The definition of 'criminal' changes over time too but that doesn't prevent us from prosecuting those who we determine to be criminals today.

Regardless of how the subtleties of politics shift over time, someone who enters a country seeking to kill and destroy should not be a allowed inside regardless of what they're called.

The percentage of 'terrorists' we are talking about is so small, it's hardly worth considering. It's a waste of everyone's time, and privacy to spend looking through anyone's phone at an airport

The major crimes we still recognize haven’t changed since humans started scratching on clay tablets. Murder, theft, rape, assault/battery, etc. Who was counted as a person and who the manner of gaining justice has changed, but not the crimes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

You could say the same thing about the word "murderer". While technically correct, that doesn't make it any less a matter of life and death.

Then let's stop talking about finding "terrorists" and call it finding "murderers" or "criminals."

"Terrorist" is a just word governments use to scare their citizens into giving up their civil liberties in exchange for security theater and authoritarianism.

Agreed. "Mass murderer" would be more to the point, albeit still somewhat subjective. The point is, the conversation should be about effective tactics/policies for saving lives. Disputes over terminology are mostly a distraction from that.

There are a number of abortion deniers whoop would disagree with you on "murder" and "death."