Yes, immigrants are part of that "entity of the United States". The reparations are owed by that entity for not complying with a legally binding treaty.

The rule of law means that the entity states that it will comply with everything that is legally binding. As such it is responsible for paying those reparations. The way that entity raises funds is by taxation or borrowing, using itself as the collateral for the debt.

The law is objective, but morals are not. That was the line of discussion.

Morals are reasoned, which is not objective but logical, fair enough. Logically, the morality question is answered by deriving the concept of personal responsibility. As an immigrant, you agree to the responsibility inherent to a new citizenship.

Likewise, the Native Americans who controlled the land before the US likely didn't have it gifted to them freely. Tribes were constantly at various stages of war with each other, and some wiped out completely.

Do they owe reparations to each other, too? And what about the ones that are completely gone?

All of the discussion of reparations and making good on centuries-past injustices always leaves out how it all gets swept under the rug if there are no decendents around to make claims.

The ones that are completely gone have no way to make a claim. But if one tribe wants to make a claim to reparations from another they’re free to do so. It’s between them to sort that out and none of my business.

On the other hand I am a citizen of the USG and believe it should be held to its promises.

Promises are a different case, imo. If the deal was made for the land, then past injustices and reparations are irrelevant.

> The ones that are completely gone have no way to make a claim.

I could have been more clear, but I was trying to imply that we should remember that it's the lesser injustices that have claimants. The greater injustices would have none.

In fact, it raises an interesting question. Suppose that early American settlers genuinely just conquered the whole land, provided no reservations, made no special deals, and expected / enforced all remaining Native Americans to submit to the laws of the land. You know, like virtually every other conquering of a territory throughout history.

Would we look on those actions less favorably than the actions that were actually taken? Or would we just write it off morally as "every place was ultimately taken by force by someone at some point" and it be a non-issue, despite it being a much greater injustice?

It is a part of the system the immigrants are choosing to join when they arrive in a new country. You don’t get to choose only the good parts.