The question here I'd like to ask is: When is it ok for a country to say stop/enough?
Sweden has about 10 million people (give or take), and 100,000 immigrants is a lot of people. At some stage you have to look at the situation and ask two questions
On the first point, it's just that Sweden is a functional society because there is some sort of equal input as output on the country's finances (high taxes pays for the level of social stability). Once the money for the high level of standards and infrastructure gets too expensive, will not that society slowly corrode over time?
Syria is very in-the-face right now, but why are they so special? How come we are not also allowing all the other countries to just come and skip all the steps of development? Sure ISIS is a horrible thing to have in your country, but are the people suffering 'more' than the Somalis, afghans, Pakistanis, Yemen, south Sudanese, Guineans, north Koreans, the list goes on.
And that's kind of the point, isn't it? There has arguably never been as much or many of a crisis as it is today since WWII, and at what stage do you realize that all the aid, all the support, and all the meddling that has been done since the 60's isn't helping. These challenged countries are growing in needs, and more and more conflicts are popping up, and regardless of what aid is given, nothing seems to slow it down.
I would like to think of myself as a humanitarian, but at some stage I also have to look at what the possibilities of "saving" these places are, and if the cost of trying is actually corroding the countries that are trying to help them.