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).

Monty: Now lets imagine that your in a country where there is a history of widespread civil disorder, riot, and even military conflict.

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.

Monty: 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?

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.

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.

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.

orca says:

PeteP: How much obligation do we have to spend how many billions of dollars everytime there’s an ‘emergency’ somewhere in the world ?

Those sneaky Haitians…causing an earthquake just so they can get on the U.S. dole.

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.

Some relief efforts are not to be accepted under any circumstances by the Haitians.

theobromophile: 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.

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.

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.

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.

memomachine: 4. Funny how crap like this always seems to be applied to Americans and nobody else.

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.

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.

Steve: 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?

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?

Steve:The little Ayn Rand disciples can make their own choices, I suppose, but didn’t they opt out of the social contract long ago?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Alast: Governments have no business taking money or resources from one person and just giving it to another as charity.

Unless of course they have been lawfully authorised to do so by taxpayers/voters.

U.Va. Grad: I think it’s not nearly as clear that helping an injured non-citizen wouldn’t nonetheless be the right thing to do.

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.

A governments first and primary responsibility is to its citizens.

It sucked to be Haitian last week too.

How are they going to figure out who’s an American? Were they all carrying their passports at all times?

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.

Alast: 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.”

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.