The prominent ecologist of island biogeography fame (and personal fav), Daniel Simberloff has written convincingly about the real ecological and economic threats of invasive species. In several of his essays (e.g. source) he draws lines between modern conservation efforts to eradicate non-native plants from the nativist and xenophobic non-native plant eradication efforts of the Nazis. It’s unhelpful hyperbole to connect a conservationist (or 8 year old) who might hate the “sucky, annoying destroyer moths” to the rhetoric used by the eugenics movement and/or the Nazis. But there is definitely reason to check our motives for why we “hate” invasives or want to “eradicate” or “control” them. Equally important to make clear distinctions between the individual organisms and the understanding that a non-native species can have real and by some metrics negative ecological impacts in different environments (at least based on how we subjectively define negative).
I’m definitely opinionated, my wife can attest to that, though in my teaching I always tried to avoid indoctrinating students with my opinions. Not sure how well it plays out, but I focus primarily on developing awareness and observation skills to promote connection and understanding. Species aren’t good or bad, annoying or pleasing in any objective or inherent sense. We can certainly quantify biodiversity, ecosystem health, habitat resilience, or connectivity, but we step outside of objectivity when we make claims that biodiversity is good, that an ecosystem is healthy, that a habitat should be resilient.