0
0

[–] 21456718? [S] ago 

it would likely include some Africans whose ancestors originally landed in the Caribbean or South America.

Most, if not all, of these would have only come to the USA in the last 50 years or so, so there would be records.

reparation burden would 100% fall on United States taxpayers

Actually, what I'm suggesting is, if we give land reparations, it doesn't really cost us anything

0
0

[–] 21457221? ago 

Source for most immigration occurring in the last 50 years? If you're going to make that claim, you gotta produce the sauce.

In regards to the cost: Land has value even if you don't personally value the land you're proposing we give away. Future value can be unpredictable, who knows what resources we discover in the future.

Look, your idea isn't necessarily a bad idea, but why should we, the American taxpayer, be responsible for funding (regardless of how big or small an investment) something that we're not directly responsible for? In my opinion, if the burden of reparations apply to anyone it should be those that directly received benefit from African slavery in the United States, not the taxpayers or the United States as a whole.

That's my personal issue with paying anything out, even if it 'doesn't really cost us anything':

1) There's no way to ensure that only the descendants of the 388,000 United States African slaves receive direct benefit.

2) There's no way to accurately impose fines on those that specifically and directly received benefit from African slavery in the United States.

3) There's no way to ascertain an accurate value to be paid for damages.

I get what you're saying, but there's no logical basis for reparations which may sound harsh but it's the truth. So why pay out anything? Alaska could be beach front property one day... You never know.