One Sentence Reveals the Incongruity of the Left’s Victimhood Worldview

It may seem inane and hardly worth comment, but there’s actually something profoundly revealing in singer-songerwriter Billie Eilish’s declaration at the Grammy’s last Sunday.

The statement “no one is illegal on stolen land” perfectly captures at least one inherent contradiction in the Left’s victimhood worldview, and it highlights what the “immigration” debate is really about.

Activists who oppose the enforcement of immigration law often condemn the idea that any alien should be considered “illegal,” regardless of whether they came to America in accordance with our laws. They seek to remove any moral legitimacy from limits on immigration, suggesting that all immigration is permissible.

Yet leftists also claim that the United States was built on iniquity—that America broke its treaties with Native American tribes and effectively stole the land from them. While the U.S. does have a complicated history of land acquisition, this argument conveniently ignores the archeological record, which suggests that the Native Americans we often refer to as “indigenous” also took the land by force.

The “stolen land” motif isn’t really about tracing the history of which tribe “originally” owned the land—it’s more about propping up the victimhood status of the Left’s preferred constituencies.

The Left justifies its pursuit of permanent power in the name of helping victims, and it often combines victimhood claims, even if they are inherently contradictory.

Let’s say “no one is illegal” in the way immigration activists mean it. Immigration law has no moral authority, so let’s open the borders and allow anyone to come here, regardless of their intent.

We’d allow immigrants who want to honor our country by following the law, and those who do not follow the law. We’ll allow immigrants who intend to work hard and assimilate, and also immigrants who intend to lie, cheat, and steal. We’ll allow model citizens who face oppression in their home countries and we’ll allow terrorists and spies from America’s adversaries.

If no one is illegal, let them all come.

Of course, if there were no limit, entire groups of people might come to the U.S., seeking to conquer it without a struggle. After all, the U.S. allows people to vote for their political leaders, and if enough immigrants came in, they could shift the political dynamics of the country, effectively undermining its sovereignty.

“On Stolen Land”

Now, let’s take the second half of the statement seriously.

The United States was built on “stolen land,” so let’s return it to its original inhabitants. Let’s give the Southwest back to Mexico, then back to Spain, then back to the Aztecs, and then back to the people the Aztecs slew and enslaved. Let’s give the Northeast back to the Iroquois, and then back to the Native Americans the Iroquois slew and replaced. Let’s give Floridaback to the Seminoles, and then back to the people the Seminoles slew and replaced.

Let’s remove all the ostensibly evil “invaders” who “stole land.” Perhaps we should even remove all the human beings who settled North America in the first place and return it to the mammoths, or the dinosaurs, or the amoebas. How do we determine who the rightful “indigenous” people are?

At this point, the inherent contradiction should be obvious. Any human settlement in the land now referred to as the United States could be considered “immigration,” and any immigration that involves taking ownership of the land could be considered “theft.”

Either the land has been stolen, or no one is illegal on it. You can’t have it both ways.

What’s the Answer?

Ultimately, you have to draw a line somewhere, and I think it’s quite reasonable to draw the line at the sovereignty of the United States of America.

America is not without its sins, but our Constitution arguably set up as just a system of representative government as is possible on Earth. We can hold our leaders accountable at the ballot box. We enjoy a legal and economic system that rewards creativity and invention, which help produce wealth for everyone. We enjoy a broad swath of fundamental rights.

Our system is imperfect, but it is far more just than the Left would have us believe.

The same is true for immigration law. While the Left is throwing a fit about President Trump’s attempts to deport illegal aliens, we shouldn’t forget that the U.S. has a comparatively welcoming immigration system.

The United States wants to welcome immigrants, but we want immigrants who will follow our laws, and we want to protect our sovereignty as a nation.

Enforcing immigration law isn’t about denigrating immigrants—it’s about ensuring that the immigrants we welcome are the kind who will contribute to America, not undermine it.

The United States has an interest in preventing terrorists, criminals, or agents of foreign powers from settling in our country, and we need make no apology for this. Because our system provides both the right to vote and a safety net, limits on immigration and naturalization are vital.

I doubt Billie Eilish has thought through exactly what “no one is illegal on stolen land” really means, or grasped the inherent contradiction. I doubt she means anything more than, “I hate Trump.”

But, if we understand what the Left means in combining these two ideas, the message is obvious: “I hate the United States and reject its right to be a sovereign nation.”

At that, I simply must protest.

This article originally appeared at The Daily Signal.