You've disproved the theory of evolution? If so, I highly recommend you publish your work, I can guarantee a Nobel prize.
You're going to have to accept the reality of human biodiversity sooner or later. Either that or stay in a regressive intellectual sphere that refuses to acknowledge reality. Pretty much every anti-race realism video on Youtube has been debunked; Kraut and Tea and his gang of scientists have pretty much been annihilated and sent into shell shock in their efforts to disprove it to fight the "alt-right", centrists like Sargon and Leftists like Sam Harris acknowledge it, the blank slate theory pretty much has no validity and is only held in place by ideology. The Australian Aborigines have superior eyesight, the Ethiopians have superior long-distance running ability, Whites are better at Swimming, in a majority White America black boxers reigned supreme; I don't think you deny meaningful physical differences between the races, but you're someone riding on this theory that the brain is somehow completely independent of genes and the forces of evolution which leads to the success of certain genes in procreating due to traits that the are beneficial in a certain environment. Yet it's clear that if you use logic, the brain is not independent of the nature of reality. Guns, Germs and Steel is useful in that it correctly asserts that different environments are conducive to different levels of human civilisation; the conclusion however that we can derive from this, is not that there isn't a difference in cognitive abilities between the races, but that the different environments which were conducive to higher levels of civilisation and human development in turn produced a greater evolutionary selection of cognitive traits, as opposed to physical traits. The brain takes a disproportionately large amount of resources to sustain, it's very heavy, and generally a hindrance when you're sprinting across the plains of Africa trying to throw spears at wild animals. However, taking part in a complex agrarian society, intelligence and the ability to plan ahead is very useful. And if you look at all the evidence, of which there is an abundance, it supports the hypothesis that cognitive abilities differ across the races as much as physical and physiological characteristics do.
We all know what type of immigrants I'm talking about when I us the word immigrants. I'm not talking about middle-class whites from the UK, I'm talking about those coming from Syria and third world nations. The necessity for immigration for the economy is largely overstated; it's useful to have a movement of skilled labour, however large influxes of people from countries of vastly different culture and race are not beneficial for the native populace. It's just a product of a spendthrift state trying to expand its tax base to pay for to pay for it's unsustainable amount of spending.
And you're dead wrong on your immigration analysis. The funny thing is is that most immigrants commit less crime than natives, while their children commit more crime and regress towards the racial mean. I think the difference between European immigration and immigration say, to the US, is that the US has a better culture of integrating immigrants, while places like Sweden are synonymous with a parent spoiling their child with entitlements and privileges. If you were actually primarily concerned with helping the refugees for humanitarian reasons, you'd support the relocation of people in countries near the middle east, where not only is it vastly cheaper to pay for, but where the immigrants won't be forced into a completely different culture and society in which they will never properly fit in.
Also, tell me how a native Swede, who lives in a migrant areas, is a journalist with his own newspaper and regular documents crime is somehow not a good source. Most Swedes, especially those who advocate more for immigration live in racially homogenous upper class communities.