“My point was primarily (not entirely) about “who’s living there now, and how do they vote, plebiscite-wise?”
Another very poor example. As per, China invading Tibet. Relocating its citizens throughout China and moving Chineese in to Tibet. Destroy the culture but hey, they now have the vote.
And though the Chi-coms claim Tibet to historically being part of China, that too is B.S.
I think the point about plebiscites being meaningless is correct where the occupier indeed strictly limits who can live in the territory. I don’t know the degree to which that’s true of the Falklands, but it is probably substantial (particularly since 1982!).
China invading Tibet, however, is a “another very poor example,” to use your terms, of why plebiscites aren’t a good measure. Tibet was inhabited when China invaded it. The Falklands were uninhabited when the British arrived; they didn’t kick out any “native Malivinians.”
Anyhoo, I’ve cluttered my main point with some bad examples, but it remains that Argentina’s claim on the Falklands is weak compared to that of the UK — unless we are going to revert to a standard of “if it’s closer to your continent, then your claim is better.”