Nope.

I can rank it, but it would depend on the context and the evidence involved.

I used to work professional in land policy. Land ownership is ultimately about the legal system and who posses the 'deed' to the land. Governments are the ones who control this ultimately. They can create, take, and steal land via the law. And different government define land and the rights to land, differently. In China you can't own land, you only lease it. In America, you own the land and everything underneath it to the earth's core. Other countries have different laws and definitions.

Proof of theft requires proof of previous ownership, as a starting point. To prove that land was stolen you'd have to prove original ownership, and the series of events that lead to it's loss of ownership and their illegality or illegitimacy. the further back you go the messier it gets. land records from the past 50 years are quite clear. land records from 200+ years ago, not so much. It's basically impossible to prove any of it if say, the town or municipality in dispute, had it's records destroyed in a fire or somesuch, perhaps even maliciously.

Plenty of Europeans have land-conflicts that go back centuries and involve murder. There are also conflicts amongst indigenous people's over land right and land use and tribal recognition. It's vastly more complex than 'hey white people give us our land back because your ancestors stole it from our ancestors'. My ancestors arrived in America in the 1910/20s, personally, and never left the area of the original 16th century colonies, many of which were established with peaceful agreements of the natives and were not stolen at all.

Oh and there are also all sorts of laws about default ownership. My sister owns a home where their neighbor build a fence about 2 feet into their property line. If my sister doesn't force the neighbor to move the fence 2 feet back, then in 10 years legally, their neighbor now owns the land. Is that theft? Legally, it isn't. She can ask the neighbor to move it, and he hasn't. She has to now threaten to sue them and have the courts legally force the neighbor to move the fence. If he can legally drag it on for 8 more years, he gets the land. The law involved in is a state law. It doesn't apply in my state. My state requires neighbors to co-own fences along property lines, which hers doesn't. Hence why their neighbor built this fence without properly surveying and realizing it wasn't on his property.

The general term of this is 'adverse possession' and also applies to squatters and other things. In my state if you squat on someone else's land for 20 years, you own it. The owner also evict you other than via the legal system. If some bum moves into my cabin, I can't change the locks on it to keep him out either. I have to go get a court order to evict him.

Well yeah that too. Indigenous people didn't have to pay anyone to live anywhere either.

Sure: it's a good idea to improve diversity. Can't think of any reasons not to.

I do think that corporations get it wrong, and it doesn't make sense to pick a less qualified candidate just to meet some arbitrary requirements.

I mean now they can literally buy a Trump gold visa or whatever.