Political decisions and morality (illegal, illegal immigration, versus, government)

[Vicman]

In many cases, I have noticed people have used moral arguments against starting or continuing a political arrangement based on morality.

For instance posters on illegal immigration forums argue that the government should stop illegal immigration of uneducated and unskilled workers on moral grounds because it hurts uneducated and unskilled workers in America, even though the arrangement benefits different sectors of American society.
(please don't make this thread about illegal immigration per se)

But how often have you run into a case where the desired moral effect would be pointless/wouldn't happen because of political realities?

In the graphic novel Burma by Guy Delisle, Delisle states that he initially had a very negative opinion of the French company Total doing business with the Burmese government (authoritarian, censors press, forcefully displaces villages with no compensation, discriminates against other ethnic groups).

But he realized is that:
A. Total does social programs in Burma to offset the fact that it does business with the Burmese government
B. If Total leaves, somebody else will replace them, and the Burmese government will not be harmed at all! All it means is Total loses business.
* For instance Premier Oil was forced to leave Burma due to morality concerns from the British government. The Malaysian company Petronas took over the oil facilities, and production did not stop at all, not even for a single day. The company essentially hired the same workers that were there under Premier Oil.
* Delisle speculated that, if say the Chinese took over Total's plant, the Chinese wouldn't do the social programs that Total does, so the net effect is worse if Total leaves

So now he has a more nuanced, gray point of view (versus black and white)

And based what he says, I think Total should keep doing business with the Burmese government. Realistically there is no better option.