Three weeks ago Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) outlined an idea that he hoped would convince his House colleagues to reach a compromise with the Senate on immigration reform. But in the period since then, Pence's plan has received a lot of press, but few guarantees of ever passing.

In the process, Pence's plan has divided the right, leading some to question his role as the leader of House conservatives and others to praise him for his willingness to think outside the box. (For a similar recap of the Pence plan, see Tim Chapman's report on Townhall.com.)

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R.-Colo.), leader of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, went from Pence's ally to his enemy once Pence laid out the details of the plan at the Heritage Foundation on May 23. Tancredo made this blistering statement at the time and hasn't let up since:

Mike Pence is making the same mistakes that the President has, using the straw man of mass deportations and redefining amnesty to suit his interests. Unfortunately, like the President, Pence is breaking from House conservatives who remain steadfast in their support of a security-first approach to immigration.

Here at HUMAN EVENTS, I've run both pros and cons about the Pence plan, the most recent coming today. Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan lambasted the Pence plan, calling it "stealth amnesty."

As Bush backs away from the Senate bill ("we don't have to choose between the extremes -- there's a rational middle ground"), Pence uses identical rhetoric to describe his plan, now being hailed by Newt Gingrich, Gary Bauer, David Keene of the American Conservative Union and The American Spectator. It looks like the fix is in.

Pence calls his plan a "middle ground" proposal, a "no amnesty immigration reform" in which "securing our border is the first step."

This is fraudulent. At the heart of the Pence plan is amnesty. Illegal aliens here return to Mexico for one week with an assurance they can come back to their jobs. Down there, they visit "Ellis Island Centers" to register as "guest workers" and return with "work permits." The illegal are made legal and put on a path to citizenship.

Another HUMAN EVENTS columnist, Mac Johnson, has also criticized the plan, comparing Pence's embrace of a guest-worker plan to President Nixon's embrace of China. Johnson's piece triggered a response from Brian T. Johnson (no relation), who hailed the idea.

We've also run an op-ed by Helen E. Krieble, president of the Vernon K. Krieble Foundation, which first floated the idea that Pence chose to embrace.

So what does this all mean for the future of the Pence plan? Your guess is as good as mine. But for Pence's sake, I certainly hope this doesn't tarnish the conservative credentials of a congressman who HUMAN EVENTS named the "Man of the Year" and I've personally called "Our Last Great Hope."

UPDATE -- 11:14 p.m.: I just found an interview with Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, who was asked by U.S. News and World Report his view on the Pence plan. Here's the exchange (see page 2):

What do you think of the proposal by Rep. Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, that would provide an incentive for illegal immigrants to leave the country and then apply for guest-worker visas to come to the United States?

I have not reviewed the Pence proposal. The thing is ... the Senate has passed a bill and the House has passed its version of a bill. But the Pence bill itself has passed neither house.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.