It's dumb because it judges private business on how it spends its resources on charity. It's also dumb because it suggests that some people are better then others and deserve the help more.
>Homelessness is just as much of a humanitarian crisis.
Homelessness is not an acute crisis, which happens and develops as quickly as execution of order of insane U.S. president. It's a problem that can and should be successfully addressed by the government by variety of means, because homelessness is fully under the control of the government (which can offer rehabilitation, medical treatment, shelters and assistance with finding jobs to homeless and social aid to people who may become homeless otherwise), while the causes forcing people to run from their homes in other countries are not.
Here is offered not the permanent settlement of refugees (for 10-15 years): there's probably no host in the world willing to give their property to a family of strangers for that long. It's a relief: the measure signed by Trump is sudden, it has limited period of action and could possibly be repealed, but now many people are stuck in limbo and have to change their plans and make a lot of decisions about their life in next few months. Easing it for them by giving a place to stay is one of the ways to help, so why not?
>Except that much like the refugee crisis the help from governments isn't fixing the problem.
Statistics show that governments can be pretty effective in solving these problems and U.S. government is quite good in that sense, as I can see.
>Homelessness is not an acute crisis, which happens and develops as quickly as execution of order of insane U.S. president."
Homelessness is not acute? I think you not be using that word correctly. For people living paycheck to paycheck they are often one check away from being homeless. It can happen overnight!
I know what is it and yes, it is neither a crisis, nor it's acute problem that should be invoked as an argument against helping others. If you are poor in developed country, you will not starve to death, you will not be tortured and you will not die from air strike or accidental bullet just to be called "inevitable collateral damage". Your life is hard, but you are not in grave danger like people fleeing from a civil war or dictatorship. There are already plenty of charities and government programs that will help you.
>"I know what is it and yes, it is neither a crisis,"
Wow, homelessness is not a crisis? Can I ask where you live? Maybe you should take a stroll through the Tenderloin in San Francisco, or Skid Row in Downtown Los Angeles, or underneath the I-5 in Seattle. Then proclaim its not crisis. It's a huge crisis and I find it bizarre that you are trivializing it.
And yes, they do die, they die all the time. They die from heart diseases and diabetes and AIDs and drug overdoes. They die because they have no medical attention.
Just because there isn't a dictator involved or 24 hours cable news coverage does not mean it is any less of a crisis or there is any less suffering.
It's dumb because it judges private business on how it spends its resources on charity. It's also dumb because it suggests that some people are better then others and deserve the help more.
>Homelessness is just as much of a humanitarian crisis.
Homelessness is not an acute crisis, which happens and develops as quickly as execution of order of insane U.S. president. It's a problem that can and should be successfully addressed by the government by variety of means, because homelessness is fully under the control of the government (which can offer rehabilitation, medical treatment, shelters and assistance with finding jobs to homeless and social aid to people who may become homeless otherwise), while the causes forcing people to run from their homes in other countries are not.
Here is offered not the permanent settlement of refugees (for 10-15 years): there's probably no host in the world willing to give their property to a family of strangers for that long. It's a relief: the measure signed by Trump is sudden, it has limited period of action and could possibly be repealed, but now many people are stuck in limbo and have to change their plans and make a lot of decisions about their life in next few months. Easing it for them by giving a place to stay is one of the ways to help, so why not?
>Except that much like the refugee crisis the help from governments isn't fixing the problem. Statistics show that governments can be pretty effective in solving these problems and U.S. government is quite good in that sense, as I can see.