The L.A. Times lifestyle columnist and infamous hat-wearer offers "Border Fence Is Borderline Insanity". In brief, she thinks it's just a stunt and won't be built anyway because it won't be funded. Despite that, she warns of an environmental tragedy:

...the Secure Fence Act will bulldoze through nearly 40 years of laudable laws: the National Environmental Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, California coastal regulations, the Federal Water Pollution Act, the Clean Air Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It's like they never existed... This fence can run through hell, high water and west Texas and no law on the books can stop it, even if it somehow ends up poisoning wells in 10 states, flattening every historic Indian village between the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico and wiping out what turns out to be the last family of ivory-billed woodpeckers on the planet, deep in the heart of Texas...

Perhaps this would be a good opportunity for Patt to do some soul-searching. If her paper were a strong opponent of illegal immigration - rather than strongly supporting it - proposals like the fence wouldn't gain that much traction.

Just imagine if the Los Angeles Times did frequent exposes on crooked companies that employ illegal aliens, or on Mexican government schemes that enable illegal immigration, or uncovered rather than covered up Communist groups, or uncovered rather than covered for racial demagogues. Instead, their support for illegal immigration to a small extent leads to more of what they support, and that leads to proposals like the fence.

Of course, that would require them to determine which is more important to them, and I think we know the answer to that.

Related:
A secret message from Patt Morrison?