Then we need to talk about criminal liability. In the sense that a cat can't stop itself from killing birds. We don't punish toddlers if they kill a bird, because they don't understand that they shouldn't.
Also, the whole idea of "native species" is highly subjective. What is "native species" today maybe it was an "invasive species" yesterday.
Also, in the city I live in, outdoor cats are illegal regardless of registration (which is also required).
The lobsters on the other hand, if you live near a coastal city to their native habitat, could be reintroduced and improve the local ecosystem.
One could have said the same thing when mammals appeared. Not to mention humans: "These human species will ruin the ecosystem. We better eliminate it now before it spreads".
Said otherwise, you are thinking about the narrow interest of the day, without considering if the ideology makes sense in itself.
> Nativism is the political policy of promoting or protecting the interests of native or indigenous inhabitants over those of immigrants, including the support of immigration-restriction measures.
You're mistaking natural movements of species into new ecological systems with humans literally transplanting cats across the globe.
It's a fact that on some islands we settled, when we brought cats with us, those cats literally drove entire species of birds native to that island into extinction. The cats didn't walk across water or build ships to get there. They were brought there by humans and did what cats do.
This conversation is starting to get a bit absurd.
Untie the cat and it'll, likely, be a-ok.
Lobsters on the other hand? Useful in their natural environments, have not become an invasive apex predator, could go on and feed many people too if properly managed and allowed to live their lives.
Yet the majority of people saved the cat thinking it's a "higher life form."
A bit absurd. Also the idea of trolleys without brakes and levers and cats that can't move off the track in the face of on-coming danger.