In a world of unlimited resources we should do both. However the refugees are in imminent danger of death (or at least goes conventional national security thinking), whereas most homeless Americans are at least able to scrape by.
>However the refugees are in imminent danger of death (or at least goes conventional national security thinking), whereas most homeless Americans are at least able to scrape by.
If we're using the utilitarian argument, shouldn't we be pouring money into effective altruism (eg. bill gates funding malaria prevention programs), which do a even better job at preventing death?
