> nations whose responsibility it would be to help these people

Who has this responsibility is at the heart of the controversy.

The issue is significantly more complex than you're making it out to be

Two issues to unpack. The majority of people lost are people doing dangerous things for immigration/money like trying to sail from India to Australia on a plank of wood to get better pay.

This was a submarine under water with alive people running out of air. The location was known and people monitoring were able to contact government immediately which gave them a chance. When a piece of wood is used to sail across the ocean and the boat capsizes rescuers don't know the location, no one is monitoring on shore to alert countries and they cannot survive days under water.

Rich / poor doesn't play into this but makes a great narrative to sell a story that you bought

Conventions on rescue come from a time when seafarers intended to complete their journeys unaided, not launching with an expectation of needing rescue.

The public expense in the Mediterranean sea is very large when you add up diversions of commercial traffic, rescue volunteers funded by donations, national agencies coast guards, and EU Frontex.

Incorrect claim. These nations actually invest into preventing such risky trips.

If I decide I don’t want my life in Texas and, for whatever reason, there are better opportunities in Mexico (much better beaches, for example), I should be able to just trek down from Texas and the Mexican people should have to fund my trek and receive me with open arms? Whatever needs to be the case to where my life is better in Mexico, let’s just grant it, like maybe I’m in incel in Texas but not in Mexico where I can start a family with a BBL latina. Bonus if I have to trek through the deserts of Chihuahua because it’s risky?

You’re acting like this is obvious to everyone rather than the center of massive controversy.

Nobody is coming unless you ask for help.

Money gives you a huge megaphone to ask for help

> Why would the novelty of a leathal crisis influence the amount spent on the effort?

Frequency more than novelty, though novelty certainly brings attention. If we were launching multi-million dollar submarine rescue missions every day, we’d quickly see a system of cost controls and incentive management arise around it, too.

Yes, since the structure of OP's complaint was whether or not we have "enough money" to do things. I'm not advocating for any particular expense policy here, just pointing out that we can easily afford to fund all rescue missions, while paying for all cancer treatment is a much larger expense, so it's not unreasonable that people don't funge those two categories.