1) people on the minimum wage have to be state supported, which would still be the case without the mw so is irrelevant
The first point is nothing to do with the fact that a large portion of the population are dependent on the state to various degrees.
It describes how one of the effects of a minimum wage is an increase in the number who are totally dependent who generate zero revenue for the state. I did not make that clear, I apologize.
2) That minimum wages can raise unemployment which is a hotly contested topic, there's actually very little solid evidence of that taking place. The Economist has some very good summaries of the data.
Ah, economists. What fun. According to the model of economics that is taught in every seat in this country, the most recent financial crisis could not possibly have occurred. Strange that. Perhaps they know nothing useful? I trust economists as much as I trust Ed Balls or Gideon Osborne. Almost no link between cause and effect that we could possibly deduce with any reasonable certainty, its a load of waffle.
I believe that Nassim Nicholas Taleb could argue that I have a greater chance of being correct that an economist with all the data in the world. A child could see the logic of minimum wage logically being a negative pressure upon job numbers. Adults pay money to buy a pamphlet where sophists unaware they are sophists explain to plebs why what is good for faceless soulless TNCs is good for them too!
Your second point seems to argue mw leads to more jobs going to illegal immigrants which is basically an argument against any employment legislation ever, but I can see the theoretical argument.
It leads to more jobs in light and dark economies going to legal and illegal migrants respectively. It seems rather obvious, you seem to be vaguely grasping for some reason to accuse me of being a racist. You provide no counter to the argument, this is most likely as I explained this point poorly in the OP for which I apologize.
Most of the rest of your argument is based on the idea that immigrants reduce wealth for the rest of the population which is again not really true as a general statement.
Ah, there it is! Vaguely insinuate my argument must be founded on some type of racism and then pussyfoot out of saying anything much apart from letting everyone know you have found out another racist and by golly you aren't one.
I would explain why even though open borders is "good" for the bigger state's GDP it is bad for most of the citizens of the state, but a clever harry like you probably know already and it would therefor be a waste.