Not where someone is born, but whom they owe allegiance to. If you do not discriminate based on someone's allegiances, then on what basis would you expect it to be appropriate to discriminate? The idea that all discrimination is immoral or unethical is not only suspect, it's clearly foolhardy. China is an enemy to everyone who is not China, they aren't even subtle about this. China only cares about China, and will sabotage or interrupt deals and commit espionage in order to get ahead. Anyone who owes allegiance to China is not a friend of the West, full stop. The West and the entities operating in it owe no benefit of the doubt or benefit at all towards anyone who has allegiance to China. China holds no such ridiculous notion as that they shouldn't discriminate based on allegiance, they make it clear you are either theirs or you are unwelcome.
Note, I am also /not/ saying that China is necessarily doing anything immoral within their own framework here, I am simply observing that they are not, and have not been, any friend to the West, and they are clearly at this point our enemy. Just because they are our enemy does not mean that their behaviors aren't rational from their perspective or point of view and don't align with their own moral systems. We don't owe them any regard or benefit of the doubt however, as they are our enemy, and it's just as much not immoral for us to uphold ourselves against our enemies.
> It's the literal definition of prejudice. Very illiberal.
You and I have different definitions of prejudice and what it means to be Liberal. My definition of prejudice matches what's in the dictionary:
noun
1. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.
2. An adverse judgment or opinion formed unfairly or without knowledge of the facts.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular social group, such as a race or the adherents of a religion.