Why not just give them some money and let them decide where to spend? I doubt phone top ups are critical for a refugee.
[1] https://www.givedirectly.org/research-at-give-directlyhttps:...
They are refugees, but like the rest of us have needs we can't always fathom.
"For the individual refugee, it also empowers them by giving them the choice over how to meet their most immediate needs. Freed from having to queue or travel to receive one-size-fits-all aid, people can buy their own food, fuel, clothes, medicine or pay the rent based on their personal priorities. In this way, refugees contribute directly to local economies and foster positive relations with host communities."
http://www.unhcr.org/uk/news/briefing/2016/12/5853b3ed4/unhc...
"Refugees are people."
"If you just give people money, they'll use that money to improve their current situation without guidance or meddling."
Plus I'm more addressing the ingrained idea (in the USA at least) that poor people are all addicts, druggies, alcoholics, unemployable, or terrible with money. Many addicts run the course of their addiction while holding down a job (otherwise they can't feed said addiction). At the same time, the fastest route to the streets in the US is medical costs, either by way of some kind of accident or acquiring a chronic disease or condition, or hell, even breaking a leg and not being able to work for a month.
Most people, and I'd say a large majority of them, if just given money not in the form of EBT stamps or some other patronizing ass "here, we'll help you out, but here's a catalog of rules you need to follow because you're obviously incompetent" method would lead to more people getting out of poverty.
"If you just give people money, they'll use that money to improve their current situation without guidance or meddling." is not a true statement, and I assert that saying things like this can result in people on the "other side" of the political spectrum forming the opinion that you and your side is intellectually dishonest, because in fact, it is.
Feel free to say this is "irrelevant", but meanwhile politics in the West continues to become more and more polarized.
I really don't believe that's a fact. There have been numerous experiments over the decades about implementing basic income, with varying degrees of success, which is the closest current thing to replacing the American social welfare systems with "just giving people money." Their results are mixed, and likely will remain so as they are extremely desperate from one another to such a degree that you can't really form a consensus.
The issue here though is the implication, and even with some people the genuine belief, that it is true always. On average you are correct, yes, but if you consider that averages are not spread evenly, there are subsets (US states would be only one example) where the reality is very much different than the national average reflects. So, when you say "if the government does <x>, <y> WILL happen", and people KNOW that to be false (because they have seen past attempts fail), this is at least in part where part of the rift between political camps begins to form, or contributes to the overall problem. Furthermore, these "minor" differences of opinion can then be exploited by opportunistic politicians to have far more impact than they would otherwise.
A not terribly great illustration of this imho can be seen above - downvotes of this idea with no rebuttal illustrating it's wrongness. In the majority of the IRL & internet discussions I've been involved in, a rebuttal is never provided because "the left" considers this discussion to be over. They are correct, full stop. They do not need to address opinions different than their own, because they are wrong. To my mind, this is a very dangerous mentality, and leads to the very political climate we are seeing today.
Politics always has been and always will be a battle of ideas. Abandoning logic and resorting to force, mob rule, and covering ones eyes and ears does not lead to a successful outcome.
often, those in need will refuse money, because they are too proud to take it.
on the other hand, many organisations will happily take money on behalf of those in need, but you have no way to see how much actually ends up with the intended recipients.
if you pay someones phone bill, you know you are helping someone...
And not just refugees but villages. Helping the unbanked.
Maybe now you'll upvote me.