The article goes down a deep rabbit hole on the idea of returning land to the original indigenous owners. It’s interesting, but then what? Eilish’s point was apparently missed as the article drifts. When the land is not returned (for whatever reason), there is a problem with bullying immigrants on the stolen land. Particularly when some of the “immigrants” are descendants of the original indigenous owners, which is the most perverse case the article neglects.
My history knowledge on this is a bit spotty and sparse but IIRC California (or part of it) was originally part of Mexico. Perhaps Texas as well.