The impulse to tribalism is pretty much universal and understandable. But looking at it in that limited way may be cutting off your nose to spite your face.
If you want to get pragmatic and not idealistic about it, where is our money going to advance our interests with the most effectiveness? Aid to foreign nations, WHEN USED EFFECTIVELY (i.e., not poured into the pockets of a Mugabe or used ostensibly to fund the Taliban's feeble anti-opium efforts), creates educated, well-fed, stable populations that are more amenable to democratic values and, one might argue, capitalist market structures. This creates large populations of people who 1. want to buy our stuff or work for our companies, and 2. don't want to fly planes full of fuel into our major population centers.
If you want to look at it from a humanitarian perspective, there are people who are in MORE NEED in other nations than the ones affected by this hurricane. We already have emergency and disaster funds in place to take care of situations like this, without rescinding foreign aid, which is a pittance of our national budget. (Actually, Bush just cut emergency funding in part in order to fund his tax cut to people who don't need any help at all. /liberal snark) And looking at absolute and relative need, there are already structures in place in this country to meet the very basic needs - food, clean water, shelter, education, medical care - of those who need it. The same can not be said of many of the nations who are recipients of our aid.
I just think it's a rather short-sighted knee-jerk reaction to demand that we "take care of our own" first. Taking care of others is, sometimes, taking care of our own, just not in the same touchy-feely, ready-for-tv-news, make-you-feel-good-for-still-having-a-home way.
Threadjack of the moment: Where's your charitable impulse when the topic is welfare
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=94005 or universal health care? Why is it suddenly okay to help masses of the homeless because a hurricane wiped out their house and they didn't have flood insurance, and not okay to help the same number of widely dispersed homeless because, e.g., they got sick and lost their job and didn't have savings accounts?