Trump’s instinct — to slam the brakes after the horrific National Guard shooting by an Afghan migrant — is understandable. Any leader with a conscience wants to shield his people. The country is rattled, grieving, and wondering how a young man welcomed into America’s care ended up turning his weapon on Americans. Trump sensed that fear and moved swiftly, promising a halt to migration from all “third-world countries.” It’s blunt, straightforward, and politically explosive. But good instinct isn’t the same as good judgment, and this is where his approach deserves scrutiny. The term “third-world” is so vague that it barely points to anything real. It lumps together Christian farmers in rural Tanzania with cartel-tangled corners of Honduras, devout families in the Philippines with failed-state militias, and peaceful Caribbean communities with parts of Afghanistan living under the shadow of the Taliban. It was built for Cold War simplicity, not the world we live in now. Imagine choosing dinner guests strictly by neighbourhood. You’ll end up rejecting perfectly decent people while rolling out the red carpet for a man who collects exotic spiders and names them after ex-girlfriends. (RELATED: The Burning of Bethany Magee) Kilcoyne argues that if the West insists on immigration, it should favor those who actually share its moral inheritance. Not race. Not region. Values. Which brings us to Father Brendan Kilcoyne, whose voice cuts straight to the heart of the matter. The outspoken Irish priest — never shy, never mealy-mouthed — offers a way of looking at the issue that Trump, despite good intentions, simply misses. Kilcoyne argues that if the West insists on immigration, it should favor those who actually share its moral inheritance. Not race. Not region. Values. A civilization survives only if newcomers strengthen what already exists. (RELATED: When Sanctuary Policies Hit the Highway) And this is where Trump’s threat gets it wrong: geography doesn’t predict loyalty. Where someone comes from doesn’t reveal where their loyalties lie. Christian migrants from Latin America and parts of Asia often bring the very traits the West has misplaced. They arrive with strong families. They arrive with community loyalty. They arrive knowing what sacrifice feels like. They arrive with a reverence for God and a sense of duty that Europe and America once took for granted. They aren’t perfect — no group is — but the odds tilt toward cohesion rather than collision. If you want a society that isn’t constantly splintering into competing tribes, this matters. Meanwhile, the West keeps importing people from cultures that reject the very foundations that built it — foundations many in the West barely understand anymore. It’s like rebuilding your roof with contractors who keep muttering about how they’d love to see the place burn down. You don’t need a theology degree to predict the finale. Trump senses the danger but swings at the wrong target. As for the shooter, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, people will claim the threat began with Afghanistan’s “third-world” status. Maybe. But it’s far more likely the danger came from what he believed, who he served, and the worldview he carried. That’s the line that breaks a country. Not GDP. Not geography. The decisive factor is the mindset a newcomer arrives with. (RELATED: How Sweden’s Demographic Winter Turned It Into Europe’s Rape Capital) Kilcoyne states it clearly: if a country needs immigration — and many aging nations desperately do — then why not welcome those whose values deepen rather than destabilize the societies they enter? Why not choose those who will reinforce what holds the West together rather than weaken it? This is where the argument becomes painfully practical. It’s possible that a predominantly Christian migrant from rural Guatemala — technically classed as “third-world” — will have far more in common with someone in rural Kansas than any grievance-soaked activist from San Francisco ever will. For those in doubt, let common sense do the heavy lifting. Family, faith, work, service — these things bind people across oceans. And as long as they can speak basic English and want to get better, then joining American life is entirely within reach. Consider Qatar, one of the wealthiest and most “first-world” countries on earth. On paper, it’s everything we would call modern. But culturally, it’s a universe away from the United States. Public life is shaped by strict Islamic law, political dissent is nearly non-existent, and religious freedom barely exists. The society is built on a rigid hierarchy where citizens sit at the top, and millions of foreign laborers sit at the bottom with almost no rights. Gender roles, family expectations, civic norms — none of them resemble anything in American life. This is what makes the old labels useless. “First-world” tells you Qatar has money. It tells you nothing about who can actually live in America without colliding head-on with it. To be clear, I’m not arguing for opening the gates to boatloads of newcomers, even Christian ones. But if immigrants are going to come, then shouldn’t the nation’s leaders at least choose those who won’t tear the place apart? Trump is right to ask how a nation can protect itself. He’s right to say something is deeply off. He’s right that the system is broken. But his solution — freeze out entire continents — misses the mark and wastes an opportunity for seriousness. It’s a hammer aimed at a lock that needs a key. In other words, Trump has the right instinct but the wrong instrument. Kilcoyne has the instrument but not the political megaphone. Bring them together, and you get a policy that actually protects the country. Immigration built around people who can actually live alongside one another, not around archaic labels from another era. Christianity isn’t a force field. But as a cultural anchor, it explains more than any Cold War chart ever could. READ MORE from John Mac Ghlionn: Why Is Italy Killing Its Women? A PSA to Women: This Type of Man Won’t Save You When It Counts The Hedge-Fund Arsonist Now Campaigning as California’s Savior