It's a fairly simple question. The Falkland Islands, a small group os islands off the coast of South America, belong to Britain and inhabitated by British people. Back in the old day, it was claimed by a few empires, with the dispute between Britain and Spain being the most prominent one. After Argentina declared independence, they put a claim on the island based on the idea of them having gained its ownership from Spain's former ownership of it. In 1833, the British responded by sending a taskforce to reassert their sovereignty over the islands. British sovreugnity would continue on the island until the Falklands War, in which the Argentinian dictatorship tried invading the islands to gain support. They captured them, but the British took them back again, and the British sovreignity continued.
In the modern day. Argentina still claims them. But who should the islands belong to?
In my opinion, the islands should remain British. The people there have overwhelmingly voiced their support for British rule, and I believe that their right to self-determination should be respected. I personally don't care about the legal arguments for ownership, for in my opinion, the wellbeing of the people is more important. There's no reason for Argentina to snatch the islanders away from their home country just because they used to own them, if that was was a valid reason, then a lot of land would need to change owner.
Some people argue that the right of self-determination doesn't matter here because they were descended from settlers, but I don't see why that matters. Studies show that no native Americans lived on the islands, and when the British took control of the islands, no one was kicked off of them. Some islanders have had their families living there for 8 or 9 generations, so the whole "settler" argument really depends on how long it takes for a group of people to be accepted as the "true natives", and for that, there is no objectively true answer.
