In the Daily Caller, Neil Munro explains:

Administration officials tried to head off public protest over their June 15 decision to not deport under-30 illegal immigrants by claiming that the de-facto amnesty is not a legal amnesty.

“This is not amnesty — it is an exercise of [prosecutorial] discretion so that these young people are not in the removal system,” said President Barack Obama’s immigration deputy, Janet Napolitano, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. ...

“Effective immediately, young [foreign] people who were brought to the United States… will no longer be removed from the country,” Napolitano said in the press conference.

... The administration’s election-year amnesty move may grow far larger than advertised, because it can be used by foreign children who are now in the country when they reach the age of 15. Younger illegal immigrants “will be able to age into the process,” said an administration official June 15.

It may also be exploited by other immigrants who will use the existing black-market in false documents to fake suitable work histories and ages. 

The new policy may also spur additional illegal immigration by people wishing to see their children immigrate into United States’ relatively high-wage economy. ... 

The potential for campaign-trail damage was highlighted by Napolitano’s June 15 press conference.

She portrayed the amnesty as a cost-saving program, not an amnesty or a bid for Hispanic votes in 2012.

But she did not take questions from reporters.

Instead, two administration officials answered questions from selected reporters, including from the Spanish-language TV network, Univision and from The New York Times.

The selected reporters did not offer skeptical questions about the scale and impact of the amnesty. The reporters also did not ask about its impact on American workers, especially low-skill workers whose wages and opportunities have declined for more than a decade amid the inflow of roughly 10 million illegal immigrants.

Neil then made himself the worst person in the history of the world by jumping in toward the end of Obama's speech announcing his amnesty-by-fiat to ask how this will help American workers. A visibly miffed Obama "explained" that "These young people are going to make extraordinary contributions ..." And who could possibly argue with that?

If you are a bad, bad person, you might object that illegal immigrants and their descendants aren't blank slates, that we have many decades of experience with them, and that the evidence from a couple of generations in Southern California is they mostly make wages lower, real estate costs higher, and public schools lousier for working and middle class Americans.

In contrast, they provide almost no competition whatsoever for elite Americans. For example, no Spanish-surnamed person who spent at least some of his or her youth in the United States has earned an Academy Award nomination in any category, no matter how minor, since the 1980s. That is extraordinary. That's something like an 0 for 3000 cold streak for the largest ethnic group in Los Angeles County. The closest thing to a Mexican-American getting an Oscar nomination in this century are the Weitz Brothers, whose maternal grandmother was a silent movie star from Mexico. But their dad was a fashion designer and race car driver from Berlin.

Look, if you find that, on the whole, illegal immigrants make life worse for you and yours, that just shows you are a loser who has failed to "insulate, insulate, insulate" yourself. So, why should anybody listen to a loser like you, or to anybody who speaks up for losers and no doubt has had Loser Cooties rub off on him? If you object to this unimpeachable logic about why you have cooties, that just shows you are incapable of nuanced thought.