I wanted to ask whether US Congress/government can bar a specific foreign country's persons (individuals or firms) from the due process clause if the US government provided substantial evidence in a US court that that country implicitly/explicitly regularly discriminates against US persons in their courts or doesn't apparently reciprocate in due or fair legal process?
The obvious example is China. We know that its judiciary isn't independent and the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) guidelines are that its judiciary, like anyone else in China, must ultimately serve CCP's interests. So, we have seen multiple examples when Chinese courts used tools like anti-suit injunctions and others to discriminate against US firms. We have seen Chinese firm Tencent block live-streaming of NBA broadcasts which cost NBA $600M, apparently in breach of its contract with NBA, which NBA even can't seek legal remedy to refund. Obviously, it was because of CCP pressure but NBA even can't enforce its contract.
There are other examples, too.
WSJ reported some time ago that CCP forced DuPont to withdraw from a lawsuit if it wanted to avoid arbitrary scrutiny. That cost DuPont a valued chemical tech patent. Further, USTR releases each year foreign trade barrier report in which other cases of US companies' unfair treatment by Chinese courts can be found. So one obviously would then ask why Chinese companies are protected under fair legal process in the US.
Huawei and other Chinese companies regularly sue the US government and exercise their unreciprocated constitutionally rights here in the US. And if any US government agency, presumably State Department, provided solid evidence of unfair discrimination against US companies in China in a US court, can US Congress/government pass a law that bars Chinese companies from fair legal protection in the US? And if US courts block that law, what else can the US government do to secure its economic interests that the US courts would deem acceptable that imposes reciprocity assuming that China doesn't accept third-party jurisdiction in any scenario?
The same can be generalised to any country which doesn't have an implicitly/explicitly independent judiciary, as widely regarded in the international arena.