> they wanted economic opportunities, and they weren't getting that in Pakistan. An uptick in aid wouldn't change that either! I did not say aid/investment by

> they wanted economic opportunities, and they weren't getting that in Pakistan. An uptick in aid wouldn't change that either! I did not say aid/investment by accident. It could well be charitable investment, i.e. into farming or other equipment, with no expectation of payback. As for corruption - if the aid is in the form of food or equipment, that's harder to turn into weapons than cash. If corruption is an issue, the aid can go to their less-corrupt neighbors that accept the migrants, or it can be handled by the same NGOs and such that help immigrants in Europe, if the local authorities are too corrupt to be trusted with anything. And if none of that works, then why it would work in Europe, if the people involved are the same? > Decades of this casual attitude Calling massive humanitarian aid "casual" reeks of trying to blame foreign corruption on those trying to charitably help.