mean minimum causticness when discussing this. I'm admittedly super baffled by this Coca-Cola thing, because the contexts are completely different.)
Trying to live by a practice of avoiding any specific harmful actions can easily compromise ones ability to pursue more general goals. CBP does important and essential work combatting human and drug trafficking, and handling what remains of the good parts of their imigration management mission that ICE has contorted. This choice will limit their effectiveness. Degrading the efficiency of an organization at this scale has meaningful costs; 1% of 100 people saved from trafficking is an entire person. Will the degradation of capabilities here effect CBP in this manner? I am unprepared to speculate, but it seems worth factoring into an ethical decision about whether specific activities by ICE make ICE+CBP intolerable to work with.
Moreover, down the road this is probably the end of any business arrangement between Chef and US Government agencies. Administrations change, and if Chef can be expected to end contracts over public pressure like this then it cannot be relied upon to be involved with any sort of system that is going to need to last across multiple administrations, which is most of them. Minor degradation of efficiency across the whole US Government has very meaningful costs in human life and suffering.
I think the forest has been missed for the trees, and I'm not convinced that from a utilitarian perspective those advocating against Chef's contracts with CPB+ICE aren't also in the moral wrong.
Similarly here, your post is mistaking the scope of the action and drawing a line between one dev deleting their reposity and being responsible for killing people (of note, ICE has lost children to human trafficking already so the boat has already sailed).
"...can you appease the mobs with their pet issue of the day that has gained public attention?"
If we do not care about the gravity of the action, then that is what is being asked. It is not being moral, it is not about doing the right thing for society, this is just about making a small group of privileged people feel good about something that will not help the kids crossing the border.
Are you talking about Chef or this whole discussion thread (myself included)?
Whether or not Chef dropping ICE as a customer directly saves one kid isn't the only marker of success. The combination of hamstringing operations along with increased public awareness are steps along the path to shutting them down for good.
I also agree there is a moral obligation in advertising unhealthy foods, but equating the damages of that to ICE just undermines the efforts of both avenues.
On the contrary--hamstringing their operations just raise their costs. They are funded by US taxpayers, so if costs go up US taxpayers will pay more.
If you want to shutdown ICE or change how they operate, the US Congress must change the law. If you are a US citizen, write / call / email your representatives and demand that they act accordingly. Also, VOTE! If you don't like what your representatives are doing, vote them out!
Petty protests like this do little to change the operations of a federally-funded, legally-mandated entity that is enforcing federal law. If you want change to occur, federal law must be changed. Congress changes federal laws, so you must start with them.
I think it's a pretty farfetched stretch from human rights and internment of children to soft drinks that people choose to consume.
