With the turmoil in the west taking a turn for the worse, I begin to wonder whether there might be any long-term consequences from shouting ‘racist’, ‘fascist’, ‘misogynist’ and ‘bigot’ all the time. Indeed, it is highly likely that the left-wing establishment has painted itself into a corner that will only worsen its growing predicament.

Those who are tired of leftist platitudes about immigration must now be feeling a sense of intellectual retribution in knowing that the pendulum is finally beginning to swing. Really, one can’t help but revel in the screeches of progressive virtue-signallers, who can’t seem to think of any other way to get their point across than by throwing a tantrum – not the best option by a mile.

These rampaging children crying over spilled milk are advertising their ignorance for the rest of us to see. They do not seem to understand that escalating tensions to the point of violence to advance a political ideology is the text-book definition of terrorism. I am referring to the mass hysteria and recent riots in the US – the focus of which is important for every western country, as what happens in the US tends to translate itself to the rest of the west.

Unsurprisingly, the left-wing establishment media is also complicit in this quagmire, in that it refuses to report honestly on the situation by insisting on calling the riots ‘protests’, thus legitimising and down-playing the violence. What’s more is that the deceitful media continues to liken everyone with a different opinion to Hitler, all the while acting as a public relations firm for leftist-ideologues, feminists, ‘progressives’ and Islam – the strange combination of which can only be overlooked by a ‘progressive’, or regressive leftist (a well-earned title). Truly, the consequences of this collective and voluntary departure from sanity are all around us.

Naturally, this creates quite a problem, as if you categorise all the people who believe that a country ought to have border controls as “fascists”, then you inadvertently alienate most people from most countries. In fact, the latest survey shows that you’ve just alienated 55 per cent of Europeans, who now want a complete ban on immigration from Muslim-majority countries.

But what kind of fool would argue against reasonable border controls? Well, a screeching ‘progressive’, of course - you really can’t make this stuff up. And this is precisely why progressives have made a huge long-term mistake, as they have portrayed President Trump’s temporary ban and all who support it as evil, fascist etc.

This hyperbole has backfired spectacularly, as if you equate an immigration ban on some countries as something only the devil would do, then where do you go from there? Do you call most people fascists, and then proceed to casually converse with them? No, once you’ve erroneously escalated tensions to that point (dehumanising your opponents in the process), the next step is to “punch a Nazi”.

Once more progressives have enthusiastically demonstrated their capacity to create a rod for their own back, by resorting to unfounded accusations and violence towards those with a different view. You see we’re all for ‘diversity’, except for what actually matters – diversity of thought.

Since the Marxist fantasy dictates that everyone should be treated in the same manner, then everybody from everywhere can come and go as they please from any country on the planet. So if one were to follow this line of reasoning (or lack thereof), this means that the current 65 million displaced people around the world have the right to enter your country (since immigration controls should be origin-blind). This is the statement you are making if you are arguing against standard border security controls.

At the basis of a country’s immigration policy is the recognition that a country has the right to pursue its interests first

It is strange that even one who might not agree with Trump is forced to defend the premise of this policy at the very least. Consequently, one must also attempt to direct criticism towards something more coherent.

Therefore, here is an argument one ought to consider very carefully, in part because progressives need to take off the blinders, but also because the west faces a crisis of unprecedented scale – one that has been dramatically accelerated by Angela Merkel’s “open border” policy.

When it comes to tackling the migrant crisis, one must take on a problem-solution attitude. As such, it is incorrect to view the immigration issue only with a short-term lens. It is also incorrect to view the immigration issue through the narrow-minded objective of attempting to stop terror.

Of course, we want to stop terrorists and potential terrorists from entering our largely Judeo-Christian and classically liberal societies, but this is a consequence of a bigger problem. When people discuss the real threat of Isis permeating Europe disguised as refugees, they are looking at the short-term goal of stopping terror.

America’s temporary response to this is to attempt to enforce extreme vetting – a measure that has been misunderstoodby many.

However, this does not solve a more fundamental problem, namely the fact that many people who might not be terrorists do not share any of our liberal values. Their views on Jews, gays, women, religious minorities and all of our basic western freedoms could not be any more antithetical to ours. No amount of extreme vetting could solve the problem of bad ideas.

There exist a great number of countries whose value system has not been updated to modernity – to put it very mildly. The overwhelming majority of said populations are unified by an ideology that condones and promotes genocidal and gross hatred of Jews. These people are not Isis terrorists. They are not Salafist jihadist members. They do not belong to the Muslim Brotherhood. They have not been trained in Al-Qaeda camps. They are part of the so-called “peaceful majority”.

Of course, one must preface the fact that one’s willingness to act on such beliefs is more or less subject to the degree to which one truly believes in them, but this does not solve the problem of bad ideas either.

That said, will the mass importation of chunks of these populations increase or decrease the safety of Jews, gays, atheists, women? Will our welcoming of these people, who do not share our cultural ethos strengthen our classically liberal values or will it undermine them? Once again, one must take on a long-term lens to have a chance at resolving this issue.

With the demographic realities tilting towards an increase of those who might not share our values, will this serve to enrich our societies or will it instead sow the seeds for endless future conflict and strife? The historical and contemporary data could not be more clear.

There is nothing morally objectionable that a country has the immutable right to decide on the exact number of immigrants, and the exact type of immigrants that it wishes to let through its borders. Embedded within this reasoning is the perfectly rational attitude for a country to exhibit preferential treatment to immigrants who share one’s cultural values.

Those who fit this category are welcome to prospectively join our societies, while those who do not must either abandon their antiquated and illiberal ideologies, or accept the fact that they do not have an entitled right to join our societies. No ideology should ever get a pass simply because it is cloaked in a religious robe.

At the basis of a country’s immigration policy is the recognition that a country has the right to pursue its interests first. Instantiated within this claim is the realisation that it is the citizens of a country who choose to whom they wish to be humane and altruistic towards, not those who supposedly represent them. Furthermore, a country does not need to risk the safety of its citizens and/or its cultural values - it does not need to yield an inch of its sense of security. Not the safety of a single citizen need be endangered or compromised.

That being said, it is unclear how to find the right balance between pathological altruism and associated full-liberal platitudes, and ill-informed xenophobic rigidity. Somewhere between these two endpoints of the spectrum lies the optimal policy. Those in search of the right balance are valuable members of this great debate, and those who exist on either end point are enemies of liberty in their distinctively dogmatic ways.

Christopher Attard is a staunch advocate for free and open inquiry.