I know this is supposed to be a gotcha, but I would suggest the burden is on the thief to justify why a documented theft should stand. Put it in writing. Codify

I know this is supposed to be a gotcha, but I would suggest the burden is on the thief to justify why a documented theft should stand. Put it in writing. Codify it into law. How long does one need to hold stolen property before it conveys under the law? Was this a one-time allowable theft? Was it only allowable to steal from certain people during the applicable time? During what time period? How do we define precisely who it was acceptable to steal from? We live in a legal regime where it's not even permissible to take sunken treasure that's near countries, even after centuries at sea. But somehow land stolen from indigenous people and Black people more recently is somehow unrecoverable? We need to at least write down in our laws the rationale for this. More immediately pertinent: why were these thefts substantially different from those the Supreme Court ruled against in Oklahoma? If we're not willing to at least do that much, yeah we should just give it back. The alternative is choosing lawlessness, which is not something we are bound to do. We don't have to worry about converting to dollars because we can just return title to the land itself. The Supreme Court did the same this year in Oklahoma, so it wouldn't even be unprecedented. https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-court-oklahoma/us-supreme-court-deems-half-of-oklahoma-a-native-american-reservation-idUSKBN24A2BE https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-court-oklahoma/us-suprem...