I don't advocate them doing anything unconstitutional; merely that in the initial clearance process and ongoing clearance process for cleared employees that relations hostile or adversarial foreign powers continue to be a factor in investigation. It might mean putting more resources into specifically China-focused CI in the screening and review process. It might mean longer clearance processing (as a result) for people with extensive contacts with China (and since I go to China multiple times/year, I'd fall under this). It might mean borderline cases with lots of connections to China get denied whereas lots of connections to e.g. Brazil don't.
And this should be much higher for people in particularly sensitive positions (like case officers at CIA) vs. NASA scientists working on largely open source science.
USSR/Russia was more often ideologically motivated people (and very small amounts of money). Israeli spying in the US has been "for the benefit of Israel" (and possibly tacitly supported by some of all of USG, potentially somewhat officially). Chinese spying seems to be largely of the "loyalty" form. A lot of it is pure commercial or military technology from commercial entities.
All things being equal, someone with minimal foreign relations is going to be a better security risk for USG than someone with extensive relationships with foreign entities. For intelligence aimed at a foreign country, it's obviously an asset to have a lot of interconnectedness with that country, so it's a balancing act; you'd probably be willing to take that risk for a case officer but probably less so for a support staff. For positions where technical skill is required and in short supply, it may be worth that risk too; you'd have to look at the totality of the situation.
Since China has such an active intelligence program focused on the US, it's a greater risk than, say, Germany or the UK.
Edit: Yes, technically, people born in North and South America now are native to it. But Native Americans isn't a technical term, it is a cultural one that is widely understood to be so.
Most of all though, if your security relies on racism to succeed, it’s already failing. You can’t psychically find traitors, and traitors don’t have a race. Traitors can be turned from any group and the only defense is to evaluate everyone impartially, relentlessly, and consistently. If you find those measures insufficient, don’t turn to profiling race, study behavior!
Profiling is like torture... it appeals to people who don’t understand a damned thing about how either fails in practice... or it appeals to people who already like such ideas regardless of merit.