A question I keep running into in U.S. politics isnât âhow much immigration,â but: What does âAmericanâ mean? Two definitions keep colliding: ⢠Civic/legal: citizenship (birthright + naturalization), equal standing under law. ⢠Inherited: ancestry/âstockâ/a cultural baseline treated as the ârealâ nation. My hypothesis is a recurring pipeline: definition â orgs â policy templates â campaign messaging. A compressed throughline: ⢠1937: Pioneer Fund is chartered with âheredity/eugenicsâ + ârace bettermentâ language (nation-as-bloodline stated explicitly). ⢠1980sâ90s: records/reporting describe Pioneer Fund grants to FAIR (often summarized â $1.2M). ⢠2023â25: Project 2025âs Mandate for Leadership functions as a coalition transition blueprint; contributors include people tied to FAIR/IRLI/CIS. ⢠2017âpresent: Miller isnât the originâheâs an operational connector across the enforcement ecosystem (incl. AFL overlaps/distancing). Two Ohio snapshots of âwho countsâ politics: ⢠âReplacementâ framing in candidate messaging (âEnd the Replacement of Ohio Workersâ). ⢠Open boundary enforcement (Coulter: âI wouldnât vote for you because youâre an Indianâ; Fuentes urging a block on Vivek). Question: is this a traceable continuityâAmerican = inherited membershipâmoving through institutions into everyday politics? Or am I linking separate arguments that only look connected from 30,000 feet?