Shahbaz Ahmed Cheema Edward Said's classic Orientalism has many lessons for us. One of them is its recurrent theme that the imperialists have an unstoppable propensity to generalise and universalise. Including others this particular propensity has the capacity to victimise a vast majority of innocents on the basis of any wrong committed by a minority. It is intriguing to observe that generalisations of any kind have a great potential to mask ground realities and there is no doubt that it is the worst manifestation of masking realities to take away the status of innocence from any particular class of human beings. Due to this masking potential of generalisations they are being considered outside the domain of rational debate and discussion. Identity of individuals in this modern age is dependent on their citizenship/nationality, which is being represented by passports. So the passport is one of the very important identity markers in our world. Sometimes passport's significance may exceed the individual humanity of any person particularly when he is being viewed in its context. The implications of viewing any person in his passport's context are very disturbing. Initially it was only meant to be a geographical identity marker and it had nothing to do with human capacity and potentiality, which was completely independent from that superfluous identity. But now this passport has been elevated from mere geographical identity marker to such a compelling instrument, which could initiate and foster human capacities of doing wrong and right, and possession of specific passport has so determinative effect to inculcate different capacities in human beings. Someone may become a terrorist while the other may not and this has more to do not with any individual but with his passport. These two aspects of imperialist's generalisations and paradoxical relation of passport with our humanity flashed in my mind when I read the news item that nationals of 14 different countries had to go through strict security measures at American airports. People belonging to these countries will be searched by employing more thorough measures because of the fact that they happen to be more susceptible to undertake terrorist activities. This categorisation has an important implication that whole citizenry of these countries will be regarded as terrorists unless otherwise proved to be innocent after scrupulous security check. This presumption of guilt has simply taken away our old cherished presumption of innocence unless proved otherwise. Had this presumption been applied to the whole world there would be little annoyance. But quite graciously this category has been crafted for citizens of 14 countries. One may ask that there are so many countries which have not been included in that list and is this not sufficient to show that this list has been prepared after extensive research and analysis. Issue is not this that many countries have not been in the list rather it is that why the whole population of any single country is being portrayed as possessing same capacities and potential just because of their geographical identity based on passport. To me, it is not less than shaping and constructing of a New Terrorist Orient. The boundaries of this terrorist orient are as fluid as boundaries of conventional orient in Said's Orienitalism and these are dependent on the highly rational categorisation of our neo-imperialist. So these may be expended to include other newcomers and these may also be shrunk to exclude some of those who are presently within the list. This fluidity of boundaries is representing the arrogance of neo-imperialist; arrogance in a sense that it has capacity to give meaningful identity to human beings on the basis of their countries of origin. Because those who have been in possession of particular passport they have been perceived as inherently more disposed to terrorist activities as compared to those who are privileged enough to have different nationalities. If we extend this string of argument of individual capacities dependent on passport in context of terrorist potentialities, we will reach at that stage where it will become quite moral and legal to harass those belonging to suspected nationalities for the purposes of achieving security at home. There is no doubt that problems are there but there is also no justification to demean humanity of these nationalities on the basis of their passport. Actions of the terrorists cannot be condoned under any circumstances, but at the same time there appears no counter justifications to terrorise the whole nation. Leaving aside the issue of humanity of terrorist-prone nationalities, if the sanctity of their passport is being violated by individual terrorists on the one hand then the same sanctity is also being stripped away by the civilised world on the other. The nationals of this new terrorist orient are not being victimised for not controlling terrorism at home but also being stigmatised as if they are exporting it aboard. This portrayal of victims of terrorism as carriers of terrorism is not only an attitude of shifting responsibilities but may also lead to radica-lisation of victims themselves. One may come up with bulk of arguments to show inherent deficiency of this broad generalisation and its implications on overwhelming innocent nationals of those countries. But the way things are moving ahead there appears to be no escape from the ultimate materialisation of new terrorist orient. The author is a faculty member at the Punjab University Law College.