How Can Statements Like That of Billie Eilish Be Proven Dangerous?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the need for public education systems to teach correct history. For individuals to love their country, they must be taught the good parts of history, particularly in the younger grades. Older students can be taught the good, the bad, and the ugly parts of America’s history.

One example of incorrect teaching took place at this year’s Grammy Awards when pop artist Billie Eilish made her statement that “no one is illegal on stolen land.” A previous essay discussed the obvious things wrong with the statement: 

“no one is illegal” would mean that “immigration laws have no moral authority,” so we should just allow anyone and everyone into our nation.

“on stolen land” would mean returning the land to its original inhabitants: “Let’s give the Southwest back to Mexico, then back to Spain, then back to the Aztecs, and then back to the people the Aztecs slew and enslaved. Let’s give the Northeast back to the Iroquois, and then back to the Native Americans the Iroquois slew and replaced. Let’s give Florida back to the Seminoles, and then back to the people the Seminoles slew and replaced.”

The statement by Billie Eilish may become a “gift that keeps on giving” for conservatives because there are so many different ways that the message can be attacked. Paul Runko, senior director of Strategic Initiatives, K-12 Programs for Defending Education, criticized the statement from the education angle. Runko shared his thoughts about Eilish’s statement in an article published at The Daily Signal. 

This comment echoed two familiar positions of modern, progressive left-wing ideology: first, that the United States should allow unrestricted immigration and, second, that Americans are living on land illegitimately taken from Native Americans.

While it may be tempting to dismiss such rhetoric as another example of celebrity activism at an awards show, doing so would miss a more troubling reality. The idea that America is fundamentally “stolen land” is not confined to award show stages, it has become increasingly embedded into the schools that teach America’s children.

In 2024, Defending Education released a report revealing that 155 school districts, representing more than 2.7 million students, have adopted so-called land acknowledgements.

These are formal statements intended to recognize Indigenous or Native peoples as the original inhabitants or stewards of the land a school district, staff, and students occupy.

On the surface, land acknowledgments may appear benign or even respectful.

In practice, however, they function as a form of virtue signaling by institutions and leadership. Students are often asked or told to recite these statements, seeding the belief in young students’ minds that they occupy “stolen land” that is morally illegitimate and does not rightfully belong to the United States, but to Indigenous tribes.

Consider the land acknowledgment used by Frances C. Richmond Middle School in Hanover, New Hampshire: “We, the RMS community, would like to acknowledge that our school is built upon the unceded land of the Abenaki and Pennacook people. The land was stolen.”

For a young student, this is not a neutral historical observation. Imagine hearing this as an elementary or middle school student. What conclusions are they expected to draw about their families, their neighbors, or their town?

Rather than learning history, students are pushed toward a moral judgment that their community, their country, and even their family bear collective guilt simply for existing where they do.

For a child who trusts the public school system to teach facts, not an ideologically skewed version of the past, this can be deeply troubling. Instead of fostering civic understanding, these statements frame American history primarily through grievance and condemnation.

This messaging is not limited to land acknowledgments alone.

Another example comes from District of Columbia Public Schools that in 2021 sent a message to families ahead of Thanksgiving encouraging them to “Decolonize your Thanksgiving” by not “sugarcoat[ing] the past.”

They advised parent[s] to use terms like “genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” “stolen land,” and “forced removal” when discussing the American history of the holiday.

While older students should be exposed to both the proud and the dark side of our nation’s history, language such as “stolen land” means schools have replaced education with ideological indoctrination.

The messaging extends beyond words to art and images in classrooms as well.

In one Los Angeles Unified School District high school, a poster was displayed reading, “Make Israel Palestine again and Make Amerikkka Turtle Island Again.”

Such imagery does not invite critical thinking or intellectual diversity to play out. It asserts, as fact, that nations such as the United States and Israel are illegitimate occupiers whose existence should be undone.

A student exposed to these messages repeatedly could reasonably conclude that the United States has no rightful claim to its own territory. Over time, this worldview cements students’ belief in a far-left orthodoxy where law enforcement, people who express traditional views, and eve our fundamental and treasured American institutions can no longer be allowed to exist.

Parents and other adults should understand that the words spoken by Eilish are not just the words of a pop artist receiving an award. “… they are not isolated or inconsequential.” In fact, “They reflect a broader ideological worldview that has overtaken public education….” They are part of the vast number of people and organizations who are striving to overthrow the government of the United States.

What Is Meant by the Message Put Forth by Leftists?

The topic of discussion for this Freedom Friday concerns the message put forth by the Left. Their message is often inane and not worthy of comment. Sometimes their message is downright stupid. The comment by singer-songwriter Billie Eilish at the Grammy’s last Sunday is one of the more stupid ones, a message about which she probably did not think too seriously.

In his article published at The Daily Signal, Tyler O’Neil, senior editor, explained why Eilish’s “statement ‘no one is illegal on stolen land’ perfectly captures at least one inherent contradiction in the Left’s victimhood world view.” He claims that her statement “highlights what the ‘immigration’ debate is really about.” 

Activists who oppose the enforcement of immigration law often condemn the idea that any alien should be considered “illegal,” regardless of whether they came to America in accordance with our laws. They seek to remove any moral legitimacy from limits on immigration, suggesting that all immigration is permissible.

Yet leftists also claim that the United States was built on iniquity – that America broke its treaties with Native American tribes and effectively stole the land from them. While the U.S. does have a complicated history of land acquisition, this argument conveniently ignores the archeological record, which suggests that the Native Americans we often  refer to as “Indigenous” also took the land by force.

The “stolen land” motif isn’t really about tracing the history of which tribe “originally” owned the land – it’s more about propping up the victimhood status of the Left’s preferred constituencies….

‘No One Is Illegal’

To illustrate the point, let’s just accept one half of Eilish’s statement as true for a moment.

Let’s say “no one is illegal” in the way immigration activists mean it. Immigration law has no moral authority, so let’s open the borders and allow anyone to come here, regardless of their intent. We’d allow immigrants who want to honor our country by following the law, and those who do not follow the law. We’ll allow immigrants who intend to work hard and assimilate, and also immigrants who intend to lie, cheat, and steal. We’ll allow model citizens who face oppression in their home countries and we’ll allow terrorists and spies from America’s adversaries.

If no one is illegal, let them all come….

‘On Stolen Land’

Now, let’s take the second half of the statement seriously.

The United States was built on “stolen land,” so let’s return it to its original inhabitants. Let’s give the Southwest back to Mexico, then back to Span, then back to the Aztecs, and then back to the people the Aztecs slew and enslaved. Let’s give the Northeast back to the Iroquois, and then back to the Native Americans the Iroquois slew and replaced. Let’s give Florida back to the Seminoles, and then back to the people the Seminoles slew and replaced.

Let’s remove all the ostensibly evil “invaders” who “stole land.” Perhaps we should even remove all the human beings who settled North America in the first place and return it to the mammoths, or the dinosaurs, or the amoebas. How do we determine who the rightful “Indigenous” people are?

At this point, the inherent contradiction should be obvious. Any human settlement in the land now referred to as the United States could be considered “immigration,” and any immigration that involves taking ownership of the land could be considered “theft.”

Either the land has been stolen, or no one is illegal on it. You can’t have it both ways.

What’s the Answer?

Ultimately, you have to draw a line somewhere, and I think it’s quite reasonable to draw the line at the sovereignty of the United States of America.

America is not without its sins, but our Constitution [is] arguably set up as just a system of representative government as is possible on Earth. We can hold our leaders accountable at the ballot box. We enjoy a legal and economic system that rewards creativity and invention, which help produce wealth for everyone. We enjoy a broad swath of fundamental rights.

Our system is imperfect, but it is far more just than the Left would have us believe.

The same is true of immigration law. While the Left is throwing a fit about President Donald Trump’s attempts to deport illegal aliens, we shouldn’t forget that the U.S. has a comparatively welcoming immigration system.

The United States wants to welcome immigrants, but we want immigrants who will follow our laws, and we want to protect our sovereignty as a nation….

The United States has an interest in preventing terrorists, criminals, or agents of foreign powers form settling in our country….

But, if we understand what the Left means in combining [the two ideas spoken by Eilish], the message is obvious: “I hate the United States and reject its right to be a sovereign nation.”

O’Neil stated that he protests that final statement, and most Americans would agree with him. We do not need anyone living in the United States who hates America, and we certainly have the right to be a sovereign nation. Numerous commentators are calling the so-called protesters in Minnesota “communists.” If they really are communists and/or working for foreign interests, their true goal is to overthrow the government of the United States. Why would any sane person support that message?