> It actually accomplishes very little, and I would argue nothing at all.

Yes, I am not from US so I have very little understanding of ICE other than a few policy problems on the surface.

Since it would achieve very little, but wouldn't it be better to actually have the contract and has all its profits funded to an organisation against ICE?

After all it is not that ICE in itself that is wrong, it is the policy maker or the government. ( Forgive me if this is not correct )

Funding a political side that abolish ICE, wouldn't that be better?