How did Andrew Jackson attempt to argue that "Indian Removal" was in the Native Americans' best interest, and how might opponents of this policy respond to this?

Andrew Jackson believed that the Indians should not have the same rights as United States citizens and observed that States had already established jurisdiction over lands that previously belonged to the Indians. According to him, Indians were non-citizen subjects with rights that were subject to overriding interests of the settlers and the State governments. Thus, he expected them to yield to these interests lest they suffer the consequences of resisting.
Jackson supported removal because the continued settlement of the Indians within State borders was bound to create conflicts, as the Indians had their own governments, which could not coexist with the State governments. The situation would threaten security and stability of entire regions, and it was also unconstitutional because the Indians would be establishing a foreign and independent government within the States’ jurisdiction.
In order to avoid the impending conflicts and to supposedly guarantee Indian peace, happiness, prosperity, Jackson supported the removal of Indians from jurisdictions considered to be in the United States.
Those against removal argued against Jackson’s assertions that the Indians were an impediment to civilization or a threat to security. They stated that the Indians had established a country that they lived in for hundreds of years and it was morally wrong to displace them. They argued for integration of the different communities because displacement was unsustainable and eventually the different groups would have to coexist.
https://guides.loc.gov/indian-removal-act

https://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=masters_theses