3 ms·

Although I'm not fully versed in every detail of the case, the article’s phrasing raises serious concerns about its accuracy and intent. For example, this sente

Although I'm not fully versed in every detail of the case, the article’s phrasing raises serious concerns about its accuracy and intent. For example, this sentence > And a British woman was detained in “horrendous conditions” for three weeks, her family said, after a *visa mix-up*. [emphasis mine] implies a simple administrative error. However, as detailed later in the article and supported by well-known facts, the situation was more complex. In reality: - The woman had been working in the US in exchange for accommodation — an arrangement explicitly prohibited under a tourist visa. - She then attempted to replicate this arrangement in Canada, only to be turned away. - By the time she was redirected, US authorities had already identified that she had violated visa regulations by working. A straightforward search for “work in return for accommodation USA visa” clearly confirms that tourist visas do not permit any form of employment, whether paid in cash or in kind. 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. Using the term "visa mix-up" not only downplays the deliberate actions taken by the individual but also appears intended to cast doubt as to whether the fault lies with the individual or with the US government.

ffsm8 2y ago
"the work" she was doing was domestic chores? Like "you can live for free in this room as long as you keep the house clean". It's not like she went there to work, she just did chores Frankly, you're the one that miss characterizing her.
- rahimnathwani 2y ago
  What is special about the nature of the work (domestic chores)? Would you see things differently if she were working as a barista or doing a bit of coding in return for accommodation? If so, why? When you say "It's not like she went there to work, she just did chores" you seem to imply that people come to the US because they want to work. They come for various reasons, and work is a thing that's necessary for most people, to achieve other ends. For this woman, working during her vacation was a means to fund her travels. She didn't come to the US with work as her primary purpose, but I'm assuming the work was integral to her plan because otherwise accommodation would be expensive.
  - ffsm8 2y ago
    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 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.
    - figassis 2y ago
      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.
    - rahimnathwani 2y ago
      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 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.
      - ffsm8 2y ago
- ranger_danger 2y ago
  In this case, legally, household chores (especially in exchange for accommodations) may still count as work and be technically disallowed by their visa. This is not uncommon and is the case in many other countries as well. If you ever watch those border security shows, they often show people having visas denied for exactly the same reason, and whether it's the US or other places like Australia and UK.

ffsm8 2y ago

"the work" she was doing was domestic chores? Like "you can live for free in this room as long as you keep the house clean". It's not like she went there to work, she just did chores Frankly, you're the one that miss characterizing her.

rahimnathwani 2y ago
What is special about the nature of the work (domestic chores)? Would you see things differently if she were working as a barista or doing a bit of coding in return for accommodation? If so, why? When you say "It's not like she went there to work, she just did chores" you seem to imply that people come to the US because they want to work. They come for various reasons, and work is a thing that's necessary for most people, to achieve other ends. For this woman, working during her vacation was a means to fund her travels. She didn't come to the US with work as her primary purpose, but I'm assuming the work was integral to her plan because otherwise accommodation would be expensive.
- ffsm8 2y ago
  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 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.
  - figassis 2y ago
    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.
  - rahimnathwani 2y ago
    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 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.
    - ffsm8 2y ago
ranger_danger 2y ago
In this case, legally, household chores (especially in exchange for accommodations) may still count as work and be technically disallowed by their visa. This is not uncommon and is the case in many other countries as well. If you ever watch those border security shows, they often show people having visas denied for exactly the same reason, and whether it's the US or other places like Australia and UK.