> Had she been paid? Was there a contract? Would she have lost her accommodation if she could no longer provide services? Becky answered no to everything. She was a tourist, she said.
Isn't the point of the 'free' accommodation via Workaway that you o my get to stay for free for doing some work/cleaning/service? If you turned up and didn't fulfill your side of the Workaway deal surely you would lose your accommodation.
Certainly no fun to be treated this way however Canadian authorities also told her she needed a working visa to Workaway in that country. It seems that the reason she ever came into contact with the US authorities is that she did not apply for the correct visa for either Canada or the US in the first place.
,,Some hosts may give a paid allowance to ensure they are offering at least the minimum wage in their country''
It's sad, but workaway is similarly to airbnb (hotel service) and uber (taxi service) uses ,,work'' and ,,help'' interchangebly on its website on purpose.
I am a tourist in USA (not working), and I haven't experienced any problem at the border control.
I don't understand the point of this article.
Was she not working in the US in exchange for accommodation? It certainly seems she was.
Was she not violating US visa rules by doing so? IANAL but it seems plausible she was.
Why did she sign her statement if it was inaccurate? I seem to see a lot of stories of people getting in legal trouble that boil down to 'I signed an inaccurate statement because I thought that would make it all go away.' Is this supposed to be an argument worthy of sympathy?
Is there a reason to see this story as something other than someone was unable to exercise white privilege to avoid consequences for bending (breaking) the rules?