What I am saying is that if we call WSR thieves, we must also call Benshengren thieves. Their deed to the island is as valid (or invalid) as that of the Waishengren population. What about the Aboriginal people? Why do we see hysteric old men from Tainan in front of the Presidential Office yelling “Dai ouan! Dai ouan!” who think they own this island yet Aboriginals are marginalized as drunk Disneyland attractions? “Oh she is aboriginal, she is very dark but her voice is so good!! I also heard they hunt boars and all have crazy sex in the mountains”.
Funny how easily bigotry falls from your lips even if you are pretending to paraphrase.
In any case, you are wrong again. The bsr are not called thieves as they came to Taiwan largely legally according to conventions at the time. First the Dutch, rightful rulers at the time (at least by the standards of the day) brought over tens of thousands and later many came over as legal immigrants (such as the group that settled Wahua after petitioning the emperor).
Even those who came over illegally still had to purchase land according to laws and customs at the time. Aboriginal land rights were largely upheld throughout most of the Qing era, and land deeds representing purchase of land from aboriginal groups are easily found. Of course there was theft, but largely things went in accordance with customs and laws at the time.
Contrast this with the carpetbagging of the KMT after 1945. It was not the law of the ROC that one can arrogate oneself into a position simply because one had the power to, nor that one could legally confiscate a business or property.
So no, bsr and wsr acquisition of land and property were largely not the same.
You are missing the point. Presidential tone matters, as does the fundamental assumptions the ruling party makes. Both CSB and Ma have the ROC constitution with respect to cross-strait relations but they have interpreted it wildly differently.
Or to give an analogy regarding immigration, both Republicans and Democrats have to follow the laws and constitution but there is a difference in policies (more at state level) that result from one party thinking America is a white Christian nation and the other a multi-ethnic entity.
When Ma stands up and claims Taiwan is a Han nation, disregarding the 2% aboriginals, the hundreds of thousands of SE Asian women and their kids, then that means something. I don’t think it’s sane to dismiss it as irrelevant because the law still allows white guys to become ROC citizens.