Mass immigration: should we embrace it or not?

[San Lumen]

1) And what do you define as a proper country?
2) So everyone from a Muslim country is a radical islamist who wants to blow up the House of Commons or the Underground? I have several friends who are Muslim and they do not agree with radical Islam or ISIS in the slightest.
3)so even though he is a British Citizen he should be barred from holding office just because his parents were born in another country and because of his skin color and religion? Sounds awfully racist and xenophobic. To say someone cannot or should not be allowed to do a certain job because of said race or religion is the definition of racism.
4) We live in a interconnected planet now and global economy. You cannot have a policy of only US or British citizens can work for Ralph Lauren or Ted Baker. It wouldn't work. If a really talented designer from Azerbaijan where there is no real fashion industry wants to work for Ted Baker or Ralph Lauren you'd crush their hopes and dreams and say sorry only British citizens can work for Ted Baker and miss out on their excellent talent? Sounds like pure nationalism and ethnocentrism. thats how World War One Started.

1. A democracy. Everything else is just private property, sometimes held by organized criminals calling themselves dictators. Were it up to me, most of the map would be blank. I do not recognize their right to govern their people without their consent. I'm also fine with democracies annexing territory, provided they follow the rules laid out in the UN when they do so and act to as quick as possible grant the franchise to the locals of the area annexed, and subsequently give them a vote on whether to remain or go independent.

2. The overwhelming majority of muslims are radical fundamentalists. What you're arguing about is violent radical fundamentalists, because the bar is set so low for muslims that "Capable of existing in the same space as others without murdering them" classes them as moderates. Most muslims are highly anti-woman, anti-gay, etc. Check the Islamic Attitudes studies.
Why is it, when a christian opposes gay marriage, he's a fundamentalist, but a muslim opposes homosexuality being legal at all, and he's a moderate?
Because for a muslim to be moderate, he just has to not be violent. That's how bad it is, when even those defending them say things like this and pretend "Fundamentalist" and "Radical" = violent.

3. I don't vote for religious people in general, sorry. You're not going to browbeat me into Islamophilia out of fear of being mean to brown people. I hold them to the same standards as I hold Christians, unlike you, as you showed in point 2.
I don't vote for the religious because I'm anti-theistic. I could tolerate a religious person if they were prepared to say their religion absolutely does not in any sense guide their opinions or politics, but even the "Moderates" waffle on this and say it inspires them and stuff. Oh okay then, i'm not voting for you. Your principles come from somewhere I fundamentally disagree with.
Show me a muslim willing to say his religion has absolutely zero impact on any of his views on the world, and i'll show you a muslim i'll accept as a mayor.

4. You keep insisting the WW1 stuff is the case without much evidence. I think what you mean is, that's what progressives keep insisting caused WW1.

So are you going to oust the Russian government and that of Uzbekistan and Eritrea and Turkmenistan and others. The later have no real opposition. Who are you going to make President or Prime Minister.

and what about not allowing someone from another country who has a dream of working for the fashion industry? You'd crush their hopes and dreams and say sorry only American or British citizens can work for us? Who cares if your talented? We don't want you because your from Iran or Algeria for example? How is that not pure nationalism and racism?

And if you think World War One was not caused in part by nationalism and Ethnocentrism I suggest you read a history book.

[Ostroeuropa]

3. I don't vote for religious people in general, sorry. You're not going to browbeat me into Islamophilia out of fear of being mean to brown people. I hold them to the same standards as I hold Christians, unlike you, as you showed in point 2.
I don't vote for the religious because I'm anti-theistic. I could tolerate a religious person if they were prepared to say their religion absolutely does not in any sense guide their opinions or politics, but even the "Moderates" waffle on this and say it inspires them and stuff. Oh okay then, i'm not voting for you. Your principles come from somewhere I fundamentally disagree with.
Show me a muslim willing to say his religion has absolutely zero impact on any of his views on the world, and i'll show you a muslim i'll accept as a mayor.

What a closed minded thinking that Dawkinian progressives hold these days. Whether you like it or not, many religious people get the job done, avoiding voting from them because they said publicly once that God guided their steps or that they still pray five times a day is completely ridiculous.
(yes, I'm applying the same standard for Christians too)

I'm not a progressive by any stretch of the imagination tbh. I'm a tory for one thing. I'm also being, admittedly, hyperbolic. I am, ofcourse, forced to make choices on occasion to support the religious against an atheist with worse policies.
But given the choice between two identical platforms, I'd opt for the atheist every time.

I preferred Zach Goldsmith.

[Grave_n_idle]

There are jihadists amongst citizens too. Also, source on the "pushing down wages for everyone"?

Here's one study from the Bank of England describing the effects of immigration on British wages.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research ... swp574.pdf

A study that basically says they have negligible effect, and only really have any impact at all on very low skill work. None of which is really surprising - nor specific to immigration - ANY increase in population would have that same effect.

[Ostroeuropa]

1. A democracy. Everything else is just private property, sometimes held by organized criminals calling themselves dictators. Were it up to me, most of the map would be blank. I do not recognize their right to govern their people without their consent. I'm also fine with democracies annexing territory, provided they follow the rules laid out in the UN when they do so and act to as quick as possible grant the franchise to the locals of the area annexed, and subsequently give them a vote on whether to remain or go independent.

2. The overwhelming majority of muslims are radical fundamentalists. What you're arguing about is violent radical fundamentalists, because the bar is set so low for muslims that "Capable of existing in the same space as others without murdering them" classes them as moderates. Most muslims are highly anti-woman, anti-gay, etc. Check the Islamic Attitudes studies.
Why is it, when a christian opposes gay marriage, he's a fundamentalist, but a muslim opposes homosexuality being legal at all, and he's a moderate?
Because for a muslim to be moderate, he just has to not be violent. That's how bad it is, when even those defending them say things like this and pretend "Fundamentalist" and "Radical" = violent.

3. I don't vote for religious people in general, sorry. You're not going to browbeat me into Islamophilia out of fear of being mean to brown people. I hold them to the same standards as I hold Christians, unlike you, as you showed in point 2.
I don't vote for the religious because I'm anti-theistic. I could tolerate a religious person if they were prepared to say their religion absolutely does not in any sense guide their opinions or politics, but even the "Moderates" waffle on this and say it inspires them and stuff. Oh okay then, i'm not voting for you. Your principles come from somewhere I fundamentally disagree with.
Show me a muslim willing to say his religion has absolutely zero impact on any of his views on the world, and i'll show you a muslim i'll accept as a mayor.

4. You keep insisting the WW1 stuff is the case without much evidence. I think what you mean is, that's what progressives keep insisting caused WW1.

So are you going to oust the Russian government and that of Uzbekistan and Eritrea and Turkmenistan and others. The later have no real opposition. Who are you going to make President or Prime Minister.

and what about not allowing someone from another country who has a dream of working for the fashion industry? You'd crush their hopes and dreams and say sorry only American or British citizens can work for us? Who cares if your talented? We don't want you because your from Iran or Algeria for example? How is that not pure nationalism and racism?

And if you think World War One was not caused in part by nationalism and Ethnocentrism I suggest you read a history book.

We don't owe people from other countries anything. They are not being treated like second class citizens, because they aren't citizens at all in the first place.
The hopes and dreams of non-citizens should be utterly irrelevant to a government, they are owed nothing. The governments primary job is to service its citizens. It is not to be a utopia unto the world.

Do you accept that Citizens have a reasonable expectation to be of greater consideration to their government than foreigners?

[Rio Cana]

I'll have you know my culture is the first-rate bastard child of Bretons and Saxons, which got raped by a series of Norsemen and Frenchies. I'm quite proud of my superior English language which no one could be arsed into giving a half-decent grammatical structure that made even the slightest bit of sense.

Romance languages my ass, we're the world's lingua franca now Frenchie. Submit to the superior Anglo.

*cries in Anglo*

This is beautiful.

You do know Spanish (also called Castilian) is the happiest language on the planet. It has the most native speakers after Chinese and growing.

When we count second language speakers, English is second after Chinese. Third Spanish which is growing . Even the Chinese are getting into the act when it comes to learning Spanish. Read this - http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/culture/20 ... 762985.htm

For Spanish it all started 100 km. (62 miles) NE of the Castilian City of Burgos at the Valpuesta monastery (built in 804) in the 10th century.

At this monastery -
A photo video of the monastery - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDGObQYEq0w
Only 12 people live in the town where the monastery is located.

Can the English, French or Germans show the exact spot where there language originated.

Location of Burgos - http://www.valesacultural.com/wp-conten ... p.bmp1.jpg

[Chessmistress]

It will not and can not work so long as people with money and power both have the ability and motivation to drive the public towards racial conflict.

Multiculturalism is not a step to socialism, it's an aftereffect. Attempting racially diverse societies in a system where people are barely hanging on, where the media is free to serve corporate interests etc, is a recipe for race war and disaster.

Middle class academics support it because they're "Let them eat cake" attitude to the poor means they cannot conceive of it being a bad idea. They don't know what mass migration does to working class areas, and haven't really met many working class minorities compared to WC whites.

So i'll spell it out.

When the poorest person in the UK lives the same lifestyle as a sociology professor, we might just manage it.

NONE of which is assisted by the left wing and its marxist view of demographic relations, oppressor-oppressed class, etc, driving whites and males and those who sympathize with them to the right wing.

Lemme also cover what I think has been a subtly way of the right wing succeeding in its messaging efforts.

It also amounts to picket line crossing.
An immigrant is a scab.
They come here to work lower wages than the natives and drive down wages. That's the sentiment you hear a lot too.
Ofcourse the working classes will view immigrants negatively when you frame it in those terms, even subtly.

"Well the natives don't want those jobs."
Cos the wages are low.
Cos of scabs. (Or at least, so goes the argument.)

If you view it in terms of international class struggle and ignore the demographics, it becomes obvious why this isn't working.

Whether the working class are aware the right wing is using what amounts to union arguments except recloaked as nationalism, I cannot say.

Mass migration and multiculturalism has to end before our society is ripped apart, or permanently stuck in demographic conflict fueled by the rich to get what they want, with the left continuing to fail to put up a united front and playing directly into their hands through identity politics.

If you watch the working classes reactions to scabs and compare it to immigrants, compare the rhetoric and argument used, it's extremely obvious why the right wing is now picking off WC whites from Labour.

They're still voting for the same thing.
Solidarity, and to punish people who cross the picket line.

It's also why the lefts arguments fall on deaf ears.
"They're coming to improve their lives, can you blame them?"

...
Yeh?

If the left wants to address the root of the problem, they need to recognize the mechanism by which the white working class feels under attack.
They clearly don't, and instead spend their time trying to justify crossing picket lines to the public.

Might fly with the middle class and academics. Doesn't with the workers.

Immigrants are not at fault. Employers are. We can strengthen labor laws and unions. If there were no immigrants, employers wouldn't randomly start treating native-born workers amazingly and being fine with unions and strikers. Immigrant workers should be entitled to workplace protections like anyone else. This is an economic issue, not an immigration issue.

I fully agree on such point.
Even on the other non-quoted part, but that was the more relevant.

[New Werpland]

Welp, there is no such thing as hyphenated Georgianism.

You are right, Russia relieved them of that problem thankfully.

ha ha

Now tell me about that Polish fifth column in Illinois.

[The East Marches]

You are right, Russia relieved them of that problem thankfully.

ha ha

Now tell me about that Polish fifth column in Illinois.

>He thinks its a joke

They are coming right for us. We must round up the Poles, anglicize their names and make them proper Americans. I am 110% with you on this one.

[The of Japan]

ha ha

Now tell me about that Polish fifth column in Illinois.

>He thinks its a joke

They are coming right for us. We must round up the Poles, anglicize their names and make them proper Americans. I am 110% with you on this one.

Well there are lots of poles in Illinois

[Aelex]

You do know Spanish (also called Castilian) is the happiest language on the planet. It has the most native speakers after Chinese and growing.

When we count second language speakers, English is second after Chinese. Third Spanish which is growing . Even the Chinese are getting into the act when it comes to learning Spanish. Read this - http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/culture/20 ... 762985.htm

For Spanish it all started 100 km. (62 miles) NE of the Castilian City of Burgos at the Valpuesta monastery (built in 804) in the 10th century.

At this monastery - (Image)
A photo video of the monastery - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDGObQYEq0w
Only 12 people live in the town where the monastery is located.

Can the English, French or Germans show the exact spot where there language originated.

Location of Burgos - http://www.valesacultural.com/wp-conten ... p.bmp1.jpg

We can, actually.

Also, everything you said also goes with French as it's the first/second language of most of West Africa.
English may claim to be the lingua franca for now but she's far from having no concurrents.

[San Lumen]

So are you going to oust the Russian government and that of Uzbekistan and Eritrea and Turkmenistan and others. The later have no real opposition. Who are you going to make President or Prime Minister.

and what about not allowing someone from another country who has a dream of working for the fashion industry? You'd crush their hopes and dreams and say sorry only American or British citizens can work for us? Who cares if your talented? We don't want you because your from Iran or Algeria for example? How is that not pure nationalism and racism?

And if you think World War One was not caused in part by nationalism and Ethnocentrism I suggest you read a history book.

We don't owe people from other countries anything. They are not being treated like second class citizens, because they aren't citizens at all in the first place.
The hopes and dreams of non-citizens should be utterly irrelevant to a government, they are owed nothing. The governments primary job is to service its citizens. It is not to be a utopia unto the world.

Do you accept that Citizens have a reasonable expectation to be of greater consideration to their government than foreigners?

I never said foreigners should have greater priority but to say that no one from a certain country can enter is racism and xenophobia.
To say that my friends son should lose his job with the bank and be kicked out of the country because he's not British is pure nationalism. Your policy of fining companies for hiring foreigners is absurd and impractical. I never said that a country should create a utopia unto the world.


But if someone comes to London or New York legally and wants to work for Ted Baker or Ralph Lauren who are you to tell them they cant? Who are you to tell companies who they can and cannot hire? How is that not pure nationalism and racism? should work visa's be gotten rid of?

How is it not racism that Sadiq Khan should not be allowed to be mayor because his parents were born in Pakistan and he's a Muslim?

[Yorkers]

No. In fact, we should be repatriating as many of these troublemakers as possible.

[San Lumen]

No. In fact, we should be repatriating as many of these troublemakers as possible.

Im sorry???? all immigrants are troublemakers?

[New Werpland]

ha ha

Now tell me about that Polish fifth column in Illinois.

>He thinks its a joke

They are coming right for us. We must round up the Poles, anglicize their names and make them proper Americans. I am 110% with you on this one.

But if we do that we risk disrupting the Illipolska process of realigning the Rust Belt with Korwin-Mikke and the Visegrád Group.

/stale

[San Lumen]

>He thinks its a joke

They are coming right for us. We must round up the Poles, anglicize their names and make them proper Americans. I am 110% with you on this one.

But if we do that we risk disrupting the Illipolska process of realigning the Rust Belt with Korwin-Mikke and the Visegrád Group.

/stale

What in the world are you talking about?

[The East Marches]

>He thinks its a joke

They are coming right for us. We must round up the Poles, anglicize their names and make them proper Americans. I am 110% with you on this one.

But if we do that we risk disrupting the Illipolska process of realigning the Rust Belt with Korwin-Mikke and the Visegrád Group.

/stale

Korwin-Mikke did nothing wrong

[Yorkers]

No. In fact, we should be repatriating as many of these troublemakers as possible.

Im sorry???? all immigrants are troublemakers?

The assimilable ones of proper stock aren't, I guess.

But the ones who've been pouring in since 1965? I hold my nose.

[Yorkers]

>He thinks its a joke

They are coming right for us. We must round up the Poles, anglicize their names and make them proper Americans. I am 110% with you on this one.

But if we do that we risk disrupting the Illipolska process of realigning the Rust Belt with Korwin-Mikke and the Visegrád Group.

/stale

Rust Belt Poles?

[Frank Zipper]

Do elaborate on how exactly a market works differently. Because that all sounds like xenophobia in a false moustache to me.

I already gave you an example in that very post. China is ripping off Western intellectual property. This is political in nature.

If Communists come across the border en masse, they will seize property (which is just a construct anyway, unless you plan to give US territory back to the Native Americans) and massively interfere with market function.

If criminals come across the border en masse, it will result in increase in damage, that they aren't going to pay to fix.

And so on. If you really think it's all just this evil "xenophobia", then you are so blinded by charts and graphs that you have confused the model for the reality.

However, what you said suggests that you are a market fundamentalist, and therefore support the replacement of humanity with machines because humans are not the most economically efficient form of matter.

Everybody is ripping off everybody else's intellectual property when they can get away with it. A large proportion of every county's intelligence work is business intelligence. Companies do the same, Apple are ripping off Samsung, Microsoft rip off Apple. It is not a cultural thing, it is a universal thing, and always has been.

The rest of you post makes no sense to me whatsoever.

[Vassenor]

1: The more bullshit happens because authorities refuse to enforce some semblance of order, the more appealing this option becomes.
2: Did ve just rezort to Godvin's Law? I zhink ve did. Besides, the focus there wasn't "banning migrants from entering", in fact leaving the country you allude to became increasingly difficult for the ethnic minority you try to draw a hilariously thin connection to, really, but who am I to destroy a perfectly good reducto ad hitlerum.
3: Anecdotes aren't accepted as evidence if we post 'em, neither are they accepted when you do it.

1. Is also extremely important. Why should I, as a bisexual male living in the same country that Rotherham happened, be content with a Muslim entering this country given the stats on their views of homosexuals? No. I'd rather ban them all from coming. I cannot trust the government to protect my rights from the actions of minorities so long as the progressives hold one iota of power in institutions.
Would you oppose white people turning up to your country if you were a colony? Not much difference here. The elites import these people to keep themselves in power through divisive identity politics and racial conflict, as well as drive down wages. In the process, they also give them more rights than the natives by refusing to enforce the law on them and constantly conceding them special privileges and warping our institutions to benefit them.

They're COLONISTS. That's all. Western governments colonized the west with minorities. It's the same set up otherwise. Small middle men minority group set against the bulk of the population, race politics distracting from resource extraction, etc.
The enclaves and ghettos serve as colonies in effect too. They aren't a part of our society, they exist alongside it, to assist resource extraction. Immigrants more integrated with the society are a different matter, but most of them? yeh.

And remember.
Colonists have no right to remain.

Muslims have plenty of countries. LGBT folk, not many.

I'd personally close the ghettos and expel everyone who lives there. Those who live with mainstream society are immigrants here legally. Those in the ghettos and such, are more akin to colonists. But i'm happy to take any reform given if it gets us closer to a stable society.

Well if you're going to put it like that...

When do we remove all the Europeans from the Americas then? After all they're colonists who have no right to remain.

[The East Marches]

1. Is also extremely important. Why should I, as a bisexual male living in the same country that Rotherham happened, be content with a Muslim entering this country given the stats on their views of homosexuals? No. I'd rather ban them all from coming. I cannot trust the government to protect my rights from the actions of minorities so long as the progressives hold one iota of power in institutions.
Would you oppose white people turning up to your country if you were a colony? Not much difference here. The elites import these people to keep themselves in power through divisive identity politics and racial conflict, as well as drive down wages. In the process, they also give them more rights than the natives by refusing to enforce the law on them and constantly conceding them special privileges and warping our institutions to benefit them.

They're COLONISTS. That's all. Western governments colonized the west with minorities. It's the same set up otherwise. Small middle men minority group set against the bulk of the population, race politics distracting from resource extraction, etc.
The enclaves and ghettos serve as colonies in effect too. They aren't a part of our society, they exist alongside it, to assist resource extraction. Immigrants more integrated with the society are a different matter, but most of them? yeh.

And remember.
Colonists have no right to remain.

Muslims have plenty of countries. LGBT folk, not many.

I'd personally close the ghettos and expel everyone who lives there. Those who live with mainstream society are immigrants here legally. Those in the ghettos and such, are more akin to colonists. But i'm happy to take any reform given if it gets us closer to a stable society.

Well if you're going to put it like that...

When do we remove all the Europeans from the Americas then? After all they're colonists who have no right to remain.

Clearly you've got to worry about home first, then you can worry about other places. Don't put the cart before the horse :^)

[Dooom35796821595]

1. Is also extremely important. Why should I, as a bisexual male living in the same country that Rotherham happened, be content with a Muslim entering this country given the stats on their views of homosexuals? No. I'd rather ban them all from coming. I cannot trust the government to protect my rights from the actions of minorities so long as the progressives hold one iota of power in institutions.
Would you oppose white people turning up to your country if you were a colony? Not much difference here. The elites import these people to keep themselves in power through divisive identity politics and racial conflict, as well as drive down wages. In the process, they also give them more rights than the natives by refusing to enforce the law on them and constantly conceding them special privileges and warping our institutions to benefit them.

They're COLONISTS. That's all. Western governments colonized the west with minorities. It's the same set up otherwise. Small middle men minority group set against the bulk of the population, race politics distracting from resource extraction, etc.
The enclaves and ghettos serve as colonies in effect too. They aren't a part of our society, they exist alongside it, to assist resource extraction. Immigrants more integrated with the society are a different matter, but most of them? yeh.

And remember.
Colonists have no right to remain.

Muslims have plenty of countries. LGBT folk, not many.

I'd personally close the ghettos and expel everyone who lives there. Those who live with mainstream society are immigrants here legally. Those in the ghettos and such, are more akin to colonists. But i'm happy to take any reform given if it gets us closer to a stable society.

Well if you're going to put it like that...

When do we remove all the Europeans from the Americas then? After all they're colonists who have no right to remain.

Since when did you become an Argentinian advisor on the Falklands?

With that logic, all humanity should be deported back to west Africa.

[Bakery Hill]

Mass immigration has never been about the residents of a nation, nor even the migrants themselves. It's been about fulfilling the long term needs of capital and the short term needs of political parties.

I say we need to give more authority communities here. Plenty of emptying rural towns in Oz have benefited greatly from refugees and other migrants, their streets are vibrant again and social conflict is non-existent. Others, including districts of major cities, strained by decaying infrastructure, bad public services and little to no job prospects for locals have had migrants forced on them by the state. Things have been much harder there.

There's been stages of my life where almost near all of my friends and associates have been migrants. A degree of migration is necessary and desirable. But we need to be realistic about it, and make sure it serves the needs of the people. Neither the mainstream left or right does that now.

[Vassenor]

Well if you're going to put it like that...

When do we remove all the Europeans from the Americas then? After all they're colonists who have no right to remain.

Since when did you become an Argentinian advisor on the Falklands?

With that logic, all humanity should be deported back to west Africa.

Exactly. The idea that "we should get rid of the Muslims because they're colonists" is fundamentally flawed because that's an incredibly arbitrary distinction that can be applied to anyone anywhere.

[Ostroeuropa]

1. Is also extremely important. Why should I, as a bisexual male living in the same country that Rotherham happened, be content with a Muslim entering this country given the stats on their views of homosexuals? No. I'd rather ban them all from coming. I cannot trust the government to protect my rights from the actions of minorities so long as the progressives hold one iota of power in institutions.
Would you oppose white people turning up to your country if you were a colony? Not much difference here. The elites import these people to keep themselves in power through divisive identity politics and racial conflict, as well as drive down wages. In the process, they also give them more rights than the natives by refusing to enforce the law on them and constantly conceding them special privileges and warping our institutions to benefit them.

They're COLONISTS. That's all. Western governments colonized the west with minorities. It's the same set up otherwise. Small middle men minority group set against the bulk of the population, race politics distracting from resource extraction, etc.
The enclaves and ghettos serve as colonies in effect too. They aren't a part of our society, they exist alongside it, to assist resource extraction. Immigrants more integrated with the society are a different matter, but most of them? yeh.

And remember.
Colonists have no right to remain.

Muslims have plenty of countries. LGBT folk, not many.

I'd personally close the ghettos and expel everyone who lives there. Those who live with mainstream society are immigrants here legally. Those in the ghettos and such, are more akin to colonists. But i'm happy to take any reform given if it gets us closer to a stable society.

Well if you're going to put it like that...

When do we remove all the Europeans from the Americas then? After all they're colonists who have no right to remain.

By all means, feel free to eject europeans from native territories, where they exist. Not the united states as a whole, because that's conquered/bought land.

It's the difference between "Get out of my house." and
"You should agree to let the native americans reclaim the land where there house use to be, before you bulldozed it and built another."

The USA isn't a native american construct. It's a european one, and it controls the territory. So no, the people there aren't colonists. They're conquerors.

If it was "The united tribes of the Iroquois and Plains" or whatever and it was full to the brim with white people who just turned up one day, refused to integrate, and just swamped the native population, maybe.

It's the difference between, say, India and Australia.

India had a good reason to say all the british there should fuck off. And they did.
The aboriginees?
Eh. They got outright conquered and their society demolished. There's no aboriginal nation to eject anyone from, save some enclaves.

So apples and oranges imo.

It's like... like there's a club, right? And the club owns the land. A bunch of people joining the club to fuck over its original intent? Totally ban them, throw them out, etc.
VS
A club engages in a bidding war and acquires the land through hostile takeover. It's not YOUR club that owns the land anymore, it's theirs. It makes more sense to say the native americans should leave the USA, than to say Europeans should leave the USA.

Like, a club for fans of spaghetti. With a bunch of people who love pasta who just wont stop turning up and joining, trying to change the rules, etc. So they get thrown out, but eventually come back and acquire the venue in a hostile takeover, but not the club. Think of it like that and you'll see that europeans leaving the US isn't equivalent to what I posted.

You're confusing the land, with the entity in charge of the land.
We are not Citizens Of The Soil, we're citizens of a legal entity in charge of it. So yes, by all means, native americans have a right to expel europeans from the land they are in charge of.