When we last discussed Fareed Zakaria, he was wrong about immigration, and he's wrong again. It's a standard "deep inside the Beltway and willing to buy misleading polls from interested parties" screed:

...Despite the efforts of populist and nativist politicians and pundits to whip up hysteria about a looming catastrophe, Americans didn't bite. In a news-week poll taken last week, voters listed immigration a distant fifth on their list of concerns—after Iraq, terrorism, the economy and health care...

Obvious to those in the know, immigration is linked to "terrorism, the economy and health care". Also obvious is that having millions of foreign citizens in your country is indeed a "looming catastrophe".

...Consistent two-thirds majorities favor a comprehensive overhaul that would include tighter enforcement, but also guest-worker visas and a path to citizenship for illegal workers already in the country...

As discussed here in the past, if you phrase questions in just the right way (or lie to people), you can get the poll results you want. Calling those who would be here for between three and six years and who could apply for legal permanent resident status at four years "guests" is obviously a lie.

...The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. Only about 20 percent of voters, mostly but not exclusively Republican, are dead set against a guest-worker program as well as any path to citizenship for illegals...

As indicated above, calling them "guests" is a lie. And, any form of legalization would be perceived as an amnesty, and would lead to increased illegal immigration. If voters were presented with the truth and if they were informed of the actual impact of any sort of amnesty, the great majority would be opposed to what Zakaria supports.

Shouldn't we expect more of TV pundits than to simply take biased polls that don't reveal what proposals would actually do and then try to base policy on that?