but what gets me is how it will foreseeably be consequently counterproductive for the very demographics that human rights activists seek to defend! It will pour fuel on reactionary sentiment and division.
The pro-human rights position (as I've seen it articulated by people like Krystal Ball) goes something like: you can't give an inch, because then you destroy the remaining taboo against the far right by validating their beliefs. Since you will never be willing to go as far, you'll inevitably be outflanked and worse things will come anyway. And, of course, every life saved is a gift. Especially if you think the rising tide of fascism is just some inevitable consequence of someone else's (usually the center left/neoliberals) economic policies, not your immigration position. Might as well save who you can.
The Kulak-ish take is: it's worked for decades. Yeah, the public keeps threatening to swing ("you don't know my mentality bro, when I see red...") but they are either easily diverted (Canada) or can hopefully be directed around in circles until it's just too late.
The defenses of Shamima Begum show how that can happen. People who had no stake in defending Islamic radicalism were quite rationally concerned with stripping potential dual citizens of status given just how large that had become as a proportion of Britons. If you raise that percentage high enough you have a large enough group to veto anything that would reverse the policies that would keep people like Begum around. You might be already there.
Both groups have reasons why their definition of fairness will not only not harm the purpose of the organization but will enhance its ability to do its job.
It isn't so much ignored as the first thing they needed to provide some answer for.
More options
Context Copy link