I’m trying to test a hypothesis about a recurring definition in U.S. politics:
Not just “how much immigration,” but what “American” means, mainly civic/legal membership (birthright citizenship + naturalization), or something closer to inherited membership (lineage, “stock,” cultural baseline).
The pattern I keep seeing looks like a funnel:
upstream definition → midstream organizations → downstream policy templates → retail campaign messaging
The funnel (compressed timeline)The funnel (compressed timeline)
1937: an explicit heredity frame exists on paper.
The Pioneer Fund was chartered in 1937 with language about supporting research/publication on “heredity and eugenics” and “race betterment.” That’s an unusually direct example of national belonging being discussed in heredity terms, not just citizenship.
1980s–1990s: that frame connects into immigration-restriction infrastructure.
Multiple sources document Pioneer Fund grants to FAIR during the late 20th century, often summarized as about $1.2M across 1985–1994. Whatever the broader debate about FAIR, this is a measurable bridge between a heredity-centered institution and a modern immigration-policy organization.
2023–2025: the template layer becomes explicit.
Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership is a coalition-produced transition blueprint: a staffing-and-policy manual intended to shape agency actions early in a new administration, compiling recommendations from hundreds of contributors and a broad partner network into concrete administrative steps. Mandate for Leadership lists contributors affiliated with FAIR, IRLI, and CIS (all part of the modern restriction ecosystem), and FAIR in particular has documented Pioneer Fund grant support.
2017–present: the operationalizer layer (Miller).
Stephen Miller fits here less as an “origin” and more as a connector. Reuters describes him as a key architect of Trump-era immigration enforcement strategy. Separately, ABC reported America First Legal (headed by Miller) asked to be removed from Project 2025’s advisory-board listing, an example of overlap (or perceived overlap) between adjacent organizations and the template ecosystem.
Two current Ohio examples (how the definition “shows up”)Two current Ohio examples (how the definition “shows up”)
Casey Putsch (candidate messaging):
On his platform, Putsch argues “mass legal and illegal immigration” and “globalist policies” are designed to “displace Americans… and replace them in their institutions,” and he labels a section “End the Replacement of Ohio Workers.” Whatever you think of the claim, it’s clearly a “who counts” formulation: institutions are framed as being for “Americans” in a way demographic change threatens.
Nick Fuentes (pressure + boundary enforcement):
Fuentes functions more like a movement pressure signal than a policy shop. In December 2025 he said he would go to Ohio to “deny” Vivek Ramaswamy the governorship, called it the only 2026 race he cares about, and urged followers to support “anyone except” Ramaswamy, even if that means a protest vote that helps a Democrat win. That fits the same “candidate legitimacy as a membership test” dynamic you can see elsewhere in the coalition: in May 2024, Ann Coulter told Ramaswamy she “still would not have voted for you because you’re an Indian,” which is the boundary stated explicitly rather than implied.
The questionThe question
Is this a traceable continuity, a similar “American = inherited membership” definition moving through institutions and then into everyday politics? Or is it better understood as a set of recurring, loosely related arguments that only resemble a single line when you zoom out?
SourcesSources
Pioneer Fund charter language / history (Lombardo, 2002 - SSRN)
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=313820
Pioneer Fund described as created in 1937 for “heredity and eugenics… race betterment” (PubMed entry referencing Kenny, 2002)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12115787/
FAIR + Pioneer Fund grants (SPLC Hatewatch: “FAIR Files”)
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/fair-files-working-pioneer-fund/
Independent scholarly citation of FAIR taking $1.2M from Pioneer (Harvard Law & Policy Review PDF)
https://journals.law.harvard.edu/lpr/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2013/05/2.2_9_Huang.pdf
Project 2025 “Mandate for Leadership” full PDF (Heritage)
https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
Reuters describing Stephen Miller as architect of Trump immigration crackdown (Jul 11, 2025)
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/white-house-aide-driving-trumps-aggressive-immigration-agenda-2025-07-11/
ABC: America First Legal asked to be removed from Project 2025 advisory board listing (Jul 12, 2024)
https://abcnews.go.com/US/pro-trump-group-asks-removed-project-2025-advisory/story?id=111896330
Casey Putsch platform (“displace Americans… replace them in their institutions” / “End the Replacement of Ohio Workers”)
https://putschforohio.com/platform/
Fuentes quote about “deny” Vivek the governorship (Fox News print)
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nick-fuentes-says-hell-campaign-against-vivek-ramaswamy-ohio-slur-laced-rant.print
Ann Coulter Tells Vivek Ramaswamy She Wouldn’t Vote for Him ‘Because You’re an Indian,’ Straight to His Face
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ann-coulter-tells-vivek-ramaswamy-011401540.html
I don't think there would be nearly as much racial animosity surrounding the immigration debate were it not for a serious and successful attempt at implementing a policy of open borders combined with a nanny state explicitly organized around addressing racial grievances against one particular group. If the rate of new immigration were fixed at zero in the 90's, I'd expect people would be much more accepting of a definition of American based on a simple legal precedent. But instead we have birth tourism and annual floods of tens of millions of people motivated to immigrate purely for economic convenience, along with calls for a white minority to pay them back somehow. Of course people lose respect for the legal definition of American in that environment. It's become obvious that the left intends to abuse the immigration system as a political attack on what remains of the white population.
I appreciate the candor. One thing that stands out to me is that this exact “power shift” theory predates today’s immigration debate by a long time.
In White America (originally 1923; later reissued), Earnest Sevier Cox lays out a scenario where demographic change leads to political dependency and ends with “a mixed-breed would sit as President” (his phrasing). That’s essentially the same structure as modern “replacement” rhetoric: not just debating “how much immigration,” but claiming that legitimacy and power are inherently tied to ancestry and a specific cultural baseline.
That’s why I’m exploring the “90-year funnel” idea: the core question of who counts as a legitimate member or leader appears early in explicit texts, then resurfaces later in organized policy and campaign language, sometimes channeled through immigration policy, sometimes through voting rules and questions of political representation.
You can see the same “who legitimately represents whom” dispute playing out in current Section 2 and redistricting cases, which the Supreme Court is revisiting again.