The United States should establish a living wage

In this round I will refute my opponents case. As per the specifications, I'll reserve defense of my own case until R4, except where my case is relevant to refute his arguments.Recall also that he totally dropped my framework, so extend this which means that all of his practical impacts, even if taken as true, are secondary to the moral issue of if it's justified to prohibit certain private contracts.1. Would help people in poverty Literally his only argument here is that if we increase the minumum wage, people working under minimum wage would make more. This is uncontroversial. Despite my opponent failing to link his source (indeed, I could flatly deny his numbers for lack of documentation), it should be clear that the real issue is not will raising minimum wage cause those working under minimum wage to make more, but rather what effects over all exist, and is this moral? For why this will just harm workers and is immoral see everything I said in R2.Recall also that Pros argument applies to literally any wage, why not raise minimum wage to $100 an hour? Pros argument would apply under this scenario as well, but clearly such an increase is absurd. My opponent needs to justify his given numbers more than "peoples wages would go up".2. Illegal immigration The xenophobic notionthat illegals "take American jobs" is absurd on its face both logically and empirically. Even disregarding the fact that many of these illegals have these jobs precisely BECAUSE they are willing to work under the table for less than minimum wage, Pros argument still falls flat. Logically it should be self evident that no one is entitled to a job, much less due to their birth in arbritary, constantly shifting boundaries, as a job is a private, voluntary contract between individuals, not a human right. Empirically however, immigrants only help a countries economy. As David Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at Cato Institute[1] explains:"The addition of low-skilled immigrants expands the size of the overall economy, creating higher-wage openings for managers, craftsmen, accountants, and the like." Economist Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute[1] furthers: "In the ongoing debate on immigration, there is broad agreement among academic economists that it has a small but positive impact on the wages of native-born workers overall: although new immigrant workers add to the labor supply, they also consume goods and services, which creates more jobs …"Immigrants have a positive effect on the economy, not a negative one and there is no morally coherent reason to prohibit certain people from entering contracts based off the circumstance and location of their birth.3. Greedy business owners Turn: If business owners are greedy, they will do everything to maximize profits. This includes laying off or outsourcing workers when they are not worth keeping for $9.20 an hour.Pro is essentially assuming that companies operate in a vacuum and can scam laborers by not paying them what they're "worth". Nevermind the facts that people are only entitled to contractual agreements and there is no objective way to determine what one is "worth", companies too are in competition with other firms to hire productive workers in order to maximize profits. If a workers true skills are worth $20, no company is going to offer her minimum wage as other companies will be competing for the same skill set. And before my opponent tries to argue against this by pointing to the unemployment statistics, much of the reason people are out of work sometime is because they refuse to work for less than what their skills are worth, at jobs they're overqualified for. Indeed my opponent unjustly assumes ignorance on the part of the worker, when really such a claim is unwarranted.Vote Con.Sources:1. http://www.factcheck.org...;(the specific cards cited can be found within the article)