A question I keep running into in U.S. politics isn’t “how much immigration,” but:

What does “American” mean?

Two definitions keep colliding:

• Civic/legal: citizenship (birthright + naturalization), equal standing under law.

• Inherited: ancestry/“stock”/a cultural baseline treated as the “real” nation.

My hypothesis is a recurring pipeline:

definition → orgs → policy templates → campaign messaging.

A compressed throughline:

• 1937: Pioneer Fund is chartered with “heredity/eugenics” + “race betterment” language (nation-as-bloodline stated explicitly).

• 1980s–90s: records/reporting describe Pioneer Fund grants to FAIR (often summarized ≈ $1.2M).

• 2023–25: Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership functions as a coalition transition blueprint; contributors include people tied to FAIR/IRLI/CIS.

• 2017–present: Miller isn’t the origin—he’s an operational connector across the enforcement ecosystem (incl. AFL overlaps/distancing).

Two Ohio snapshots of “who counts” politics:

• “Replacement” framing in candidate messaging (“End the Replacement of Ohio Workers”).

• Open boundary enforcement (Coulter: “I wouldn’t vote for you because you’re an Indian”; Fuentes urging a block on Vivek).

Question: is this a traceable continuity—American = inherited membership—moving through institutions into everyday politics?

Or am I linking separate arguments that only look connected from 30,000 feet?