So there was no centralized US eugenics program. There was a eugenics movement, which was a loose grouping of many types of people advocating many types of policies. It is very hard to categorize all of these under one heading or political ideology. There were far-left and far-right eugenicists. There were feminist eugenicists, and African-American eugenicists. There were certainly nativist and white nationalist eugenicists. But it's hard, again, to generalize all of the US eugenics movement as being just that — it was large and complicated.

When it comes to actual "programs" put into place, there were basically three categories of what we consider "negative eugenics" programs (e.g., programs meant to enact eugenics by reducing the "unfit" in the gene pool). The first were state sterilization programs, whose motivations and targets varied dramatically by state (and sometimes even by individual institutions within states, depending on how centralized the program was). So in California, for example, there really isn't evidence that minorities were more heavily targeted for sterilization than whites. The trends were such that the poor were more likely to be sterilized (because they were more likely to be in state mental institutions anyway), and women were slightly more likely to be sterilized than men, though this varied by institution. In other states there were other priorities. It's hard to generalize for the whole country since the programs were so different in each state.

The other policies that came under eugenic headings are more directly to your point. The anti-immigration eugenic advocates — like Madison Grant, who participated in the passing of the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924 — were definitely nativists. Some were what we would call "white nationalists" today, like Grant's protege Lothrop Stoddard. For some, like Grant himself, the tricky part in using the term is that Grant considered "white" to be an inadequately restrictive category (Grant was a Nordicist, which basically says that some "whites" are superior over others). Grant did not see the world as black vs. white, he saw it as Northern Europe vs. Eastern/Southern Europe, in other words. Stoddard saw it as black vs. white.

There were also the anti-miscegenation eugenicists, who tried to stop "intermixing" through marriages in the south — a push that had existing prior to eugenics, but eugenics was explicitly used in the language of some of the statutes of the early 20th century. These were definitely white nationalist in the sense you mean. They were mostly limited to the South.

As for your direct question: in general, sterilizations were not carried out on people for being "criminally minded." There were some punitive (prison) sterilizations carried out prior to them being ruled unconstitutional in 1942 (Skinner v. Oklahoma), but they were always a small number compared to the number being carried out for other reasons. In general, to be sterilized in the USA you had to be in a state-run mental hospital of some sort. It was not about being prosecuted, it was about being institutionalized, and that usually meant being poor. It is likely that in places where the African-American population was high prior to the Great Migration (e.g., the US South), the proportion of those sterilized who were non-white was probably higher than anywhere else, but I haven't seen analysis that really looked to see whether race factored into these decisions more than class.

Personally, I would not use sterilizations as evidence in such a speech. The case is too complicated. If you want to talk about eugenics and race, people like Grant and Stoddard are more likely to be useful, and their issues were immigration. Grant is particularly fruitful both in that his works are easily available on the Internet, essentially advocate for genocide, and were supposed cited by Hitler as his "Bible." That makes for a nice combination of things, without getting into the very-real complexities of the history of eugenics.