Here are some policy (not political) arguments for and against:

For:

1) It could deprive the amnesty movement of its poster children. For years, advocates of ”comprehensive” amnesty didn’t want to push a more limited law legalizing only the most appealing cases, those who came to this country as minors. The DREAM kids were held hostage by their own allies, who hoped the kids’ stories would provide cover for an across-the-board amnesty applying to millions of less appealing beneficiaries (e.g. people who snuck in as adults). Only when a general amnesty was defeated were the DREAMers allowed to plead their special case.

Maybe the amnesty advocates were right the first time–and a Krikorian-style deal would give us effective border control while simultaneously draining the” comprehensive” movement of its best PR fuel;

2) The smoke-out factor: Romney doesn’t have to worry much that Krikorian’s package will be embraced by Democrats–they’ll probably balk at the new enforcement provisions, like mandatory use of the “E-Verify” system of making sure workers are legal when they are hired. That would smoke out the Dem’s suspected real position: they don’t really want enforcement after all. If Dems’ didn’t balk, then we’d have in place enforcement mechanisms that Obama might veto if presented in a stand-alone bill.