To start with, understand that the church has no position whatever on these matters. The proposals supported by particular priests and bishops are their own; their arguments stand or fall on their own merit and are not strengthened simply because they are made by clerics.
That’s about how I see it.
The Church teaches us, in general, that we have to be compassionate.
I don’t believe it usually gets into specifics on issues like this.
The Church tells us we have to help the poor; it doesn’t say we have to give 10 percent, or 20 percent, or 50 percent of our income, or that we have to help this poor person instead of this one.
A Catholic could say, “I’m against the wall. I want these people to feel welcome. This is a land of plenty; we should be glad to give up some of what we have to help someone else.”
Or a Catholic could say, “I’m for the wall. The wall would more than pay for itself by what we’ll save on resources for illegal aliens, and we could use some of that to help our own poor, or older people, or veterans.”
Some rhetorical - I said rhetorical - questions for those who want this retired cancer patient on social security to pay those crossing the border more in benefits than I get: How many million more can we support? How many children must die of newly re-introduced childhood diseases? How many must die making the perilous journey? What happened to improving their home country, as governments past have promised? What is immoral about following the law - since these are economic “refugees”?
Perfect example of the type of choices we have to face, similar to the situation I posted about the other day about the older American who worked all his life and never getting freebies paying $800 per month out of pocket for meds.
Personally I’d rather help Americans than illegals, and I don’t think I’m a sinner for thinking that.