@Lee-Camp
In case you have a lawyer as a guest. Just an observation as a non-lawyer.
Can the Greenland Argument Legally Unmake the United States
The Trump administration’s legal argument for taking Greenland does not just target Denmark.
It quietly threatens the legal foundation that allows the United States to exist at all.
That is not moral alarmism. It is a problem of doctrine.
In 2025–2026, President Donald Trump dismissed Denmark’s claim to Greenland by arguing that historical presence—“five hundred years ago”—does not establish ownership. His appointed Greenland envoy, Jeff Landry, sharpened the claim further, describing Denmark’s governance as an illegal occupation that voids Danish sovereignty altogether.
This is not merely aggressive diplomacy.
It is a foundationally self-destructive legal claim.
Because legal arguments do not stay where they are aimed.
⸻
Why This Is Not Just Another American Atrocity
The United States has survived extraordinary moral crimes without collapsing its legal continuity.
Slavery.
Indian removal.
Reservations.
Segregation.
Each inflicted enormous harm. None required the state to abandon the doctrines that stabilized its territorial legitimacy. The violence was internal; the framework held.
That framework rests on a small set of unsentimental principles:
• Uti possidetis juris — borders harden through continuity at moments of transition.
• Doctrine of discovery / terra nullius — colonial acquisition converts force into title.
• Non-retroactivity — foundational violence is not endlessly re-litigated.
• Continuity of administration — time stabilizes sovereignty.
These doctrines are not ethical achievements.
They are containment mechanisms.
The Trump–Landry Greenland argument attacks them directly.
⸻
What the Administration Is Actually Asserting
Stripped of rhetoric, the claim being advanced is simple:
• Long historical presence does not establish ownership.
• Governance framed as “occupation” invalidates sovereignty.
• Administrative continuity is insufficient to legitimate control.
If this logic holds even once—before a court, an arbitration panel, or an international body—it does not stop at Greenland.
It cannot.
⸻
Why This Is Reckless for a Settler State
The United States is a settler-colonial state. That is a historical description, not an insult.
Its legitimacy depends on doctrines it now appears willing to discard:
• that time converts conquest into legality,
• that borders stabilize through continuity,
• that sovereignty does not need to be re-earned every generation.
When Jeff Landry calls Denmark an occupier, he invokes a concept that applies with far greater force to the United States itself.
When Donald Trump argues that historical arrival does not establish ownership, he does not dismantle colonialism. He dismantles the legal fiction that shields settler states from permanent instability.
You do not get to selectively invalidate settler colonialism.
Either it counts—or everything reopens.
⸻
How Precedent Migrates
This is not speculative. Legal doctrine travels.
• Johnson v. M’Intosh (1823) embedded the doctrine of discovery into U.S. property law.
• The Insular Cases converted overseas colonial governance into a domestic framework for unequal constitutional rights.
• National-security exceptionalism, developed abroad, migrated inward through surveillance and policing regimes.
• McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) showed the reverse: ignored treaty law resurfacing when continuity—not convenience—was finally honored.
Law does not respect geographic containment.
Once articulated, doctrine becomes available.
⸻
The International Law Problem the U.S. Is Inviting
Occupation is not a casual word in international law.
It lives in:
• self-determination doctrine under the UN Charter,
• ICJ jurisprudence, including the Western Sahara Advisory Opinion,
• and UNDRIP, which affirms Indigenous peoples’ rights to land, continuity, and governance.
If the United States argues that occupation delegitimizes sovereignty abroad, it aligns itself—intentionally or not—with frameworks it has historically resisted when applied inward.
That alignment is not symbolic.
It is actionable.
⸻
What This Opens for Indigenous Land Claims
If the Greenland logic is accepted:
• Occupation becomes grounds for contesting sovereignty.
• Historical settlement ceases to be dispositive.
• Administrative continuity weakens as a shield.
Indigenous nations would not be inventing a new theory.
They would be applying a doctrine articulated by the U.S. government itself.
That is not reinterpretation.
It is a direct doctrinal extension.
⸻
The Question That Remains
This is not about outrage. It is about consequence.
If the logic now used to challenge Denmark takes root, how long before it is turned inward—against the very settler states that once relied on it for survival?
That is the question the Trump administration has opened.
And precedent, once opened, does not close quietly.