Just as the Haitians did in the aftermath of the horrific earthquake that rocked their country, the Pakistanis are protesting the slow arrival of aid in the wake of devastating flooding by blocking streets necessary to deliver such aid.
Do Third World countries not understand the meaning of the term “counterproductive”?
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is pushing a new 5 year, $3.5 billion reconstruction aid package for Haiti.
We have a $1.5 trillion budget deficit contributing to our almost $13 trillion in national debt, but yes, let’s send $3.5 billion more in aid to Haiti.
And the hits just keep on coming.
First, the Haitians themselves criticized and protested our assistance in the aftermath of the earthquake. Next, it was the French accusing us of “occupying” Haiti. Now we have an Italian disaster expert (so-called), Guido Bertolaso, terming our relief effort as nothing but a “vanity parade.”
He describes the aftermath as “a pathetic situation which could have been much better organized,” and that the relief effort is “missing a leader, a coordination capacity that goes beyond military discipline.” If this guy is such an expert in this area and he has these types of complaints, why wasn’t he leading the relief effort? Probably because he didn’t arrive in Haiti until Friday (Jan. 22), a week and a half after the earthquake.
This guy needs to shut his mouth.
The proponents of allowing Haitian refugees into America are stopping at nothing to convince those of us opposed that it would be good for America. Even former members of the George W. Bush administration are going so far as to suggest that it would be cheaper and more effective for America to accept more Haitian immigrants than to provide more aid to Haiti:
Still, Elliott Abrams, a deputy national security adviser under President George W. Bush who is now at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that if the United States doubled for the next five years the 25,000 Haitians who have been coming to the United States annually, it would substantially increase the remittances sent back, providing critical help as the nation tries to rebuild. Such help streaming home to families is more reliable and more likely to be spent efficiently than the ebb and flow of foreign aid, he said.
Why is it unsurprising that a former Bush administration official supports this idea?
There are two big assumptions in Mr. Abrams’ plan: That the immigrants would be able to secure jobs; and that they would actually send the money back to Haiti.
My argument to this plan is similar to mine against accepting Haitian refugees: We already have a 10% unemployment rate in this country. That means that 10% of those who are willing and able to work can’t find jobs. Given that information, it’s foolish to assume that these new Haitian immigrants would show up and find jobs. Absent jobs, they can’t send money home to Haiti; absent jobs, they end up on welfare. Net result result for America? More immigrants we can’t afford.
Mark Krikorian at the Center for Immigration Studies echoes my argument:
“poverty and underdevelopment can’t be criteria we use to pick immigrants. There are too many of them.” And he said that Haitian earthquake victims could consume U.S. social services and displace American workers — without generating enough income to send back to Haiti “to make a difference” there.
The Washington Times, reporting on this story, quotes an hysterical woman pleading for her family to be allowed into America. Read this attempted play on our emotions:
In Little Haiti, the first stirrings are already visible. “How can anyone watch someone who has . . . no food, and they’re just lying in the street covering themselves with a box, and then say, ‘No more immigration’? How is that humane?” said Tchelsie Lafond, 20, whose uncle crawled out of the rubble of the bank in which he worked and, with his wife, now wants to come to the United States.
Ms. Lafond:
Don’t you dare lecture America on what is humane or inhumane. Direct that lecture towards your own people.
The Haitian’s contempt for America is astounding.
America!
The U.S. has donated $114.5 million, by far the largest contribution.
What about the world’s largest economy, China–what have they donated? $4.4 million. Boy, that’s impressive. Hope that doesn’t break their bank.
What about the oil-rich countries? Surely they’ve made significant contributions. Right? Wrong.
The government of the United Arab Emirates has donated no money. Russia has contributed only $700,000. But the one that takes the cake is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis came through with a nice, big check for, wait for it…
$0.00.
Wow! i’m in awe of the Saudis generosity. Every country could learn from the charitable spirit of the Saudi Royal family.
I guess the Saudis are too busy lashing 13 year old girls to contribute to the relief effort.
This is why I get angry when I hear France accusing us of occupying Haiti or the U.N. telling us we need to contribute more than we do in the aftermath of international natural disasters.
Why won’t anyone call China, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE out? I’ll tell you why: It’s not popular to bash those countries; it’s very popular to bash America on the international stage, just ask Barack Obama.
The French minister in charge of humanitarian relief in Haiti is frustrated with America’s role in the country, so much so that he made one of the most idiotic accusations I’ve ever read:
“This is about helping Haiti, not about occupying Haiti,” Mr Joyandet said.
Is he serious? Is this a serious accusation?
I’m getting fed up with the heat America is taking over our helping Haiti. I say let the rest of the world and the U.N. handle aid for Haiti.Let France take the lead. That should work out well.
The aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti is playing out eerily similar to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. In the wake of Katrina, many New Orlean’s residents complained about the slowness of aid arrival, but when the aid began flowing in many residents decided to engage in violent protests that were nothing but counterproductive, in some cases shooting at National Guardsmen trying to rescue them from rising flood waters.
We are seeing similar behavior in Haiti. On Friday we learned of the report of corpses being used to block roads in protest of slow aid arrival. Now we’re getting reports of increasing violence, which is making it difficult if not impossible to get aid to the people who desperately need it.
According to deputy commander of U.S. Southern Command Lt. Gen. Ken Keen:
“There are increasing incidents of violence,” he said on Fox News. “We are looking at that very closely. We do need, obviously, a safe and secure environment to continue and do the best we can with the humanitarian assistance.”
What sense does it make to protest against the slow arrival of aid and relief by violently impeding the very aid you seek?
I don’t know who are a more ungrateful people: the Iraqis or the Haitians.
I’ll tell you what I would do in this situation if I was in charge. I would make it very clear to everyone in Haiti that if the violence didn’t stop within a few hours, all U.S. aid would be halted immediately and would not return until the violent conditions improved.
I appreciate the desperateness of the situation in Haiti just as I did in New Orleans, but that desperation is no justification for violence against those trying to help you, no matter how delayed that help is.
