In earlier times, conquests were a common phenomenon. So it is reasonable to assume that most inhabited territories in the world are conquered lands—that is, the current ruling government conquered, in the past, another people that was born in that territory. Since that is so, I am asking whether it is forbidden to live in such a place because one is benefiting from theft. After all, I did not receive a “visa” from the natives, who are the true owners of the place. What do you think?

First, over the overwhelming majority of territories there is no claim. And even when there is, there is no evidence. And even when there is, you have to distinguish between sovereignty and ownership.

What about “honor what is acquired”?
Ammon and Moab were purified through Sihon.

Homo sapiens invented for itself “natural ownership” of territories,
mainly by force of arms.
Homo sapiens invented for itself “natural ownership” of territories,
mainly through mutual killing—that is, war—that is, entirely by force.

The same mouth that forbade is the mouth that defines.

Michi, 1. There are potential claimants, it’s just that they either do not know it, or they know they will not be given the land. In such a case, is there no halakhic or moral problem with using stolen property?
2. Come on. We know for certain that Asia, for example, was conquered. These are not the same natives from ancient times. Therefore they do not have the legitimacy to give me a visa.
3. I’m not asking about ownership; I’m asking about sovereignty. Every state has the right to decide which residents may live within its borders and which may not. Why can’t the original native government prevent me from this?

All right, I’m done. I’m trying to waste my time on more interesting and relevant questions.

You can argue about whether it’s interesting (by the way, it connects to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), but it is certainly relevant to everyone’s life.