Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/09/24/do-shell-next.html
…
Not saying you can’t try, but:
11 Likes
Like shit to flies.
Curious list. There should be a second list that shows who the primes and partners are. My guess is that companies like Boeing, Northrup, Lockheed, CACI, and others will appear.
7 Likes
Salesforce does not have a relationship with ICE. They have a contract with CBP but not ICE and have said they will not contract with ICE. As an employee I’ve signed a internal petition asking them to break their CBP contract. I know CBP is pretty close, and obviously don’t like that relationship, but I do think salesforce shouldn’t be lumped into the same category as organizations that work directly with the ICE.
Abolish ICE.
5 Likes
I’d like to see a list of ICE/CPB top agents, so people can publicly shame them like they do Trump-loving GOPers in D.C.
Make life as hard as possible to match their deeds.
5 Likes
What if the vendor supplies products like first aid kits or blankets?
ETA: this isn’t meant to be whataboutism, but it kind of comes across this way. But I am legitimately curious how humanitarian products enter into this equation.
2 Likes
There must be an CBP office or one of those contractors nearby where I work because they used to show up at the local lunch haunts. I asked one dude (they wear the uniforms everywhere) if he had put any kids in cages today and he almost raised a fist. I could see in his eyes that he wanted to fight but, we’re inside a Panera with women and children. I have not seen them around lately.
2 Likes
I think the question to ask is if what you’re doing is helping ICE at all. If you didn’t provide services, what would happen to ICE, the organization. If they cannot provide basic humane conditions would they be forced into stopping operations? Would they be open to a lawsuit? If you don’t provide blankets, would their officers be forced to remove their uniforms and go to local Walmarts for supplies instead of spending time capturing kids?
Another similar-ish ethical delima is executions. Doctors cannot administer the fatal dose of cocktails because it goes against the Hippocratic oath. By refusing to perform this act it falls on someone less trained and sometimes has awful consequences for the prisoner as they get the ratio or delivery wrong and sometimes have to deliver them multiple times. I know it’s different and imperfect, but so are all analogies. In this case someone is withholding a good/service on moral/ethical grounds and as a result someone is opened up to more potential harm. First do no harm.
Personally I would say that providing any goods or services to ICE is enabling them to do their job of imprisoning children. While there might be good that comes of it “children are in cages for LESS time!” or “those locked up children now have BLANKETS!” you’re still helping them and profiting while doing it. The company Chef recently tried making this argument that they were actually doing good because it made those agents more efficient and it failed horribly.
If you like thinking about ethics (as I think everyone should) I recommend “The Good Place”, it’s on Netflix USA right now and is very good.
2 Likes
It seems like ICE will imprison children regardless of conditions. So then it becomes a question of whether those children have toothbrushes and blankets or not while imprisoned.
There is also the issue that ICE is one of the main agencies combating human trafficking, via its Homeland Security Investigations branch. That’s important, and I would not like those efforts to suffer.
Given the realities of our political system, it seems like companies thinking of boycotting ICE should instead use their ICE-related revenue to bribe some Congress and change policy. Speaking from a purely ethical standpoint, of course.
1 Like
That would be a majorly ethical hack. Win tender to provide blankets, profit, announce profit will be used to support anti-ICE legislators, invite tenders from anti-ICE legislators. (What? That isn’t how lobbying works, you say?) 
1 Like
Chef melts under heat, will 86 future deals with family-separating US immigration agencies
1 Like
I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone advocate for bribery in the name of ethics
Giving away profits to anti-ICE venues is one way to navigate things, but I still think it doesn’t absolve a company of their affiliation. They knew who ICE was when they took the contract and decided to profit off of it. In the good-better-best model I would say this is only the “good” option.
This is what Chef is doing now, they are giving away their profits. I think the best thing they could have done is immediately sever their contract.
It seems like ICE will imprison children regardless of conditions.
Agreed, though it’s not the blanket companies’ responsibility to provide blankets to these children. We’re making the assumption that another vendor wouldn’t pick up the contract, which is likely not the case.
I’m also sure that the vast majority of the companies on these lists are not providing direct goods that solely benefit the captives so it’s likely more of a hypothetical than a practical exercise.
1 Like
It’s not what you might call a rational system, but its workings are clear.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
