[flagged]
How do you argue that the behavior of your predecessors is acceptable (and your presumed right to reside in what's currently known as United States) while those who now attempt to enter the territory suddenly become dangerous criminals?
Would your argument be more understandable to the reader than “might is right” or “if it is against me, it is unfair and abuse, if I do it to others, it is a sacred law”?
I guess I'm generally in favor of an open-border policy (or at least immigration based on promises of work, verifiable by a work contract).
Benefits are usually tax-based, and immigrants pay taxes (or, it's always possible to set it up that taxes are paid).
> but no person that is alive today had anything to do with it
They do. They're using land and resources taken from their former hosts which is a deep moral grey zone. Leaving home would be an option. If it's deemed too invasive, perhaps not penalizing people who want to do the same (minus stealing the land forcibly) would be a good first step.