When Donald Trump announced his proposal to halt all Muslim immigration until further notice on Monday, it was expected it would catch a ton of flak.

Outraged critics said it was unconstitutional, racist, un-American, un-conservative and even Hitlerian.

But a common refrain throughout all these attacks from the offended media and political establishment on the Muslim moratorium was that it would serve the cause of ISIS and other jihadis worldwide.

The argument goes that Trump’s hateful message to the world will drive moderate Muslims into the arms of ISIS and create the impression that America is at war with Islam as a whole.

Republicans weren’t reluctant to run with this line, despite all the “clash of civilizations” talk from many GOP candidates that sometimes made it seem like America was at war with Islam.

Conservatives and Republicans are also the same group of people who mocked President Obama for lecturing Americans who didn’t want Syrian refugees that they were playing into ISIS’s plans.

The likely reason for the GOP meltdown over the moratorium is due to concerns that the whole party would be smeared by the media with scary words if they didn’t forcefully condemn Trump’s proposal. Thus, they are now fine with saying political rhetoric helps radical Islam and the Islamic State is eager to Make America Great Again.

But is it true that enacting any restrictions against Muslim immigration would only add fuel to the tank of Islamic extremism?

Not quite.

Let’s remember that, as of right now, there’s arguably no place more welcoming to Muslim immigrants than Western Europe and North America. Those who follow the Islamic faith can practice as they wish without fear of persecution. Political leaders go above and beyond to praise the merits of Islam. The West takes in tens of thousands of Muslims every year and offers them generous benefits of First World living — everything from democracy to employment opportunities and to, of course, a very generous welfare state.

In many European countries, speech critical of Islam or Muslim immigration can result in punishment under the law as hate speech.

With all that in mind, we have a world-wide problem of radical Islam — and it continues to grow.

It’s worth taking the focus off The Donald’s moratorium for a bit and placing attention on how the Left has utilized the “You’re helping ISIS!” talking point against those who want some kind of curb on either refugees or Muslim immigrants in general. The main crux behind this liberal line is that the only way to defeat Islamic extremism (or as they prefer, “un-Islamic” extremism) is to double-down on tolerance and multiculturalism.

They think if Muslims only felt the overwhelming love of western progressives and were empowered in turn by government-funded economic initiatives and all that good-feeling, they would turn away from violence. The reality is that in spite of liberal efforts to do everything possible to eliminate Islamophobia and make Muslims feel welcome, the threat of domestic radicalization is very real and isn’t disappearing with hugs.

The British Islamist who participated in a “hug a Muslim” experiment and was just arrested for threatening to bomb a Member of Parliament illustrates that point quite well.

While we live in societies that essentially enforce tolerance of all manners of life that aren’t considered bigoted expressions of the majority culture, this is not diminishing the power of radical Islam. In fact, our very secular, libertine culture is more of a driving force for Islamic alienation than our immigration policies. Muslim extremists in Europe and America see a welcoming society that they despise and wish to eradicate from the face of the earth.

The militant is not going to lay down in the struggle for jihad because of open-door policies that let more potential recruits into the country he wants to destroy.

It may be true that ISIS can find new propaganda material in Donald Trump’s statements, but it’s not like the militants don’t already have plenty of information to work with. From gay marriage to pop music videos, jihadis have more than they need to push the idea that they are at war with a civilization they say see as ungodly.

With that in mind, claiming that we can’t take in unvetted refugees or immigrants from areas beset by extremism because that would help ISIS, is about as smart as arguing that we can’t legalize same-sex marriage because that would help ISIS portray us as a degenerate nation.

Many people in this country would like to see some kind of curb on migration from parts of the world that breed extremism, and telling those citizens that kind of rhetoric helps the terrorists is insulting.

It’d be akin to saying hardline anti-communism helped the Soviets, with the added implication that free speech needs to be limited in order to not offend Muslims.

Liberals cannot claim jihadi militants aren’t real Muslims, and then in the same breath claim the real Muslims will join the supposedly fake ones if you overturn liberal policies.

How can Muslims be both super peaceful and so willing to take up terrorism due to Islamophobic comments at the same time?

Regardless of the idiotic logic employed, we should look at the issue of a Muslim moratorium from the stances of whether it will keep Americans safe at home and how it will serve our nation’s interests. ISIS and al-Qaida are already helped plenty by our culture and by our policies in the Middle East.

Deciding not to do something that could save lives just because it might make a nice centerpiece in a recruitment pamphlet lets ISIS know that it can be a strawman for liberal arguments in favor of more tolerance.

And that actually helps the jihadis.

Follow Scott on Twitter