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.

Politics_And_Law

Is 'Heritage America' really 90 years in the making?

jamalderrick

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.