I'm sorry, I just don't get it. Contrary to Hugh Hewitt's post, I think it is possible to be seriously in support of border security yet oppose a fence.
Why? Well first, there is the inconvenient fact that people are already digging tunnels. Maybe it's not popular among the right to agree with the Governator, but kindly explain who besides the contractors to build the fence will benefit if the coyotes just dig underneath it? And take a look at a map and note the blue stuff. That's ocean. Fences don't work there. They'll build makeshift boats the way Cubans or Haitians have.
All a border fence along Mexico is going to do is to make America look stupid and anti-Mexican. You don't hear much about a border fence with Canada, do you? Are some people on the right trying to pick a fight with Mexico (well, when they aren't trying to pick a fight with Russia or China)?
Let's be honest about the real problem. We have, since 1973, created an artificial labor shortage thanks to Roe v. Wade. As a result, there have become jobs that Americans are unwilling to do unless they are paid way too much.
That said, there is a way to secure the border without a fence. Use technology like Unmanned aerial vehicles and remote sensors. Back it up with a larger Border Patrol. Increase the legal immigration quotas and create a guest-worker program so the coyotes no longer have a market. Fix the present system so that it is no longer a joke among its own bureaucrats, or a system that has gone wrong. Make it something that will provide clear standards for entry into the US for students, guest workers, those seeking asylum, and those seeking to come here on a permanent basis. Provide clear standards for citizenship (which would include mastering the English language and having a high-school level understanding of American history and civics, and require allegiance to this country).
It might not please the hard-liners on either side of this issue, but it will solve the problem. Isn't that what everybody wants?