I'm no fan of ICE – a very large percentage of my friends in the US are immigrants, and I generally want my country to be a welcoming one. ICE has certainly committed unethical and probably illegal acts (probably true of most federal agencies).
But to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a private entity, especially for essentially political reasons, is lunacy. It'd attract extreme negative attention from the rest of the government, and great fear from all paying customers that an internet mob could separate them from their code at any time.
We should absolutely be lobbying hard for changes to immigration law, the restrictions placed on ICE, and justice for their wrongdoings.
But I can't see how this helps improve immigration, and it certainly seems likely to cause a lot of negative consequences for GitHub. The employees are putting their employer in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation.
EDIT: Just to clarify, I love the vision of a world where executives don't take actions their workers will protest. I think that in order to get there, the protests need to be reasonable, and I think this one isn't.
EDIT DISCLAIMER: I own a small amount of MSFT stock, which was not on my mind as I wrote this. I use GitHub's free service and have no other relationship I can think of with MSFT or GitHub.
In many ways it does the opposite, for reforms to work you need to build coalitions from all political segments of society, vilifying political opponents (the ones that believe in some kind of immigration control and do not support fully open borders) does not build that coalition that is need to fight the unethical and illegal acts. Instead it puts people on the defensive and further divides the nation ensuring no reform can happen at all
Today it seems if you believe in anything other than fully open unrestricted borders then you are considered to be a racist authoritarian from mid 1940's Germany
1. All persons that are not a danger to others and can prove financial viability (i.e they have a job sponsorship, or other means of self support with out needing social welfare) should be allowed to immigrate on a temporary basis
2. The Immigration process should be limited to only establishment of ID to clear a person from known dangers (i.e medical, criminal or other things that pose a danger to the US population) and financial viability
3. Social Welfare programs should be limited to Citizens Only. Persons can apply for Citizenship after they have lived here for 3 yrs under the temporary immigration program.
As far as Separating a person from their family. We do that to citizens every day. If you break the law you will be separated from your family. That argument does not hold any weight with me, nor does it make a person a racist.
Do you believe people with children should be immune from criminal prosecution?
As to "keeping children in cages" I have been opposed to those programs for as long as they have existed, which is going on at least 3 different presidents now. Where were you when Obama as doing this? Or are you going to pretend that these ICE conditions just magically appeared under Trump like most democrats try to?
How to you handle underclass, i.e. people who become disabled or injured, move into a recession, can't meet the initial requirements, or some reason to not comply. With your requirement #1, #3 seems cruel. In most countries a work permit gets you basic access to the same welfare and worker protections (usually statutory retirement, unemployment insurance, health care) for this exact reason.
> If you break the law you will be separated from your family
Really depends what law you have broken, doesn't it? Under US immigration law crossing the border at the wrong place is punishable by $250 fine (8 U.S.C. Section 1325, I.N.A. Section 275). Many traffic violations have stricter penalties.
In early 2017 the Trump administration stopped accepting asylum applications at ports of entry and required asylum seekers to apply in the country (contrary to law). In April 2018 ICE started separating families of asylum seekers who had committed the grievous act of a) crossing the border b) requesting asylum from the first US official they encountered (a condition explicitly allowed in US asylum law)
> keeping children in cages ... 3 different presidents now
I think that's a false equivalency. The fucked up stuff ICE got away with under Obama is not the same as the fucked up shit Trump has given the green light to. The Trump admin is actively violating US immigration law to for no other apparent reason than a simple desire to be cruel to asylum seekers. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/688/the-out-crowd