> What is being asked here is "how do we dissociate ourselves with this specific harmful action" which is a much, much lower bar to clear. Trying to live by a

> What is being asked here is "how do we dissociate ourselves with this specific harmful action" which is a much, much lower bar to clear. 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.