[sajforbes]

Nobody called for racial discrimination. Vetting needs to be done based on potential risks posed by connections (possible or confirmed) to a hostile foreign power that is both an autocratic regime and capable of using its influence to coerce people into committing espionage.

Those same considerations would not apply to Taiwanese Americans.

All western countries dealing with China need to consider their security policy carefully and comments like yours poison the well of debate by conflating racial discrimination with legitimate security concerns.

[DiogenesKynikos]

The argument you're making is identical to the argument that was made for interning Japanese Americans during WWII.

There's a growing hysteria and paranoia about China, and suggestions that Chinese Americans should be put under blanket suspicion are incredibly disturbing.

[sajforbes]

You're employing a red herring - the internment of Japanese Americans is not relevant to a security and vetting procedure. Whatever justification they used shouldn't change your assessment of how the specific justification used here bears on the present issue.

I agree there is a problem of China paranoia, and your average Chinese American shouldn't be the subject of racist discrimination. While wanting to reduce this is admirable, national security is not the field to do it. The geopolitical forces shaping this shift are much larger than the national security apparatus - negating it at the expense of security is not their remit and never will be.

[DiogenesKynikos]

> your average Chinese American shouldn't be the subject of racist discrimination

Yet you're arguing for precisely that. Discrimination is bad, unless it's done in the name of national security, which will be defined by people who have an extremely aggressive, clash-of-civilizations foreign policy vision.