Then, how, precisely, do you expect Mexico to pay for the wall?

Do you attach one political side to each side you mention or do you mean it both ways?

Oh, I totally see things one way. It does NOT work the same both ways. If it did, I wouldn't be shocked but just disappointed. One side clearly makes more sense, one side clearly has logic, compassion, and reason on their side, and the other really does act like a hate group or a group so stuck in the past that the idea of change (even if for the better) is a scary prospect. So yes, I admit my bias but even from the perspective of an unbiased third party the lean is so very obvious. 

Oh, so you're whole "pay for the wall" idea is predicated on the wall doing things that the wall won't do. 

I mean do you want a list of all the experts explaining why what you say won't happen too?

Actually, let's go back a bit.  You are in Canada (according to your profile page) so I'm curious where you get your news from?  Canadian sources?  US cable news?  BBC?  Fox?  Some mixture thereof?  I'm only asking because many of your ideas are in alignment with certain news organizations that have long since been debunked by the experts on the subject at hand.  And if your news sources are limited to those aligned with your ideas, then you would not yet have been exposed to the actual data, facts, figures and expertise that has proven those views to be...outdated.

For example, 90-95% of the illegal drug trade comes across the border at points of entry....not in the middle of the desert.  And the 5-10% that does come across in the middle of the desert would easily be diverted to the points of entry or they will use alternative means (short boat trips around the border, drones or tunnels).

Illegal immigration?  Down at levels not seen since the 70's.

If you really wanted to crack down in illegal immigration, look to overstayed Visas from Asia.  They now make up a greater percentage of illegal immigrants than Mexicans do.

And where do you get this notion that Mexicans are crossing the border every day, working in the US, not paying taxes and bring the money back into Mexico?
1. It can't be very many unless it's near a point of entry which requires a work Visa.
2. Any paid employee in the US must pay taxes.  Both directly and through their employer.  Unless their employer is breaking the law but I don't see you bugging about that.
3. Mexico passed laws in 2010 making it very hard to use US Dollars in Mexico.  Limitations on exchanges per person, per day and per month, documentation of acquisition required, many places no longer take US Dollars at all or limit the transactions to less than $100.

1. Problem is that millions of jobs only pay minimum wage. Botht hose people and the economy as a whole depend very much on those.

Corporate taxes got decreased very very much over the last decades. Trump just slashed it from 35% to 21%, so in effect almost halved the corporate tax. But by your theory the wages would have been increased in a similar motion. Where are those wage increases, I ask you? Answer: nonexistent, as they are not obliged in any way to pay them more. The brunt of this tax cut goes into executives and shareholder pockets, the rest into investments, buybacks and liquidity reserves. Normal employees get zip out of those tax cuts.

2. a. You have to consider that those poverty lines are arbitrarily set by the state. But extreme poverty is real in the US much more than any other developed country. The reason is the welfare state, or lack thereof in the US. While the rest of the world provides some bottom line which allows people to live, what they get in the US had been described as "too much to die, not enough to live". Just check how low the US bottoms out on this chart:

This is the result of the inadequate US social security and welfare state. And yet republicans want to further cut that down.

b. Investments don't always work out. Yeah, but that's not the problem. The problem is that you need to have some expendable income to be able invest something in the first place.

c. Believe me, they do. But finding a job is not always as easy as you seem to think, especially not if your skillset is too limited or outdated.

3. It took 6 years to get unemployment in the US back to pre-recession levels of 2006. If you're unlucky that means over 5 years of unemployment for you. Of course the recession will go away after a while, but it's effects linger around for much longer than you think.

4. What if you can't afford those medicines? That's what universal healthcare is supposed for, after all. But not in the US, apparently.

About the addiction, you know how the opiate crisis started? With prescription drugs containing opiates as extra strong painkillers. They were supposed to give out the opiates very slowly and not make anyone addicted to them. But those who couldn't swallow the pills crushed them, and only then it got found out that when crushed, the retardent wouldn't work (and wasn't strong enough anyway, so anybody with very strong pains was at risk of getting highly dependent on those medicines). Oh, and both the right for painkillers and the allowance for opiates in painkillers stem from unipartisan republican legislation under Bush junior.

5. Only if their wages raise with it. Otherwise only the price of living will go up for them.

6. Not enough to live from. Also, charity only helps against the symptoms, but not the underlying causes of social injustice, which welfare tackles. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/charity/against_1.shtml

This is also why international aid nowadays doesn't just send money into poverty-strick regions, but instead tackle on their own infrastructure to give a groundwork for further development, and bring food for the hungry in a starvation to ensure it's not getting squandered onto other tasks or pocketed by the local governments.

You also don't seem to understand that it's not just a handout. You could make it like in Luxembourg, where you get unemployment aid, but you have to register at the unemployment office, go there every time they call you and go to every job offer they send you (unless on sickness leave, but then you need to send them the doctor's notice), lest you get either reduced aid or no aid at all for a couple months if you're a repeating offender. This is to make sure you're serious about looking for work and not sitting around, waiting for charity donations to trickle in.

There's a lot that's wrong here:

A large percentage of drugs come to the country through legal entrances.  Even if they weren't, you'd start to find that drug dealers would go to different lengths to make it happen.  Building a wall isn't what is going to stop drug trafficking.  At most, all it would do is change how drug trafficking is done.  And it won't even do that, because again,
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2019/01/08/most-hard-drugs-get-smuggled-into-u-s-through-ports-entry/2517586002/

Americans aren't interested in farm work.  It's a nice idea that Americans would start picking up these jobs, but it's not what happens.  Despite the fact that there are currently not enough workers, native born American workers aren't picking up these jobs.  

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/farmers-suffer-from-a-shortage-of-workers-but-native-born-americans-dont-want-the-jobs/
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-farms-immigration/

On the note that border spending will go down.  That's another thing that just won't happen.  It costs a lot of money to build and maintain a wall.  You might think that you could use less people, but you really can't.  If you want the border wall to work any better than our current border works, then you need to throw a ton of money at it.  You still need a lot people patrolling to make sure they aren't building tunnels, climbing over, finding spots in the wall that aren't well maintained.  

At some point with a wall, you reach diminishing returns. Where it actually costs more money to defend the border than it actually saves.  

Firstly a tiny wall around a house doesn't compare to a several thousand mile wall that has to be built through deserts and mountains.

Secondly no one is building a wall around their house because they are worried about the influx of undocumented immigrants. 

The best reason to build a fence around your house is privacy, not security. 

Do you mean privacy fences?  Or walls around a gate community?  I need to know more about what you mean.

As for your links, those are caravans of refuges who are entering at the points of entry seeking asylum.  Did you read your own articles?

"But a wall would do little to slow migration, most immigration analysts say. While the exact numbers are not known, many of those apprehended along the southern border, including the thousands who present themselves at legal ports of entry, surrender voluntarily to Border Patrol agents and eventually submit legal asylum claims."

Those that are more spread out now and are crossing illegally are doing so because of the frustrations and fear of actually crossing at the legal points of entry (exceptionally long waits and family separation....still thousands of kids separated from their parents and officials have no idea where they moved the kids to).

I gave you an example earlier.  I'll post it again.

"Say they retire at 75 (several years after retirement age) and yet live to 100. That's 25 years. If they saved $200,000, they'd have just $8,000 per year to live on without considering for inflation and cost of living increases (which have more than doubled in the past 25 years)."

So what does it take to save $200,000?  Save $50 per week for 50 years at 2% interest (final total = $205,925).  But good luck getting that rate.  Current savings account rates are just 0.06% on average....which would give our retiree just $121,816 for the next 25 years.  Less than $5,000 per year to work with.

You got to be kidding me.  

SpokenTruth's example is $50 a week.  When a huge percentage of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, they can't afford $50 a week.  Let alone more.