As practiced today by many, I don’t think it works.
An example I know in detail is the story of a woman whose second husband was a closet alcoholic. After she discovered his problem and divorced him for other reasons, which were profoundly complicated by the booze, she continued to believe that he just needed more Christian love. Long story short, eventually she came to understand that you cannot love someone away from alcoholism. That tactic only enables them in too many cases.
A second example appears in the video below, Wilders’ opponent uses many abstractions, including Christian love, to defend his position. His defense reminds me of the woman in the story above. It is an a priori defense, an application of a rule that obviously cannot be right every time.
Why is wisdom thought to run counter to universal love in Christianity? Why can’t loving your neighbor be tempered with a wise understanding of your neighbor?
Here is the vid, which is interesting in and of itself.
By the way, I favor love and kindness as much as reasonably possible. I also favor erring on the side of mercy and kindness as much as reasonably possible. But there is a line there that I believe it is stupid to cross.
Most of the arguments about immigration in the US and Europe today are arguments about degree. Often those arguments get mixed in with “universals” like constitutional law, Christian love, fairness, rights, and so on.
Reasonable minds may differ, but all factors need to be considered, including the factors of the traditional culture of the region and the needs and desires of the citizens who are of that traditional culture.
In my view, some new people is good. Too many new people is not good.
Edit 3/18/17: I am a distant foreign observer, but my guess is Wilders lost at least partly because he says things about Islam that there is no need to say. A simple cultural-demographic argument is all that is needed.