DaniFong, I could write a book in response to your comment, but let me single out three parts for refutation:

"Those concerned with and directly involved in advancing social good are rarely concerned with just one part of it."

Whatever gives you the impression I am not concerned with "advancing social good"? I am fucking obsessed with that cause, there is nothing more important in this world. The question is how you go about it - by rational measurement, analysis, and action for the greatest good for the greatest number, or by cheap fearmongering, scarecrow-raising, and appeals to nebulous sentimentality and doubtful external enemies?

"it's estimated that 9-32% of women and 5-10% of men were subject to sexual abuse during their childhoods"

If these statistics are accurate, then either we as a society are absolutely fucked, or the negative effects of child sexual abuse are grossly overstated. One in three women? Really?

"Do not, then, begrudge people of the interest in the safety of their children and community, of their charitable work, and of their fears."

Here you have inadvertently stumbled across the real thrust of the issue: "and of their fears". No, no, one thousand times NO! Their fears are irrelevant. What matters is facts, baby, numbers. Anything else and you are embarking on a superstition-fueled witch hunt.

You need to rethink your beliefs. Sorry to get personal, but I can sense that you care, and I want you to understand why I disagree. Let's look at these two statements of yours:

"Effectively? It is even, by many standards, economical. The economic loss of 27 children would almost certainly exceed the $30 million in funds nationally allocated to it."

and

"Particularly in South-East Asia and Eastern Europe, the sex trade is rampant -- Unicef estimates put it at 1 million young sold into the trade per year"

In one sentence you set the value of a child's life at $1m US dollars. Actually, the $30m is just the federal contribution, the states match it, so the value is actually higher - but for the sake of argument let's assume $1m.

How much are those children sold into slavery for? With the same amount, how many could you save? Off the top of my head I'd guess $1000 each for those kids. Research suggests less - much less - but let's assume $1k. So you can buy 30,000 lives for the cost of the amber alert program. That cool? One American kid roughly equates to 1,000 foreigners? Is that justice?

Yes, I'm oversimplifying here. It's not America's responsibility to take care of every basket case 3rd world country's unwanted young. But if we're going to get all moral and talk about saving lives, we have to admit that lives do have price tags on them. The amber alert price tag is way too high. The risk premise is irrational. It preys on nigh-unfounded populist fears. It encourages the wrong sort of thinking in the population. If you want to do good, there's lower hanging fruit everywhere. Hell, the fruit is lying right there on the ground! The price in some places isn't $1k, it's $100. I'd be buying them up myself if I could figure out what the hell to do with them. Oh for an "Illustrated Primer" and some ships. But the root cause is poverty .. like I said, this could turn into a book.