Has Mexico paid for Donald Trump's border wall yet?

No, Trump has no idea how he can make Mexico pay for his 'wall' so instead he is raiding the Pentagon budget in the neighborhood of about 3 billion. But what the hell, it only impacts military hospitals and other facilities necessary for the well being of our military men and women. They won't mind, they are happy to forgo medical treatment and safe housing and proper equipment. Its good we have such people who are willing to risk their lives for a functioning moron who pretends he has plans but doesn't. God bless America.

Nobody would pay for a wall that hasn't been built.

They should make the wall out of water jugs and sausages. Feed those poor people as they take a dangerous journey.

By diverting $3.6 billion from necessary things, his Lowness will get the glorified fence up. Sure he will steal money from places such as the V.A. and West Point and 125 other things or places or projects. But hey, not to worry, he's sure the Chinese will now pay for it through tariffs.

yesterday the white house released a photo showing border wall progress...

No and it appears we're not done paying for Donald Trump yet, either,

Donald Trump is trying to get Mexico to pay for it on a layaway plan.

I don't see how he can force them to pay for it.
Has Mexico signed a treaty granting this obligation?
Was this treaty ratified by both the USA and Mexico?
Has it been ratified but challenged in the international courts of arbitration?

Trump therefore has no basis to "force" Mexico to pay for it, since none of the above has ever happened.
The major treaty between the USA and Mexico is the NAFTA-replacement deal. Nothing about a wall in there.....

They, in turn, will make Taipei!

You certainly CAN'T read a room. The OP was being facetious at best.

some folks are more artists of poesy than composers of jokes.

Published August 3, 2017

LEAKED: Trump BEGGED Mexican President To Stop Talking About The Wall.

He said no! Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, breaks it down.

I have read a lot of news stories about intercepted drug shipments, but maybe they're fake news, who knows.

There may also be lots more drugs that made it through; i.e. enough to satisfy the market despite whatever drugs were taken out of their markets by being intercepted.

Assuming, however, that the intercepted drugs are not being replaced by other drugs at their point-of-purchase, then you could say that the drug industry is paying for the wall (not just Mexico), i.e. because the money not spent on drugs could end up going into the economy in other ways and thus funding the taxes that will ultimately pay for the wall.

Of course, if drug money gets spent in businesses that pay taxes, it will also fund the wall. Either way the wall gets funded. Either way, Mexico pays because of trade with the US, which is funding the wall.

No, but our military has.

Do you think the US will spend more on the wall than is spent on drugs and trafficked human labor?

What would be better, legalizing drug- and human- trafficking in order to tax them; or building a wall with tax money in order to stop drug- and human- trafficking from generating revenues in the first place?

In one scenario. you allow abuse and exploitation to go on in order to tax it; while in the other you lose GDP in order to stop a lucrative-yet-exploitative industry.

Which is better?

Walls have not and will not stop drug and human trafficking.

Unfortunately, McConnell just saved his senate re-election if it was danger. Kentuckians have always been proud of Fort Campbell. At least around in the area I live.

McConnell vows to protect Kentucky middle school from Trump's grab for wall funding

Is there a more inhumane method for transporting drugs than putting them inside a living human body?

Every system of border control has a catch-rate that can be calculated. E.g. statisticians can keep track of what percentage of drug shipments hidden in produce are intercepted, how many hidden in agricultural products are intercepted, how many floated in to fishing boats, etc. etc.

That means there is also a catch-rate for shipments hidden inside (poor/desperate/extorted) human bodies paid as border-crossers. If the cost/revenue ratio for shipping drugs in this way is cheaper than other methods, there is an economic incentive to pay poor people to swallow drug balloons and pretend to be migrants traveling for work, family, and other ostensibly normal reasons.

A wall is not guaranteed to discourage trafficking, but it could help. Certainly if there is no wall, there is more opportunity to send human bodies filled with drug balloons by land-crossing.

If the demand-side for drugs would 'just say no,' there would be no money to make by sending drugs across borders, and then we could stop worrying about trafficking. Wouldn't that be nice?

In other words, the drug markets within the US have all the power to stop trafficking in their hands simply by giving up their habits and the transactions those habits engender. That also means they have the power to stop the wall from being built and all the waste and environmental harm that comes with it, not to mention inconvenience to legitimate migrants.