The "fairer" comparison is relying upon an implicit argument by analogy, right? If so, there is a problem, for the "logic" therein (i.e., of arguing by analogy) cannot be even fairly relied upon to produce sound or valid conclusions.

Are US law enforcement and security types looking for all self-avowed (or even closet) KKK members prior to the commission of a violent criminal act? Are US law enforcement and security types looking for all self-avowed (or even closet) "foreign" terrorists prior to the commission of a violent criminal act? The differences start there, even if analogies could be necessarily relied upon.

I think a fairer comparison would be US law enforcement/security types looking for KKK members prior to the commission of a violent criminal act and checking Tutsis as carefully as Hutus. Now that would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

(It's somewhat interesting that when "profiling" for "foreign terrorists" we hassle Americans because of perceived "foreign" origin -- i.e., origin as perceived by racist elements.)