Maybe try Antarctica as an example? There are a few people there, and it seems quite possible to settle without conflict (assuming some treaty alterations). Some atoll no one uses all the time? Maybe a lost cause, bloodfart doesn't seem all that interested in the good faith distinction you are pointing out.
I see your point though; the distinction, to me, motivates using less neutrally connoted wording. Something like "invaders" or "raiders". Nice and clear to everyone.
B seems rather intent on making sure the neutral word is seen as a morally charged one. Seems like making one hard project into two projects and thus just increasing the difficulty to me.
Don't know about him, but the example I try to plant in people's minds is that early in his presidency, he wanted money for a wall, democrats wanted "dreamers" to get citizenship (and every state has infrastructure projects they want). Seemed like great deal making ground to me. I was prepared at the time to be wrong about him and waited to see anything come out along the lines of a bargain. But he proved unable to do it.