I don't follow your logic and I don't see how to I am forced to acknowledge the EO tried to resolve the immorality of the situation. If I'm understanding your position, and please correct me if I'm wrong, are you saying a policy can be morally agnostic even if the outcome is morally reprehensible?
Also, can you explain how you see the EO as solving a moral problem? Are you suggesting that a "zero tolerance policy" is preferred because it will discourage people from attempting to cross the border with their kids thus stopping the separation of families?