But Miller’s views on immigration are why he’s at the White House shaping U.S. immigration policy. He has reportedly declared he’d “be happy if not a single refugee foot ever again touched America’s soil” and is said to open White House “meetings with specific horror stories about innocent Americans assaulted or murdered by noncitizens.” The most objectionable Trump administration policies pertaining to migration — ending DACA, the travel ban, family separations, and cutting refugee admissions — are all Miller’s doing. These measures are unacceptable even to many Americans who otherwise favor limiting immigration: Almost nine in 10 want to let DACA recipients stay in the country, for example, and two in three, including a substantial minority of Republicans, oppose the family separations. Miller, by contrast, called splitting up families a “simple decision.”

Miller’s defenders may argue these policies don’t have to be motivated by white nationalism and the reported statements could be false. And when Omar made her allegation against Miller in April, her supporters pointed to Miller’s policies and their backing among open neo-Nazi groups, which is not the same as explicit statements of white nationalism from Miller himself. Still, that policy context is why much of the collective reaction to the SPLC report amounts to, “Well, yeah.” That Miller would rely on sites like VDare or recommend a book as disgusting as The Camp of the Saints just doesn’t come as a huge surprise — and his real-life colleagues, those privy to all the communication he won’t put in writing, must have more than an inkling of the fundamental inhumanity of his beliefs.