Murder is still murder.

Got plenty of non-lethal deterrents we get to play with

Sadism is a thing. But that isn't really where you're coming from, is it. You talk like they're coming here to take something that isn't theirs. Take something that is yours. Should America hold firm and repel the invaders, I hope you have a clear concept of what you, yourself are protecting or preventing.

Our reasoning is simple, we have laws and borders - gotta respect both if you want to move here. Would you mind telling me your side? We have plenty of domestic problems we can work on, why should we start taking on other countries' problems before fixing our own?

It is certainly not that I want a bum rush of foreign people to just cross the border whenever. And I recognize that other countries' problems can become your country's problems. The fact is, the US will have problems spilling in from other places. This doesn't mean we have to accept immigrants. We have laws and policy that guide that. What I want to do is, treat people like people. If the immigrants are coming too fast, process them faster. Create the jobs that process the people who crossed illegally and get them out fast. Take a fingerprint, take 3 pictures, database it, consider their asylum claim if they have one, and always ship the children back with the parents. (A fingerprint and 3 pictures in a database is already, or soon will be, easily searchable to identify repeat offenders.)

Treat people like people.

That said, I am wondering what the cost of deportation is, and at a given cost, how effective it is. Would foreign policy be effective at reducing the flow and would such policy cost less to the US government? And thus the American tax payers. I don't believe that making coming to America more painful than facing famine, prejudice, persecution, gang violence, and certain death. Are we a boot or are we a shining example of what the world should be? (or somewhere in between)

I think you're secretly right-leaning on this issue. First part sounds like you're saying what we've been saying - more border security. I think you're naive to think these people are fleeing absolute destitution. Asylum is not just like Quasimodo screaming sanctuary, it has conditions. You need to be facing persecution based on race, religion, politics, etc. These people openly claim they're coming here for work. In that case, they are free to apply, but for that kind of immigration we operate on merit. You want to come here to work? What do you have to offer? That's where the economic balance comes in to play. We can't accept an entire city of people because they want jobs. And there's no way an entire city of people are legitimately seeking asylum. That's a small army of people, they have the numbers to solve their own problems. And if not, then why are we funding these corrupt governments who mistreat their people? This invasion has 2 non-mutually exclusive possibilities: we see how bad illegal immigration has become and we secure out borders, we see how bad foreign gov'ts have become and we stop giving them money. Both outcomes will be beneficial for every legal resident of the USA and those are the people that our government is responsible for.

The funds to foreign governments.
1. What does it pay for (intended to pay for)?
2. How much money is sidelined (diverted to some other destination)?

1. I imagine to help the people that live there...
2. How would we know?

So, you have opinions, but you won't even do a google search to learn more about the things on which you have opinions? Is your picture in the dictionary next to Uninformed Voter? Are you old enough to vote?

In under a minute I found https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34027.pdf which is Honduras Background and U.S. Relations.

So,

1. Foreign aid can support programs that help the government improve conditions in their country. (less showing up at U.S. border)
2. From our government with may get it from Honduran government, international observers, or our diplomats which work at the US consulate or embassy in Honduras or any combination thereof.

I'm not trying to insult you. I'm challenging you to do better.

Hahah how does any of this information refute my argument? You throw a bunch of data out there with no point and then you go ad hominem. Try again bud lol

Withdrawing foreign aid (specifically "Honduras made some progress in reducing violence and putting public finances on a more sustainable path. Anti-corruption efforts also made some headway, largely as a result of cooperation between the Honduran public prosecutor’s office and the Organization of American States-backed Mission to Support the Fight Against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras.") could increase the number of people seeking refuge in the US.

Currently, walking over a thousand miles depending on the generosity of strangers and radio stations the whole way with no promise of getting into the country you're headed for is better than staying in place and trying to make it better. The people made this calculation. It would seem there are two general paths for this.
1. Make the border situation so much worse that people think it is a waste of time to even try to come here. i.e. treat people the worst that you can treat them.
2. For the US to choose ways to influence other countries for the better.

Sometimes, all it takes is words for the US president to exert the influence. Condemn violence. Condemn corruption. Condemn genocide. Declare support for your allies. Condemn murder of journalists. Support free speech. Support free press. Though, I must say, after this president that verbal influence could carry drastically less weight and effect.

Not if they are illegal invaders

Yes, that’s the way I would want it to be.

goddam right. you have every right to protect yourself. welcome to murica

You must be referring to the noun invader which has meaning indicating an opposing military force which seeks to take control, go with hostile intent, or to enter for conquest or plunder. Not people looking for a better place to live. Remember, the topic here is about shooting them, not finding some humane solution that involves sending nearly all of them home or to Mexico.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/invader
invader :
1. an army or country that uses force to enter and take control of another country:
The foreign invaders were finally defeated by allied forces.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/invader
invader :
NOUN
1. A person or group that invades a country, region, or other place.
‘it is a country that has repelled all invaders’
‘the arrival of Spanish invaders’

invade :
verb (used with object), in·vad·ed, in·vad·ing.
1. to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent:
Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
2. to enter like an enemy:
Locusts invaded the fields.
3. to enter as if to take possession:
to invade a neighbor's home.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invade
invade verb
transitive verb

1 : to enter for conquest or plunder
2 : to encroach upon : INFRINGE
3a : to spread over or into as if invading : PERMEATE
doubts invade his mind
b : to affect injuriously and progressively
gangrene invades healthy tissue

Well, if they pick up arms and come after you, stand your ground. I'm sure any other Texan would.