> Now things are different when you are talking about non-citizens, but at the end of the day I think we should strive to that same kind of standard. Don't use

> Now things are different when you are talking about non-citizens, but at the end of the day I think we should strive to that same kind of standard. Don't use things like religion, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, or other things like it as a basis for "flagging" someone. Don't forget age. Remember, this is America and we are all just consumers. You just ruled out the 5 most obvious things that differentiate one consumer from the next. I guess it's OK in marketing. > If they are violent, then disallow them based on that. OK... This falls in the no shit category, but what if they happen to say they aren't violent and have a fake passport, or ID? > If they surround themselves with violent extremists, then disallow them because of that. What if they were carrying a clean phone and computer? > If they publicly speak about how they want to hurt americans, then disallow them because of that. Fair...But what of they claim to be someone else? > But don't group someone from the same religion in with them. Whether it is a human, an animal, a statistical model, or a machine learning model some sort of reduction must occur in order to have any chance comprehension. Deliberately ignoring a significant feature is a form of bias too. > Yes, that means that it will be harder to "secure our borders" and yes i'm sure that means that bad people will get through at some point, and yes I know that those bad people could very well do a lot of harm. But I really truly believe that more good than harm will come from it simply from the amount of good people that will be coming into the country compared to the bad. This is legit and a totally reasonable statement. Next time just open and close with this. Skip the do's and don'ts of fair practices at security checkpoints.