There are several political approaches we can have, why do you think we should choose what looks like a high risk - low benefit one?
Have you shown that it is high-risk? "Mass immigration" - from my perspective the scale of Swedish immigration doesn't merit the term. Can you provide a source for the 1% claim, or at least a translation of the one document you did link? What's the breakdown of the immigration statistics for '3rd-Worlders'? What is their growth rate as a demographic? These have some bearing.

I think you agree that the solution to solving the problems in the third world isn't to migrate all the citizens there to the western world. So why don't we spend our money and efforts helping people locally, building sustainable solutions, instead of paying of our guilt by letting a limited few in here (where they go on to weaken us, limiting our ability of helping at the big scene).
These are claims, but there is no argument. I see no reason to accept these premises as true outright. Rather the opposite...