One more thing. Since illegal aliens will be traveling through higher risk desert, the cost charged by their coyote tour guides may increase substantially, so it may be expected that there will be fewer border crossers, a positive outcome indeed. Undoubtedly, fewer family members could afford to accompany heads of households, resulting in less overcrowding of our social support system and schools.

"Lie No. 2: A fence will help. A 700-mile fence, if it works, will only drive immigrants to other parts of the 2,000-mile border. In parts of the trackless Southwest, building the fence will require building new roads. Who uses roads? Immigrants and smugglers. And no fence will do anything about the roughly 40 percent of illegal immigrants who enter legally and overstay their visas."

Even if the fence only shifts the movement of illegal immigrants into a smaller crossing zone it will prove its worth. Part of the problem with enforcing the border laws is the length of the border and the number of agents required to patrol it. More resources can be put into a shorter length that can be more intenseley managed. As to the need for roads, that too is an aspect that will prove positive. Those desolate areas no doubt trackless at this point. The number of new roads will be limited to a necessary few. With fewer roads to travel on, as opposed to the many at the current crossing points, the movements of vehicles along those roads can better be monitored and controlled.

As to the other 40 percent, I'd say that dealing with 60 percent is making a significant dent in the problem. The NYT plan is to do the unthinkable, rewarding bad behavior resulting in encouragement to additioal Latino border crossers.

John S. Bolton the fact is the boys on this other side don't want anything to do with laws and any-kind of restriction or ideals of right or wrong, is normal when any people coming from so-other place want the people living here dead,dead.

The NYT tries to shift the burden of proof to the restrictionist side; but it is the mass-immigrationists who can't be bothered with offering a rational argument for such momentous changes.
The NYT says fences won't work, in which case the fences which supposedly can't function are not extreme, and are not anti-immigrant either, if they don't have the potential to keep out anyone.
Are we supposed to just not notice contradictions as obvious as that?

The MSM has been quite successful in painting those who support our laws as "extremists" (e.g., Randy Graf) and those who want to reward law-breakers with "comprehensive" "reform" as "moderates" (e.g., Gabrielle Giffords).

Looking at it another way, (virtually) uncontrolled mass immigration is remaking America demographically, and doing that with gross underachievers who will increasingly disadvantage America in the competitive world economic environment.

Isn't that maybe just a little bit 'extreme'?