Politics: Immigration debate - high fence big gate

The NY Times charges for the ability to see some of their articles. This has led to bloggers reproducing NYT articles.

In the heat of the immigration debate, I hear that NYT's Thomas Friedman wrote an essay with the title, "High Fence, Big Gate."

A Google search took me to Peking Duck where the TF article is displayed.

Friedman's argument:
America today is struggling to find the right balance of policies on immigration. Personally, I favor a very high fence, with a very big gate.

So far, neither President Bush's proposal to allow the nation's millions of illegal immigrants to stay temporarily on work visas, nor the most hard-line G.O.P. counterproposal, which focuses only on border security, leaves me satisfied. We need a better blend of the two - a blend that will keep America the world's greatest magnet for immigrants.
An amnesty for the 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants already here is hardly ideal. It would reward illegal behavior.
Good fences make good immigration policy. Fences make people more secure and able to think through this issue more calmly. Porous borders empower only anti-immigrant demagogues, like the shameful CNN, which dumbs down the whole debate.
I weigh each immigration proposal with two questions: "Does it offer a real fence? Does it offer a real gate?
As is often the case, the debate is being seized by extremists on both sides. You have one side saying, "You hate immigrants." While the other side is saying, "You don't want to protect our borders."

Meanwhile, average Joe and Jane is saying, what idiots! Don't you think it is possible that we like immigrants AND we want to protect our borders?