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?