Post-9/11 Policy Should Have Been Border Closure to Muslims, Not Surveillance and Immigration Expansion
Source: Breccan F. Thies. "All We Needed After 9/11 Was A Closed Border." September 11, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that after 9/11, America should have simply closed its borders to prevent further attacks, but instead politicians expanded government surveillance, started wars, and let in more immigrants—especially Muslims—which he claims has harmed American culture and freedoms. He blames this on political leaders, particularly Bush, who wanted to avoid being called racist or Islamophobic.
Conclusion
The only appropriate government response to 9/11 would have been to close the border to immigration (particularly from Muslim-majority countries), and instead the government pursued the opposite policies—mass surveillance, wars, and increased Muslim immigration—which undermined American rights and culture.
Premises
- After 9/11, the government implemented mass surveillance (PATRIOT Act, FISA Court expansion) that violated the Fourth Amendment, as revealed by Edward Snowden.
- The government created the TSA, which the author claims has never stopped a terror attack while making travel miserable.
- The U.S. engaged in two 'forever wars' as part of its response to 9/11.
- Since 9/11, the U.S. has imported 1.8 million Muslims (2001-2024), a 103% increase, growing 700% faster than the U.S.-born population.
- This immigration has led to concentrated Muslim populations in cities like Dearborn, Hamtramck, Paterson, Minneapolis, and parts of NYC, changing local political representation and culture.
- Everyday cultural changes have resulted, such as halal-only meat options in some grocery stores and increased non-English speaking areas.
- President Bush actively promoted a message that Islam was peaceful and unrelated to the attackers' motives, and pursued immigration policies partly to avoid accusations of Islamophobia.
Assumptions
- Closing the border (specifically to Muslims) after 9/11 would have effectively prevented future terrorism without other measures.
- Muslim immigrants and their descendants pose an inherent risk or threat justifying exclusion based on religion/national origin.
- Cultural changes such as increased halal food availability, non-English speakers, or Muslim political representation are inherently negative for America.
- Government surveillance expansion and immigration policy are causally linked primarily to a desire to avoid appearing racist/Islamophobic rather than other policy considerations (security assessments, economic needs, humanitarian obligations, legal frameworks).
- The demographic and cultural changes described are undesirable and represent decline rather than neutral or positive change.
- Correlation between immigration increases and the absence of another 9/11-scale attack does not undermine the argument that immigration itself was the wrong policy.
- Religious or ethnic profiling in immigration policy is an acceptable and effective counterterrorism strategy.