Some people argue that the government should not pay money for international aid when there are some disadvantaged people at home (homeless or unemployed). To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Every year, the government spends tons of money on international aid, but some people do not like this, arguing that the money should go to the citizens at home still living below the poverty line. At first glance, this opposition is well grounded. As the government of any country is mainly responsible for protecting its own citizens from harm of any kind, it seems quite absurd to give money to people in other countries when the citizens at home are suffering from poverty. For example, if there are still many people who are jobless and cannot afford their own houses, the government should try its best to help them by creating more jobs rather than paying money for international aid. The reality, however, is that almost every country across the world, no matter how poor it is, is offering aid to other countries. When Japan was hit by Tsunami in 2003, for instance, it received financial relief from nearly all countries, North Korea included. Giving aid to those countries in need is always regarded as a right thing to do, not only because it can strengthen mutual friendship, but also because it will win global reputation for the country who gives away. This reputation will, in turn, translate into various forms of support, financially or politically, from other countries. A country which never gives aid to other countries may very likely be isolated from the rest of the world. To conclude, offering international aid is never just a matter of money. Far from being a waste of money, it actually gives the country an opportunity to become a member of the international big family. My argument, then, is that giving appropriate financial help to other countries is always necessary, even when there are still some disadvantaged people at home.