You are incorrect.
Until after World War II the concept of mass deportation was a political and diplomatic tool used often employed and was considered quite humane.
The term used was population transfer.
Diplomats considered that it was better to resettle a restive population in another area rather than allow it to remain in an geographic area that being annexed by conquest or political settlement by another power.
If you want to read more about this, I suggest PARIS, 1919 by Margaret Macmillian, a book which details the machinations that led to the Versailles Treaty that ended WWI.
In fact, problems arose when population transfer was difficult or impossible, as in the case of the Sudetenland or in the Balkans.
And I do not confuse "rights" with "power". "Rights", however natural, do not exist in a vacuum. "Rights" are not self-enforcing, nor can they exist in a state of anarchy.
"Rights" depend for their existence on the protection of the state. For this reason we have a Bill of Rights attached to the Constitution, the political document that established the government (the state) under which we live in this country.
Property rights are rights as real and valid as the right to speak or worship. In fact, I believe property rights are the essential element that separates a free state from a tyrannical one.
Power is a more subtle concept and too long to be detailed here. However, it can be one of raw force, a who-whom relationship when the a police officer arrests a criminal. Power can be a voluntary action, as when one submits willingly to the orders of a superior officer in the military.
Or power can spring from an elective decision, as when the cardinals submit to the authority of a brother they have just elected pope.
Until after World War II the concept of mass deportation was a political and diplomatic tool used often employed and was considered quite humane. The term used was population transfer.
Diplomats considered that it was better to resettle a restive population in another area rather than allow it to remain in an geographic area that being annexed by conquest or political settlement by another power.
I'm sorry. People like you are simply totally evil. "Population Trasnfer" or whatever other bland name you want to give to it, is an enormous crime against humanity.
Perhaps instead of annexing by conquest, we could expect that minorities would be left in peace in their mother countries, or given a semi-autonomous status if in a multi-ethnic state.
It is only when we begin to constrict freedom and deny people the right to be who they are, live as they wish, and speak and worship as they are wont, that the "problems" "requiring" "Population Transfer" surface and make it a "necessity".
Civilized people recognize the travesties carried out in Acadia, Posen, West Prussia, Silesia, Trabizond, Smyrna, Cilicia, Transylvania, East Prussia, Pommerania, Sudetenland, Slovakia, Galacia, Kalmykia, Crimea, Banat, Bosnia, Kosovo, and numerous other places as barbarism and a descent to evil.
Rights", however natural, do not exist in a vacuum. "Rights" are not self-enforcing, nor can they exist in a state of anarchy.
Then you must believe rights come to us at the sufferance of the government, rather than being self-evident, self-existant, and naturally ours from God. The existence of a Government is not necessary for my rights as a human to exist. They are mine by reason of my existence, and I don't need a government to defend them, since another of my rights is to self-defense.