For most Americans and, I’d guess most citizens of most countries, enforcing immigration laws isn’t a big debate and enforcement is routine and companies don’t question enforcement by their government.
So the question is can employees who have diverging moralities have direct input on what a company considers moral and immoral outside the common take of the population at large?
> For most Americans and, I’d guess most citizens of most countries, enforcing immigration laws isn’t a big debate and enforcement is routine and companies don’t question enforcement by their government.
At least for Americans you are wrong on all three counts, and that may be where the confusion is coming.
The workers (and as I already stated, the OP) all agree that there are actions done by ICE that are not only unethical but morally reprehensible. One of the (only) two major parties officially agrees as do a large portion of their constituents.
So your question about views "outside the common take" is interesting but not relevant to this discussion.
Should they? Well, one hardly can force someone to work for one's self nowadays.
Companies aren't democracies. Why should "the population at large"'s opinion matter in anyway? Most people don't even know Github exists, let alone what it's for.
So the question is can employees who have diverging moralities have direct input on what a company considers moral and immoral outside the common take of the population at large?