You are conflating morality with proper governance. Democratic government must enact the will of the citizen body, even if immoral in some frameworks.

▲ mixdup a day ago | parent | next [-]

Democratic government must also allow the citizen body to voice their displeasure with the activity of the government, and to give their reasons for that displeasure

▲

mlrtime 9 hours ago | parent [-]

They do, it's called voting. And you also have the right to voice your support.

	▲	mixdup 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You also have the right to voice your disapproval, which as the point of my reply to a comment that seemed to indicate otherwise

▲ theF00l a day ago | parent | prev [-]

So it can be inhumane then, by your definition?

	▲	nonethewiser a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I dont think the moral/legal conflation is even the main tension here. I think this distinction would help as well. `Inhumane != human rights violation.` Both of these things can be true at the same time: `1. It can be inhumane to halt someone's visa application 2. Visa applicants have no human right to have their application processed` One side hammers the first point because they disagree with the government. The other side hammers the second point because they agree with the government. Everyone is right, except for the implication that their point disproves the other side's point.
	▲	eudamoniac a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Sure. Unless you prefer autocratic rule by a moral paragon, democracy involves doing what people want, not what is moral. Often what is nominally moral is not good for the country or its people.