He didn't say they aren't "us". They do legitimately and regularly fly and are thus those that are to be protected by the security mechanisms and thus by his/her definition a part of "us". Also that they are singled out for more intensive search does not mean they are not a part of "us".
I do agree with you though that this kind of ethnic screening has a ton of ethical problems. And that airport security is mostly security theater.
Agreed 100%. We'd be better off without most of it.
> this kind of ethnic screening has a ton of ethical problems
This, obviously, is a value judgment. If you think ethnic screening is unworkable for ethical reasons, that's fair. But you need to acknowledge that, by giving up ethnic screening, you're purposefully making your security less effective -- you would rather see some additional people die to terrorism, and some additional non-ethnics harassed in precisely the way you don't want to see happen to ethnics, than dirty your hands with ethnic screening.
(I habitually take a fairly aggressive tone. I really don't care whether you make the call one way or the other -- but I do care that, if that's what you believe, you should cop to it.)
I'm glad that you can decide on their behalf that their rights are worth less than your imagined security.