Comment by ffsm8 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ffsm8 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Yes, because calling an obligation to do chores "work" is massively stretching the definition of the term "work".

You can be a full-time employee whose only job is doing chores, but that's not what's described here, it's just doing (some of ) the household chores for a single house/family which you're living with

There is even a term for it, though the practice has been falling out of fashion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Au_pair

To be clear, I'm not arguing that this practice is in line with the tourist visa. I'm saying that calling that work is not what most people would understand under that term. And she most likely wasn't even aware that this (probably) wasn't permissable. My issue is your miss characterization of her doing this knowing that it's not allowed. Young people usually aren't very informed, and you're pushing a narrative of her going there for gainful employment, when she's likely just doing this to experience life in another culture for a few months.

The government’s definition of work needs to be broad enough to keep people from gaming it. If she had to “work” to sustain her life, that should count as work in any definition, whether this is official employment or not. Any exchange of your time or skills for any type of benefit is work. Even if you don’t benefit. I guess if someone enslaves you while on a tourist visa, that is still work.

  There is even a term for it, though the practice has been falling out of fashion

Yes, and if you google that term and append 'visa', you'll see that, to be an au pair in the USA:

- you need a J-1 visa: https://j1visa.state.gov/programs/au-pair, and

- you must to be 18 to 26 years old, and

  when she's likely just doing this to experience life in another culture for a few months

Most people choose to work so that they have a roof over their heads in the place that they want to be, whether they intend to be there permanently or not.

Did you skip over half my comment? I said that it probably wasn't permissable under the tourist visa (it depends entirely on what the au pair relationship was).

The issue was never the deportation, it was her treatment during this process. (And the grandparents miss characterization of her motivations)

To address your final remark: The idea of au pair was to grow as a person during their formative years, it's something upper middle class teenagers/young adults did, which is also why theyre usually not a illegal immigration risk, because they've already got plenty of privileges at home. You seem to think it's something people did go move up in the world, which this never was - at least I've never met anyone doing it with the desire to get a good job. They all just wanted to meet people, experience life and broaden their horizon.

Or stated less charitably: they wanted to escape their parents home but didn't yet know what they wanted to do with their lives. That's not really a problem people trying to move up in the world have.

But there is a reason why au pair isn't really done anymore, and it's partly because a lot of hosts saw the guests as cheap labor, which is why you need a work visa nowadays.

  The issue was never the deportation, it was her treatment during this process.

I addressed the treatment part in my first comment on this article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43478428

  It’s understandable that enforcement measures must serve as a deterrent, and not just return the situation to what it should have been. But even if he severity of detention might be debatable in this case, the core issue here is the article’s misleading characterization.

It seems like we both agree the law should be enforced. I have nothing in particular to share about how the law should be enforced.

My point is that The Guardian is portraying this as some innocent 'mix-up' when in fact the person has been an adult for 10 years and can reasonably be expected to know that they can't work on a tourist visa, even if they're paid in kind and not in cash.

> My point is that The Guardian is portraying this as some innocent 'mix-up' when in fact the person has been an adult for 10 years and can reasonably be expected to know that they can't work on a tourist visa, even if they're paid in kind and not in cash.

But it probably was a simple mix-up by her. I'd bet she literally didn't know. Does that make her ignorant and likely extremely immature? Totally, but if she weren't... She wouldn't be trying to do au pair to begin with

I don't think that coverage was misleading at all, frankly

Reply on news.ycombinator.com