Only one paragraph of this essay by Robert P. George bothers me:
It [viz., "the principle of the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of each and every member of the human family"] means that we must not close our hearts or our borders to asylum-seekers and refugees in need. We are a wealthy and powerful nation. And as the Bible teaches, as the Church teaches, and as both Washington and Lincoln taught, nations as well as persons are under judgment. Nations as well as persons have obligations. And of those to whom much has been given, much is expected. A nation blessed as ours is blessed has an obligation to do its share, and work in harmony with other nations, to assist those who are persecuted or suffering. We cannot do everything, but we must not suppose it is acceptable to do nothing.
Why must people be taken in? They can be helped where they are. Isn't this what Catholics have always done, with their missionaries? If the principle requires that "refugees in need" be taken in, what is the limit? Is the whole world allowed to come here, thereby destroying what was built by generations of Americans? I wonder whether Professor George (whom I otherwise admire) applies the "principle" to his own life. How many poor people has he taken into his home? Do his own children have things that other children lack? If so, why? Does he leave his door open with a sign saying, "Welcome to all who are in need"?
