I could read Ross Douthat's argument in favor of a hardcore anti-immigration asshole who has regularly bagged on, for some reason, janitors, in his life, and try to fit it into the kind of teleology where one doesn't grasp health except as an absence of sickness, or peace except as an absence of war, but I actually did not click that link and read things that posit why we need to listen to people who are shamelessly unsympathetic and possibly incapable of sympathy to others because I feel that policy should actually be negotiated by people who are not guaranteed to be operating in bad faith because of their ideology but people who acknowledge that people who are different from themselves are, first last and always, actually people.
I do not find people who are openly dismissive of others because of bigotry necessary to a conversation, and in fact see where they are the source of intractable harm. I also see the irony in writing off assorted people as intractable racists or intolerant alt-rightists as being a form of exclusion--and I do not give a shit. They have, having already come to the table with an agenda of other-exclusion, started it, writing themselves off.
Writing Stephen Miller in as "necessary" seems to admit that intolerance and fear and justifications of hatred for others has an importance. They are important to the conversation, but as things to counter, not to embrace. Hard pass.