- There is an issue with identity and not just on ports but elsewhere too. A coupe of weeks ago a couple of men dressed in burqas robbed a jewellery store in UK for instance. So face covering garments may be unacceptable in banks and jewellery stores.
Thieves have often used ski masks and bandannas to conceal their identities. I don't see you, or anyone else for that matter, supporting a wholesale national law banning those garments. But ski masks aren't traditionally associated with a religion you hate, so they must be okay.
Many non-Muslims living in Muslim lands such as sikhs, hindus, xtians in Pakistan were living there “form the beginning” so to speak and really have no choice. In contrast Muslim immigrants to west knew they were moving to non Islamic states and that's where their children would be brought up. No one promised them anything special that majority did not approve of. Most Muslims still can go back to their ancestral lands owning to dual citizenship. So Islamic concept of Hijra is a real option unless they want to stick around for worldy gains.
So did you feel the same way when French Sikhs tried to appeal to UNHRC, and Indian officials directly appealed to French authorities in an attempt to get the turban ban repealed? Or was that all okay, because you don't hate Sikhs?
On what basis are you claiming that most have access to dual citizenship? Have you done a survey of citizenship laws across the Muslim world, and compared that to Muslim demographic data from France?
And what about native born Muslims in the West? Apparently you don't realize that they exist. In the US, native born African Americans are the single largest racial group among Muslims.