I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. If your "low skills Americans" were more attractive to employers than low skills workers, they would replace those workers regardless of the wage. Increasing the minimum wage will incentivize employers to hire more effectively (because the cost of a worker goes up), which means that only those workers who are productive enough to be worth being paid the new, higher, minimum wage will be hired. Your "low skills" Americans will still be competing within the same pool of labor that they were before the wage was increased, but now employers will be hiring fewer new employees.

So I guess you're arguing that your "low skills Americans who were on Snap" are a) higher skilled than foreign low skills workers, b) unable to find work that pays what they feel they are worth, which is at least 1.5 x $MIN_WAGE? I also don't follow this; if they can't get hired at 1.5 x $MIN_WAGE now, what will make them hireable at that wage in the future?

At 10/hr many people on Snap will not enter workforce because their benefits get reduced. At 15/hr the increase in wage more than offsets decrease in Snap and will attract more workers into the workforce pool.

Two low skilled Americans have an advantage in English language skills and for a significant portion of foreign workers, work eligibility.

OK, I understand your argument now. It's almost like we should guarantee some basic level of comfort to all citizens regardless of their employment status, so that they could afford to be hired on at wages employers are willing to pay...

In a non-agricultural society, either it comes from private employment or it comes from government redistribution. We're past the days when people could be expected to strike out on their own for their sustenance or mooch off of extended families.

Therefore, either we raise wages for our low skills workers, or we provide a sliding scale of basic income dependent on work history, self-improvement aptitude, volunteering, etc.