Is this a specific fallacy

Recently a local UK politician complained about migrants being accommodated in hotels or housing that are "needed for British homeless" - but unhoused people in Britain are rarely if ever put in such hotels or available housing, and this politician would not support that anyway.

It made me think of people who say for example that the US should not send aid abroad when there are poor people in the US, but are also against welfare for low income Americans.

Is this a specific fallacy?

I view this as a political policy issue, not a logical issue.

This is likely an example of inconsistency .

However, there is one potential pitfall, that their opposition to housing homeless people in hotels is not stated in their argument, and it seems to be assumed that they hold this position. However, as they're a politician, it's likely that they've made public statements about their position, voted on the issue, or at the very least failed to advanced the issue of housing the homeless while in office, and you could infer their position from this.

What you're referring to in general is rationalization .