Whether it’s the by-the-book definition of partisan, it is still reasonable for people to have strong moral or ethical objections to working for this client.
I can’t pick and choose where my taxes go any more than I can pick and choose which constitutional amendments I want to see enforced. I can’t stop a war but I can choose not to work for military contractors.
Without rabbit-holing too far on this, I'd note that the people in concentration camps at the border were trying to do that. May not be as simple as you seem to be asserting.
There are quite a few Americans who would prefer to receive no services from ICE. "Abolish ICE" is a concept that has even started to gather steam in Congress itself.
I think that makes it clear that a sizable number of Americans are opposed to receiving ICE's services, only receive them because there isn't actually a way to opt out of them, and are doing the next closest thing.
I have nearly the same power to determine where my taxes go as I do to stop the people in local council making non-binding declarations that don't carry any legal consequences or obligations. If I happen to live in an area with a HOA, does that mean I support HOAs too? If I live next to a Mosque does that mean I support Islam?
My point is that geography is not a good determinant for agreement or disagreement with the politics and beliefs that take place in that geography.
Sure, I'm not claiming that 49% of Americans don't want to receive services from ICE - I am claiming that a large number do, as evidenced by the fact that 49% of Americans live in jurisdictions with sanctuary policies. Of course some people will oppose the policy and live in a jurisdiction that supports it - and some will support it and live in a jurisdiction that doesn't.
From your analogy, the fact that tons of Americans live in HOAs does in fact imply that there is a fair bit of support for HOAs in America. It doesn't imply that everyone in an HOA is happy about it - but it definitely doesn't imply that everyone in an HOA is unhappy about it, otherwise they wouldn't exist.
'creaghpatr is trying to imply that, because ICE exists and is tax-funded, 100% of taxpayers support ICE and everything they do, and anyone who opposes it would just stop paying taxes. That's the inconsistent logic, and it's in the general class of "yet you participate in society" fallacies. I don't know what the true number is and I don't have a good way to get an exact estimate, but I do think the evidence is that it's far closer to 51% than 100%.
Then we are in agreement that the premise of being able to refuse services from a divisive government agency we have no power over is flawed? Because it sounds like we are, but are presenting the argument in different ways. Apologies for speaking for the other commenter.
