So... opinions seem to be hardening on the new immigration deal. Conservatives hate the fact that it would effectively grant amnesty to the 10 million undocumented workers who are currently in the country. Immigrant and labor advocates don't like the guest worker program--which would import up to 600,000 indentured servants each year--or the move away from support for family reunification (although on the last bit, see here). I mostly agree with the latter set of concerns, but I do have a few questions: 1. Under the agreement, undocumented workers now living in the country would effectively receive amnesty in the form of a "Z-visa" (for a $5,000 fine), but then have to wait 13 years before becoming citizens. But if we're going to give them a path to citizenship--which I agree with--what's the point in having them wait 13 years? Practically speaking, that would do nothing to alter whatever social or economic effects these workers may have. The delay only makes sense, I think, if you're a Republican worrying about creating lots of new Latino voters all at once. 2. Why do Z-visa holders have to go back home briefly (for a year, it seems) before they can receive citizenship--as the new bill would require? That seems utterly pointless. And won't it just deter many undocumented workers from coming forward in the first place? 3. As for the guest workers, who get no path to citizenship, does anyone really believe that they'll all just go back home once their visas expire? Won't they just stay in the country illegally and hope for another amnesty bill down the road? Germany's experience with Turkish guest workers seems relevant here. --Bradford Plumer