And why not? It is a matter of statistics.

Profiling is necessary and logical – but not a solution. There is no way to stop all terror. I have no problem being stopped and searched – if that is what it takes. Just make sure that any Muslim in line gets the same treatment. I don’t care if it hurts their feelings.

Kactuz

You make a good point about the UK, but given the amount of people entering the US from the UK it is simply impossible to target that country. During WWII the US chose to imprison people of Japanese ancestry but not Italians for Germans for a number of reasons, but the simplest one was the fact that there were far too many Germans and Italians in the US. That is why one needs to come up with some other kind of criterion.

as for your first question, I wasn’t suggesting, I was raising a question. Here is another way to say it. So if we assume that US made the list of countries based on the terrorism ideology in these countries, not based on religion and ethnicity, in these countries, not based on religion, then that should apply to UK too, because the truth is there are so called a radical Muslims in UK too.

I am really supporting the intense screening if it is based on the profile and legitimate information of the person not because the person is from this country or belong to this religion.

so let me give you a personal example, last year I went to do my GMAT test in a location in Seattle, Wa. When I came to the location, I realize my test is in a military base. When I present my document to the officer, they saw that my visa was expired so they got very skeptic. They handcuff me, they took me to prison-cell and then they left me there for about 10 hours. I wasn’t upset about it all. At the end, they looked at my profile and then call the immigration and then they realized that I am here for the test and that my visa status is valid as long I am taking classes. I couldn’t make it for GMAT test because the time has already passed so I lost about $250 in addition to the trip cost. I didn’t complain about it. I even thank the police officer for their investigation.
So here the police has every right to investigate me a legitimate reason (a student with expired visa coming to do a GMAT test in a military base) so I didn’t mind at all doing that with everyone they feel skeptic about.
but that isn’t the way it is with the new law. The intense screening will be based on where the person is coming from and the way he/she looks.

Here the complain isn’t because I want to be more comfortable, and pass the airport procedure quickly, but the complain about civil right. It isn’t as wearing the seat-belt, because obviously everyone has to wear the seat-belt regardless of their nationality, religion or race. but if the wearing seat-belt is being forced only on one specific nationality, or specific race, then it is a civil right problem.
Another way to present the problem is that it is like a police doing an intense screening and questioning on black people in LA streets because there are high crimes from black race in LA and to ensure the safety for the whole city. This is obviously wrong. We can’t trade our civil right for something else like our security just because many people from one race or religion has done awful and criminal things.

Thank you again Sand Gets in my Eyes, I really respect with your point and the purpose of my long discussion is present all other views on such an important topic. At the end, we all learn from the perspective of others

Quick question about your last comment above this one – in suggesting that the US put the UK on the list, you seem to be agreeing with those who say that ALL Muslims, regardless of nationality, should be profiled. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong, but I am interested in your perspective.

Here’s mine:

In all my years here in Saudi, I have never once NOT been “randomly selected” for extra security coming into the States due to nothing more than the visas in my passport.

Is it a hassle – sometimes, but – and here’s my point – as long as I have nothing to hide, and as long as I agree that terrorism is wrong, then why would I have any problem whatsoever with complying with security measures?

Because it is an inconvenience? That’s silly. Seat belts are an inconvenience, too, but when was the last time you heard someone whine about the legality of seatbelt laws? We all know they make us safer, so we endure the inconvenience and move on.

Because it is demeaning? Is it? Or is it only demeaning if you frame it in that context? When I’m pulled aside, my first thought isn’t, oh gee this is unfair and making an assumption about “people like me”, but good! these guys are doing their job and doing it thoroughly and smartly! I choose to frame it as the cost of living in these times.

Anyway – again, great discussion and wonderful moderation – as always. I’m enjoying watching you really bite off some good topics of late…keep up the good work!

SGIME

again, the discussion isn’t meant to be one side view. I am really glad that countrygirl, JerryM, Obey, Chaira, Coralbead and Susanne share their view with me here.

please watch this youtube clip. It is very related to our discussion and it will help to clarify my point