Most of those groups are more genetically distinct from their neighbours than the English are so you're comparing apples to oranges.

No they're not. The boundaries are just as grey. It is incredibly difficult, sometimes even impossible, to distinguish between two Native American tribes.

And again North American Native Americans can't always be easily distinguished between other natives to the far north or south.

You're trying to make some epic point about how Britain is the only people in the world without native ethnic groups and failing miserably.

If this discussion is going to go on further you need to define your terms as to who is an ethnic group and who isn't and why the English don't apply for this. You haven't done this.

Generally those groups are defined specifically as being genetically different from people of white European heritage, and much of why they're treated as quite tightly defined groups is to do with mistreatment and segregation, they're also defined by culture not just by ethnicity. You're conveniently ignoring a great deal of history to try and make your point.

Incorrect. Everywhere in the world has established native ethnic groups and no one really denies this.

What you're talking is indigenous status (but not even colloquially indigenous).

For example a logger of indigenous descent would not be afforded the same land rights as the tribes his work displaces. However he would still be considered of indigenous descent.

Furthermore why couldn't the English have this? We have now had decades of mass immigration. You could easily identify us as the native white inhabitants in contrast to the mass of different ethnicities arrived in the last few decades.

Yes... it's almost like drawing ethnic lines on the map and making overarching statements about ethnicity isn't actually helpful, isn't it?

Incorrect. Ethnic groups are easily identified all over the world. And it's a useful and beautiful category.

You're just being racist and evoking genocidal rhetoric against the English