There are some ways that I preferentially give to local people because it's easier. I've helped more street beggars in my neighborhood than in Port au Prince because I don't walk down the streets of Port au Prince.
But when it comes to paying for perfect strangers to receive medical treatment, and I'm choosing between someone in the US, whose medical treatment costs more, and who will receive the medical treatment anyway at the risk of personal bankruptcy, vs. someone who wouldn't receive the treatment at all in Port au Prince, you can't make an argument that I should give to the American. The American will get the treatment with or without my help. He might just end up bankrupt, but being bankrupt in America is not that bad. In fact, there's a good chance there will be no bankruptcy and the American will just have to go on a payment plan for the next few years. The Haitian won't receive the treatment at all. In fact, even after the treatment, the Haitian will still have to live in Haiti, which is probably a materially poorer existence than being bankrupt or having to make a payment plan in America.
Providing less help to someone who is in lesser need of it at greater expense, just because you share a nationality with them, is bigotry, and you've said nothing to refute that.
Well you can downvote me all you like, but it's just not bigotry. Merriam-Webster defines bigotry as the state of mind of "one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".
This is just not the case, so first of all you are wrong.
And second of all, that you think one should spend his charity with maximum (perceived) efficiency is just _your_ ethical view.
I give charity to the Dutch cancer battle fund. I don't do this to save anyone I love, they are either already dying of cancer and won't be helped because of my donation or have already died.
A majority of people will never live to die of cancer. It is a disease that kills rich healthy people. Yet I give as much to them as I give to unicef. It is because the disease hits close to home.
Anyway, that might make me an egoist. But not a nationalist bigot. And frankly I think it was hateful of you to introduce those slurs into this conversation.
What's hateful is criticizing Watsi for not letting you donate money to people who don't need the money as badly on the basis that you'd rather help people in your own country.
The question is does giving your money directly to a street person help them more than giving it to a shelter so there are more places for people to sleep at night, and healthy food for them - or is it just faster and stronger gratification / reward for you? Not saying this as a put-down.
I agree with all you said, but here is one additional point: per dollar, you can fund a lot more outside of the US than you can inside. Those $1000 surgeries in Cambodia would cost far more here. You have to decide if you want to use your $5000 to help 5 people in poorer nations or 1/2 of a person in the US.
But when it comes to paying for perfect strangers to receive medical treatment, and I'm choosing between someone in the US, whose medical treatment costs more, and who will receive the medical treatment anyway at the risk of personal bankruptcy, vs. someone who wouldn't receive the treatment at all in Port au Prince, you can't make an argument that I should give to the American. The American will get the treatment with or without my help. He might just end up bankrupt, but being bankrupt in America is not that bad. In fact, there's a good chance there will be no bankruptcy and the American will just have to go on a payment plan for the next few years. The Haitian won't receive the treatment at all. In fact, even after the treatment, the Haitian will still have to live in Haiti, which is probably a materially poorer existence than being bankrupt or having to make a payment plan in America.
Providing less help to someone who is in lesser need of it at greater expense, just because you share a nationality with them, is bigotry, and you've said nothing to refute that.