My Opinio Juris co-blogger Peter Spiro raises an important question about what the US obligations should be in a crisis like Haiti’s. Should the US government put its priority on evacuating its own citizens first?
There are an estimated 45,000 US citizens in Haiti, and there’s an assumption that they should be first in line to receive US assistance. As Hillary Clinton said yesterday, “They are our principal responsibility, to make sure that they’re safe, to evacuate those who need medical care.” ...
Should these individuals get priority for US help? ... But as between a healthy US citizen who lives in Haiti (and who wants to get out because it is not a nice place to be now) and an injured non-US citizen who may die if not taken to a hospital ship or Miami or someplace where there are functioning medical facilities, the choice is not so obvious. Evacuation capacities are finite. Putting US citizens at the front of the line means putting others at the back.
I disagree with Peter on many related broader issues — his general cosmopolitanism as a basis for political order, dual citizenship, responsibilities that governments have to their own citizens, the moral defensibility of the category of national citizenship and the concept of the nation-state ... but in the extreme circumstance of immediate humanitarian emergency, my first take is that Peter is right, and that the welfare advantages of “membership” in a political community (the United States, as defined by citizenship) are outweighed by overall consequences. In any case, in my estimation, Peter is the leading legal scholar on transnational citizenship issues, and you might want to read Peter’s book, Beyond Citizenship.
josh bornstein says:
Actually, I wonder if that’s a bit of a straw man. Would a majority of Americans (slang for those of us here in the USA) really argue that a healthy America should be helped in front of an injured/ill Haitian, when we would be able to save the life of that Haitian? Who is making that argument? Now, if you put the hypothetical of an injured Haitian who will die without immediate aid vs a slightly injured American who will *possibly* die without aid . . . then you start getting into a tougher area.
I have read only the quote you excerpted in your OP from SoS Clinton, but what she said (...make sure they are safe; evacuate those who need medical care) does not equate to “evacuate those Americans who want it–even if they are perfectly healthy–ahead of even the most seriously-ill Haitians, as long as the Americans have expressed a desire to leave Haiti as soon as possible.”
I presume that the first evacuation planes (ships, etc.) will take those who most need immediate care, with priority in that group going first to Americans. Then, once all the immediate-need case are cared for (or, sadly quite likely in many cases, have died while waiting for help), the US will look to the next-most-serious cases...again giving priority to Americans.
Or am I missing a step? If I read that the embassy staff were being airlifted out while ignoring Haitians that we could save, I’d be upset. (This calculation would change, of course, if other safety issues like rioting, disease, etc. imperiled those ‘healthy’ Americans.) josh bornstein(Quote)
John Burgess says:
I think if this argument were put before a member of Congress, the answer would be ‘Americans first’, even if that made him/her seem callous. To paraphrase Harry Truman, ‘Haitians don’t vote in US elections.’
Let me rephrase that...
The congressman might not say that, but that would be the result of congress’ actions. John Burgess(Quote)
PeteP says:
One might guess that < 100,000 people in Haiti are in dire need of medical attention right now, and also that that number is likely to grow very quickly as the effects of lack of food, water, on-island medical infrastructure, electricity, medicql supplies, etc kick in.
How much might it cost, to speculate, to fly someone from Haiti to the US, give them medical treatment for whatever dire life-threatening emergency they have, post-op recovery time, etc ?
One could easily guess a number at $ 100,000 ( or more ).
Based on these SWAG’s, we’re talking about $ 10,000,000,000 just for starters, with that number likely to grow fast and furiously.
Then what do we do with these 100,000 + people, who statistically are 50 % illiterate, and 80 % voodoo worshipers ( these numbers come from stats I’ve read at sources such as the ‘CIA World Factbook’, etc, and are not mere ‘biased’ or ‘insulting’ speculation) . What do we do with them ? Send them back to a broken island with no power, no houses, no food, no funtional government ? Or do we grant them refuge, make them citizens, and take upon ourselves their ongoing care and feeding ? How much does THAT cost ?
IMO, our obligation is to ‘our own’ first. If there were a situation where your own family members and some strangers from some other country were all on a sinking ship, who are you going to pull to safety first ( if you have the choice ) ? The answer is clear — your own. PeteP(Quote)
Rich in Ohio says:
It is appropriate to evacuate family members, non-essential embassy staff, and others to reduce the number of US nationals that need to be fed and looked after. Rich in Ohio(Quote)
mikeyes says:
Don’t forget that a lot of those 45,000 Americans are there precisely because of the generally bad situation Haitians find themselves in even before the earthquake. The ones I know are staying to help out (Lutheran missionaries) and have been there before for the same reason sans the earthquake. I suspect that they would object to being moved out of the country unless they were ill or in grave danger. mikeyes(Quote)
yankee says:
How are they going to figure out who’s an American? Were they all carrying their passports at all times? yankee(Quote)
B.D. says:
A government’s first priority is to defend and promote the interests of its people. The people pay the taxes and vote in the elections. It’s pretty simple, really. B.D.(Quote)
Alast says:
What... a balancing of equities? Bah... humbug.
What you are saying is that the potential or even likely death of a non-citizen is more important to the U.S. than the inconvenience of a U.S. citizen.
If that is true, then the U.S. should be taking a lot of money from a lot of U.S. citizens (inconvenience) and giving it to poor disease-ridden areas of the globe to save lives.
This is a hierarchical system — such as even a lowly federal agency regulation trumps a state constitution. U.S. citizens are above non-citizen in the hierarchy.
The only way to do this legitimately, is to 1) put all U.S. citizens and dependents first, and 2) let any individual U.S. citizen give up their place to someone else, if they so choose. Alast(Quote)
PatHMV says:
Given a scenario where you’ve got directly in front of you one dying (but savable) Haitian and one healthy but distressed American, sure, most folks in this country would say “save the Haitian.” If nothing else, we learned watching M*A*S*H and ER that doctors and such should treat the most injured first, regardless of whether they’re the good guy or the bad guy or simply the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time.
But when it comes to allocation of resources on a broader scale, I think that the general American obligation is to protect Americans first. Haiti is currently incredibly unstable and could erupt in violence at any time, owing to understandably short tempers and frustrations (coupled with the general political situation in the country prior to the earthquake). I think the government has a greater obligation to look after its own citizens in such a situation, even while we are being extremely generous and altruistic in expending large amounts of resources to help those suffering.
It may be possible to draw some finer distinctions than in the main post. For example, I would argue that the government absolutely should place a very high priority on evacuating family members of embassy staff and non-essential embassy staff members. If for no other reason, failure to do so, leaving junior diplomats’ families in harms way in such crises, will make it harder for us to recruit folks willing to serve the country in areas like Haiti. This consideration would not be present when it comes to, for example, Americans who are perhaps dual citizens of Haiti, whose use of American status in such circumstances would be more like queue jumping due to privileged status.
Another consideration is the relative numbers and the ease of evacuation of the two types of folks (injured Haitians versus ambulatory Americans). If evacuating the ambulatory Americans involves mostly telling them to get to the airport and board a few chartered 747 flights, then that wouldn’t divert the same types of resources which may be needed to rescue the injured Haitians. And even if you’ve got to use helicopters for both groups, the injured Haitian probably takes up more space than the ambulatory American (lying on a stretcher versus sitting in a seat, flying alone versus flying with a medic monitoring your condition). So the question then becomes, evacuate 45,000 Americans to safety or rescue maybe 5,000 injured Haitians.
The one thing I know for sure is that when scarce resources must be allocated in terrible circumstances like those afflicting Haiti at the moment, there are no happy solutions, no solutions that do not require making horrible moral choices. PatHMV(Quote)
PeteP says:
Let’s take some SWAG’s —
100,000 + Haitians in current need today of dire medical care — a number that will only grow, and grow fast, as the effects of the situation ( lack of water, food, medical care, electricity, supplies, etc ) kick in
$ 100,000 — the minimum average cost for each of them of emergency med-evac and hospital care.
The are guesses, but perhaps, I think, realistic and plausible. Perhaps they understate the case as it will develop in weeks and months to come.
We’re up to $ 10,000,000,000 already ! And then, there’s post-op recovery cost ( sustenance, ongoing care, etc ) — at what cost ?
Then what do we do with them ? Send them back to Haiti, a broken island with no follow-up medical facilities, no medicines, no food, etc etc ? Seems counter-productive. So, do we then grant them ‘refuge’ and make them citizens, house them, feed them, provide in many cases years of ongoing medical care ? At what cost ?
How much obligation do we have to spend how many billions of dollars everytime there’s an ‘emergency’ somewhere in the world ?
As to the suggestion that some Americans now in Haiti ‘would object to being moved out of the country ’ — I doubt anyone is going to be handcuffed and dragged aboard an outbound flight if they don’t want to go, so dont’ worry about it. PeteP(Quote)
Alast says:
Only if you lack definitions. U.S. citizens have a vested right in the services of their embassy/government. An injured non-citizen does not. This is no more a hard choice than the guy at the ride in Disneyland who tells kids “sorry, you must be this high to ride this ride.” Alast(Quote)
orca says:
Those sneaky Haitians...causing an earthquake just so they can get on the U.S. dole. orca(Quote)
Gordon Langston says:
I’m in agreement with Josh. Still, if our efforts are twisted cynically for political gain, I won’t be shocked, it’s already started.
Given our history of helping in emergencies, it’s fairly certain we’ve had to make these choices before and will be able to do as well or better than in the past. To think otherwise is cynical and negative. Gordon Langston(Quote)
Joe says:
How much obligation do we have to spend how many billions of dollars everytime there’s an ‘emergency’ somewhere in the world ?
Let’s show a tad bit of perspective here. I don’t think we need to put emergency in scare quotes in this context. It is an emergency that ranks up there on the top 10 list. Second, historically, we spent more of an effort to address people in nations close by. They are more likely to affect us in various ways, including the mass influx of emigrants (illegal or otherwise) coming to our shores as well as an overall societal humanitarian desire to help those closer by. And, as suggested, evac is far from the only thing we can do.
Sure, we can only do so much and how much is an open question. We do offer humanitarian aid though. As to the basic question, the overall principle in this country is that classification by nationality at times is illegitimate. If helping aliens will in some small way limit the resources for our own citizens there who are not as much in immediate need, since our resources are limited, the answer is pretty easy. How much to weigh the expense in closer cases, that’s the rub. Joe(Quote)
PatHMV says:
Alast, making a decision that determines which of 2 innocent human beings lives and which dies is a horrible moral choice to make, regardless of how “easy” you may find the answer. I agree that the U.S. citizens, on the whole, should be the first priority of U.S. rescue forces, but that doesn’t mean I don’t find the mere having to make the choice a horrible one. PatHMV(Quote)
U.Va. Grad says:
There’s an important implicit assumption you’re making here: that “oughts” for a government are coterminous with the vested rights of the citizens. While you’re correct to say that only U.S. citizens have a right to U.S. governmental services, I think it’s not nearly as clear that helping an injured non-citizen wouldn’t nonetheless be the right thing to do. U.Va. Grad(Quote)
Bob from Ohio says:
US citizens come first. If any Americans want to come back, bring them.
A governments first and primary responsibility is to its citizens.
It sucked to be Haitian last week too.
They likely have drivers license and other indications of residency at least. Plus, most by appearance and accent can be identified.
I suppose you have a few of Haitian descent or otherwise not easily identifiable as Americans but in numbers that can be dealt with. Bob from Ohio(Quote)
Dotar Sojat says:
I’m just glad that none of you are the ones in charge of our efforts down there. Americans will do what they always do. The measures being taked by ordinary citizens across the country to gather supplies and the actions of our military and civilian personnel in and around Haiti are exemplary. We will help whoever we can. Dotar Sojat(Quote)
B.D. says:
I’m all for devoting some of our resources to dealing with this humanitarian crisis. Haiti is an impoverished country in our own backyard, so any instability there can immediately cause an immigration/refugee crisis for the United States. We have an interest in helping them out with some of their immediate basic needs. And so do other countries, like the Dominican Republic. B.D.(Quote)
ArthurKirkland says:
What? A bailout of Americans who voluntarily abandoned U.S. jurisdiction? Would that not raise taxes among those who did not take the risk of leaving the United States? ArthurKirkland(Quote)
Alast says:
Hogwash... that’s charity. Governments have no business taking money or resources from one person and just giving it to another as charity. Charity should be left to the individual owner of the resources, not the collective. No more than a clerk at a grocery store should give away food to a hungry person — such charity is the right (to give or not to give) of the store owner.... not the clerk.
Take 1,000 people, all have $1 to give to charity. That total of $1,000 will go do a set of recipients. Now instead, have government collect that $1,000 and then the government gives it to charity. It will go to a decidedly different set of recipients (based largely on lobbying, graft, and fraud). Charity decisions should be left to individuals. Alast(Quote)
Martinned says:
Unless of course they have been lawfully authorised to do so by taxpayers/voters. Martinned(Quote)
Chem_geek says:
It’s too bad that these commenters don’t have a mystical sign floating above their head, a’la the mobile phone adverts, that reads, “Attention EMTs, Fire Fighters, Police Officers: No help needed here, thank you!” Chem_geek(Quote)
Steve says:
If I were in Haiti, I would certainly accept a delay in my evacuation if it meant that lives would be saved, and I expect most Americans would make the exact same choice. The little Ayn Rand disciples can make their own choices, I suppose, but didn’t they opt out of the social contract long ago? Steve(Quote)
davod says:
On a related matter. I just heard that 30,000 Haitian illegal immigrants who are on the list to return to Haiti have been granted amnesty. davod(Quote)
Dennis N says:
I don’t think the decisions are as stark as has been suggested.
First of all, the US has an obligation to protect its citizens. That does not necessarily equate to rounding them all up and loading them all onto 747s. A lot of this protection can be achieved by centralizing those citizens who want to be protected, setting up a messhall and putting them under armed guard. (Rifles pointed out, not in.) Then they can be evacuated at our leisure. A couple of chartered cruise ships will carry a helluva lot of refuges.
I’m pretty sure the military units tasked with providing support, have an intelligence task of attempting to locate Americans in need of assistance in their Area of Operations. That will allow us to prioritize tasks. It also will take some time, stretching out the evacuation task. Stretching it out laxes the logistical system less.
I would hope that in situations where groups of Americans are in imminent danger, we would use armed military force to evacuate them.
As others have pointed out, a significant number of the Americans probably intend to stay and be part of the solution. Dennis N(Quote)
Raghav says:
Alast:
And if what you say is true, then the U.S. should take any opportunity available to increase the incomes of all U.S. citizens by killing thousands of people around the globe. Raghav(Quote)
Crunchy Frog says:
The idea that we are going to be medevac’ing thousands of injured Haitians out of country for treatment is silly, when the military (who is our best resource for this kind of activity, with command and control structures found nowhere else) has had centuries of experiance setting up field hospitals in situ.
Right now, the problem is getting people and materiel into the country, not out. There is certainly room on empty, outgoing air transport back home for any embassy staff/family members who want to leave. Crunchy Frog(Quote)
orca says:
They keep posting on the government invented, government financed internet though.
If only it was powered by irony, the Randroids might actually have some value to society. orca(Quote)
Monty says:
Now lets imagine that your in a country where there is a history of widespread civil disorder, riot, and even military conflict. Lets imagine that the entire Government infrastructure was just wiped out. That there is no clean water, medical care or police protection. Then lets add bodies rotting in the streets. You know its only a matter of time before disease becomes a major threat, and violence could break out at any moment. Finally lets say you have your children with you, and were only in country because your spouse was an embassy staffer SENT there by the US Government. Now how long should the US put you and your children at risk of the disease and violence to evacuate people who have no relationship to the US? Monty(Quote)
memomachine says:
Hmmmm.
1. The primary job of a government is to look out for the welfare of it’d own citizens first. Otherwise you’ll eventually run out of citizens.
2. Well that makes US citizenship even less valuable.
3. “In any case, in my estimation, Peter is the leading legal scholar on transnational citizenship issues, and you might want to read Peter’s book, Beyond Citizenship.”
No thanks. Since there isn’t any such thing as “transnational citizenship” there really isn’t a point in reading about it.
4. Funny how crap like this always seems to be applied to Americans and nobody else. memomachine(Quote)
Martinned says:
Being a European citizen as well as a Dutch citizen, I’d be able to call on the Brits, the French, or whoever was nearby for help, instead of having to rely only on my own government. Martinned(Quote)
Steve says:
Finally lets say you have your children with you, and were only in country because your spouse was an embassy staffer SENT there by the US Government. Now how long should the US put you and your children at risk of the disease and violence to evacuate people who have no relationship to the US?
My kids are my first priority, but as long as the US Government can sequester us in a safe place, I’d be perfectly willing to wait a few days to be evacuated if everyone is busy saving lives.
Mind you, I can’t really imagine my spouse accepting a job as an embassy staffer in Haiti while we have kids. Not the greatest environment to raise a family, even sans earthquake. Steve(Quote)
rich says:
Many Americans abroad also have a reliance interest on the U.S. government to get them out first. I think this is the usual course of action, so to do otherwise might change the willingness of Americans in the future to help in poorer countries. rich(Quote)
theobromophile says:
Agree with some commenters above who point out that it’s an interesting hypothetical, but that the reality of the situation means that we likely will not be making these choices.
Yes, we’re probably better off sending equipment and doctors in there than trying to take people out and then bring them back in. Likewise, we’re better off trying to round up Americans who would like to go back and helping them out for a while, then sending them back as convenient.
My big problem is that we send a tremendous amount of money and resources to these countries that have no hope of becoming self-sustaining due to their corrupt governments. Of course, that doesn’t mean that we should ignore their citizens, who must chafe under the corruption, but that we should at least try to use the situation to help the country in the long term.
This is the time to not let a crisis go to waste. theobromophile(Quote)
wlpeak says:
This is in contrast to the argument that embargoes and sanctions work to stop the enabling of dictators and corrupt governments.
So which is it? Do we enable these failed states or do we help the people? Another tough question. wlpeak(Quote)
Mikee says:
The deposed dictator Aristide, living in South Africa, has volunteered his services to the Haitians, declaring that he is ready to return immediately.
Some relief efforts are not to be accepted under any circumstances by the Haitians. Mikee(Quote)
geokstr says:
How’s about we confiscate 100% of your income to send to help others in need? IIRC, in a very nearby post, you believed that a 100% tax rate would not stop you from working for free. geokstr(Quote)
Allan Walstad says:
Fascinating. This blog is supposed to have a libertarian slant. Yet almost no one has drawn the distinction between the powers and proper duties of the US government versus the responsibilities that individual US citizens might accept and take on for themselves. If government has any proper responsibility at all, it is to defend the citizens, although one wonders to what extent that responsibility properly extends to individuals who have voluntarily chosen to situate themselves in other countries. But the notion that the US government is supposed to take money robbed from citizens to give aid to other countries is pure collectivist nonsense. Government charity is just robbery. Indeed, given the abject performance of government in dealing with disasters here, one wonders to what extent it will make a positive difference there. Let individuals contribute charitably to to the needy at home and abroad. If government wasn’t robbing us blind, we’d have more resources with which to do so. Allan Walstad(Quote)
ArthurKirkland says:
An equally large problem, however, has been American support of corrupt governments, including, to some degree, with respect to Haiti. That support often turns out to be immoral and counterproductive, but some people never learn. In Haiti, if I recall correctly, a corrupt thug’s politics were seen as useful with respect to the fetish regarding Cuba, so the United States supported a larcenous and brutal government, much to the detriment of Haitian citizens. ArthurKirkland(Quote)
Floridan says:
Davod: “On a related matter. I just heard that 30,000 Haitian illegal immigrants who are on the list to return to Haiti have been granted amnesty.”
Not amnesty, but Temporary Protective Status. This is given when the person being deported would be in danger in his or her home country — for political or natural causes.
Other nationals who have been granted TPS include, Somalians, Sudanese, Salvadoran, Nicaraguans, among others.
Haitians should have received TPS already, but unfortunately for them, they have not had a left-wing government that antagonizes the U.S., so they are out of luck, compared to Cubans. Floridan(Quote)
anon expat says:
I and other expats around me sometimes call the US policy to tax our citizens on a worldwide basis the “helicopter tax” with these very situations in mind. We should obviously do everything we can with what we can share, but for those Americans that want to get the hell out of there, the priority should be help them out or protect them after you bump them to the next flight. anon expat(Quote)
Tweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Haiti and Evacuations -- Topsy.com says:
Ricardo says:
The U.S. government has a clear obligation to protect its employees as does any other employer. Large private companies that send expats to dangerous parts of the world buy evacuation insurance for their employees for just this reason. But that simply wasn’t the question being asked. Ricardo(Quote)
Chris Travers says:
If there is widespread rioting or civil war, the embassy has an obligation to protect its employees, their families, and any American citizens in the area. Evacuation of American citizens would be a priority in that case. Thus far it isn’t clear that this is the case for Americans in Haiti.
I travel internationally a lot though and what normally counts as a ‘travel advisory’ from the state department is quite worthless in terms of evaluating risks (local knowledge and support is best, combined with an understanding of what services are available to Americans at the embassy). Mostly I travel throughout Latin America and South-East Asia. Chris Travers(Quote)
PlugInMonster says:
Since the Americans in Haiti are missionary-types, I think they would object to preferential treatment. Now Americans in France are a different story. But I don’t think they’re getting any natural disasters. PlugInMonster(Quote)
libertariansoldier says:
Steve,
“Mind you, I can’t really imagine my spouse accepting a job as an embassy staffer in Haiti while we have kids. Not the greatest environment to raise a family, even sans earthquake.”
Perhaps that speaks more about your spouse or your imagination than anything else. My wife accepted embassy assignments in Haiti, Chad, Nigeria and Cambodia while our daughter was small (3–11 years). libertariansoldier(Quote)
Jimmy Connet says:
Fascinating write-up. Many thanks for posting Jimmy Connet(Quote)
Air Evacuation says:
Repatriation is at the core of what RMSI does. They are a best medical charter flight worker and work for United Nations and other great organization. They offer remote medical services in remote areas and areas of difference where dependable and expert doctors are needed and where the whole communications with air evacuation is very significant and essential. Air Evacuation(Quote)