a person that is born and raised in the US but ethnically Japanese, or Indian, or Afghanistan may not fit well into the nation of their ethnic ancestors...

That depends. They may be ethnically American. American is both a Nation, by virtue of civic assimilation, but may also be (or becoming) an ethnos. If they are ethnically Japanese, they will have to join America civic-ly, and integrate into the US. Over a few generations, their decedents may become ethnically American.

I also reject the idea that "white" should contain "Jewish."

I'm not saying White contains Jewish by definition. That's the point of European Jews. They are White Jews. There are also White Muslims. Judaism is a religion that contains multiple ethnic groups. Some Jews are European, but some are also Middle-Eastern and African. It's not that White is a full container for all Jews. It's that there are Jews that are White.

sure maybe you can make a coherent category that does that, but you're still not addressing the actual point being made when most of the posters here use "white."

Unfortunately, many of the idiot users here are asserting a "White" that simply doesn't exist at all. A biologically homogenous European racial solidarity movement. There is no such thing as that. There is no racial solidarity between Albanians, Portuguese, Celts, Swiss, Boer, and Finns. The American definition of White is simply a container of "European", where as the British concept of "White" is basically just British, or Anglo-Saxon. What stupid people here like to do is desperately smash them all together where all "Europeanoids" are just culturally Saxon-Anglos that can only be saved by Socialism, if it just wasn't for those pesky jews.

My issue is that the Socialists here don't have points at all, and aren't engaging in an honest discussion about ethnicity in the first place when they aren't willing to accept distinctions between race, religion, ethnos, culture, and genetics. It's a completely upside-down idea that it starts with genetics, and then genetics informs race, and then race informs culture, religion, ethos, kin, clan, tribe, individual people, and nations equally, at the same time, to the same degree.

It is an intentional reduction of nuance to fit it into a historical dialectic. I can't accept the point, because the point is based on a false premise.