> ICE would cease to be able to function incredibly quickly. Which would be good.

If you had said "ICE would be forced to reconsider its inhumane methods which have lead to its terrible reputation" - a lot more people would agree with you. There have been a number of polls done over the past year or two which show that only about 25% support abolishing ICE, the majority oppose. I think almost everyone would agree that they need to do their job with a lot more empathy and humanity, so protests are good, but the goal should be to get them to clean up their act, it would be a mistake (and not supported by the people) to try to get rid of the immigrations and customs enforcement function entirely.

I think the core idea here is: this organization is doing bad things. By not supplying them with goods and services we can stop those bad things from happening.

Whether that happens because the organization reforms or because the organization ceases to exists is a secondary concern.

>>>I think the core idea here is: this organization is doing bad things. By not supplying them with goods and services we can stop those bad things from happening.

Government programs NEVER just end, and certainly not do to simple supply disruptions. So they won't STOP doing bad things, they'll just continue to do bad things with even less resources, making the net effects even worse. Eventually you might end up with ICE detention centers that would make a FOB in Iraq look like a palace. All you need is triple-strand concertina wire, some 55-gal drums cut in half (for burning human waste), and a bunch of plywood.

Law of unintended consequences....

"Don't ever try to stop bad people from doing bad things because if you do they will only do worse things" is not a point of view I am willing to accept.

In addition, "Government programs NEVER just end" is also obviously incorrect. Our government once had a program of segregating black people from large swaths of society. This program, thankfully, no longer exists.

Ok I probably should have phrased that as "rarely" instead of "never". There are, after all, always exceptions...

At least then we can call it what it is. Remove the façade.

Why? That's like saying the police should cease to function in their enforcement of the law.

Would it be really be good to prevent Homeland Security Investigations, a major division of ICE, from investigating sexual abuse of children, and rescuing children from abusive situations?

And about one of every 10 agents in Homeland Security’s investigative section — which deals with all kinds of threats, including terrorism — is now assigned to child sexual exploitation cases.

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/28/us/child-sex-...

https://www.ice.gov/predator

There are lots of organizations that do both good and bad things. I hear that the KKK sometimes did some good community building work in addition to lynching black people.

It is, apparently, the judgement of a large swatch of GH employees that whatever good ICE does, it is not outweighed by the bad. Given that, I believe their actions make sense.

It's true that most ethical situations are not black and white.

When an organization is doing some good things, and some bad things, is the best course of action to prevent the organization from doing both good and bad things? In the case of ICE, would it not be more effective to pursue a strategy of more targeted reforms that address the unethical immigration enforcement actions without stopping the other divisions pursuing investigations into human rights violations and child exploitation cases?

My concern here is that empathy for children being negatively impacted by immigration policies, while valid, doesn't imply we should act out indiscriminately against the entire ICE organization. Balancing the needs of victims of bad immigration policies against the needs of victims of criminal activity shouldn't be a zero-sum game, and making gains for one group shouldn't come at the expense of the other.

That is completely dependent on people having an accurate assessment of the situation, and that is rarely the case in the current outrage driven political climate.