Having recognized Corporations as people and money as speech, it does seem logical that Governments be given that status also and exploitation an exercise in free speech.
I am not sure how governments profit from exporting their children to the United States. Perhaps you could clarify that for me. On the contrary, I would guess the governments are somewhat embarrassed by the exposure of their inept governance so serious that hordes of children are fleeing their county.
Drug cartels might profit, but Im not quite sure I understand how. Surely they realize that such a rapid and large influx of refugees would force the United States to pretty much shut down the border making it more difficult for them to do business.
If a country is so badly governed or so poor it cannot support its children and keep them safe (in fairness I probably should point out that our putting guns in the hands of the psychologically impaired is not keeping our children safe either), further impoverishing that government doesn't seem like a very good solution. Our country is seen world-wide as extraordinarily prosperous and unbelievably generous. Even in a moderately affluent country parents surely see better opportunities for their children here. In countries pretty much overwhelmed by drug wars, indiscriminate killing, and a repressive (often by necessity) government, sending their children into the unknown with even a small chance of reaching such a promising land must be overwhelming.
The choice with which we are faced determines our character. To send these children back is heartless, but to allow them to stay would encourage more and more refugees until our resources would be strained to the breaking point. We cant shelter everyone in the world, be they the very young or the very poor or (less emotionally acceptable) those vaguely dissatisfied with their government or their way of life. Nor do we resolve the problem by demonizing their governments or its citizens.