4 ms·
I believe the right approach is for the US to apply for squatter’s rights. The land was not otherwise in use, and the US has been occupying it for years.
by GauntletWizard 6y ago
I believe the right approach is for the US to apply for squatter’s rights. The land was not otherwise in use, and the US has been occupying it for years.
- anonAndOn 6y agoIsn't that like trying to apply squatter's rights on a piece of Canada or Mexico? AFAIK, Apache land is sovereign and only managed (not owned) by the US.
- dragonwriter 6y agoIt is “owned” (in the sovereign, not title-holding, sense) by the US as well, which is a superior sovereign, but the Apache role in that land can only be diminished by Congress, not the executive.
- staplers 6y agoThe land was not otherwise in use If by "not otherwise in use" you mean not directly creating profit for US businesses then sure. A lot of things "use" the Earth that aren't human.