The percentages were fine for what they were actually saying. We can have a healthy discussion about the 1.4% and 2.9% but bringing in voluntary versus involuntary migration is a totally different topic.

Also what's the point of making "immigrant" and "migrant" apply to different groups of people? This seems like the worst way to make the distinction.

Edit: This article has a pull quote of the definitions of 'immigrant' and 'slave' and both of them apply. This is not convincing.

Edit 2: You added "Slaves weren’t immigrants. They were property." The article isn't loading but I can respond to the title. Even by the logic of them not being people at the time of the slave trade, what, the idea is that when they became people again that resets their history and we act like they just appeared in the southern US? That seems far more disrespectful to me.