THE ESSEX FILES: Elite Activism Rings Hollow - Pop Star's 'Stolen Land' Lecture Meets Her Real Estate

Billie Eilish went to the Grammys to accept an award and decided to deliver a lecture on immigration and American history instead. She told millions of viewers that “No one is illegal on stolen land,” repeated familiar activist slogans, and wore an “ICE Out” pin while denouncing immigration enforcement from one of the most exclusive stages in the country. Within hours, the internet noticed something she did not mention on stage: The wealthy pop star condemning “stolen land” also owns multimillion-dollar homes in Los Angeles.

 Critics pointed out that Eilish has an equestrian ranch in Glendale purchased for about 2.3 million dollars and a family property in Highland Park valued at around 800,000 dollars, along with reports of a much larger mansion now worth well into eight figures. If America is irredeemably stolen, and if property in places once inhabited by Native tribes is illegitimate, it is fair to ask whether that moral logic extends to her own front door. Instead of answering that question, celebrity activism tends to stop right where personal comfort begins. 

The “stolen land” framing has also taken on a mythic quality that flattens history in the service of politics. The first peoples in the Americas did not appear out of thin air and plant permanent moral title forever. They migrated, moved, and fought over territory just like every other human population. The most widely accepted theory in mainstream scholarship is that early populations came here over what is known as the Bering land bridge, crossing from Asia into what is now Alaska during the last Ice Age before dispersing south over thousands of years. Populations rose and fell, tribes expanded and retreated, and borders shifted long before the United States existed. 

That history does not excuse injustice against Native Americans, but it does undermine the absolutist claim that one group owns the moral rights to a continent for all time. The story of every nation is one of migration, conflict, settlement, and law. The United States is no different. What is different is that we built a constitutional system that can correct wrongs, expand rights, and welcome new citizens under clear rules. Calling the entire country “stolen land” and declaring “No one is illegal” is not an argument. It is repeating slogans meant to shut down any serious conversation about borders, sovereignty, or citizenship.

---

ALSO SEE: The 'Stolen Land' Argument Has Reared Up Again, and It Still Makes No Sense

The Nation Needs an Inoculation Against the Outbreak of Viral Idiocy Spread by the Cultural Elites

---

Eilish and other artists are free to oppose Immigration and Customs Enforcement. At this year’s Grammys, performers like Bad Bunny and Kehlani also used their time on stage to talk about enforcement and immigrant rights. But when celebrities attack the basic legitimacy of immigration law while living behind gates and private security, they are not standing with the vulnerable. They are signaling to their peers. It costs them nothing, and it does not solve anything for the people who came here legally, followed the rules, and now watch elites suggest that rules themselves are somehow immoral. 

There are real debates to be had about how ICE operates, how to handle violent offenders, how to process asylum claims, and how to prevent tragedies like the recent Minnesota shootings involving federal agents that Eilish referenced in her online posts. Those questions deserve serious attention. They will not be answered by musicians turning awards shows into rallies built on historical shortcuts and moral one-liners. 

A stable country cannot function on the idea that laws are optional if a hashtag says so. Borders either mean something or they do not. Property rights either apply to everyone or they collapse into a contest over who can claim historic victimhood most loudly. If Eilish truly believes no person is illegal and that the land itself is fundamentally stolen, she is welcome to demonstrate that conviction by changing her own arrangements. Until then, Americans are right to treat her lecture as one more performance, not a serious guide for policy.