Sweden has had extraordinarily generous asylum seeker policies in recent decades, and pretty much let anyone one who asked nicely (poor old Sweden is currently backpedalling from this policy with some speed).
One consequence is that Sweden has had to slash its foreign aid, because they can no longer afford it--they are spending so much money trying to take care of people within Sweden.
Developed countries like Sweden have far higher costs of living (housing, food etc.) than developing countries, meaning that a million dollars worth of funds will purchase a fraction of the amount of food and housing that it would have purchased if you had spend the money helping the same people in their own (developing) country.
And the people who tend to make it to a developed country are, almost by definition, the strongest and fittest people, and yes, they do tend disproportionately to be young men. More vulnerable people tend to stay behind.
So... to sum up: what Sweden has chosen to do is to spend its money helping smaller numbers of less vulnerable people.
Norway, by contrast, adopted much tougher criteria for asylum seekers, and unlike Sweden has therefore been able to maintain its extremely generous and large foreign aid budget. A million dollars spent by Norway, therefore, assists much larger numbers of much more vulnerable people.
Put like this, it is not actually quite clear why "let everyone in" is actually a particularly altruistic or sensible choice.
I think Britain is doing the right thing by keeping the barriers high, BUT spending plenty of money supporting people in other countries. I DO support generous foreign aid and helping refugees overseas without stint.
Oh, and by the way....
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3840098/Calais-Jungle-boy-silly-Lily-cry-father-ex-Islamist-fighter.html