Is she getting paid an actual wage, or is she getting a room and a trivial amount of spending money?

The first is a job, the second shouldn't be considered one.

Many countries consider whether something is a job based on what it should be paid (accounting for typical pay, minimum wage, etc), rather than what someone is paid.

This is to prevent abuses such as shipping in workers from a poorer country, giving them food, board and $10 a week for them to stack shelves, and claiming "It's not a job", so the not-workers don't require a working visa.

Similar judgements are also often made in relation to tax law, working conditions, etc.

I'm not sure it's actually a bad thing to let people work for free if there's a reason they honestly want to. As long as they're not trapped in some manner.

Plus it's tricky when it comes to something like 'watching children part of the day'. It wouldn't be considered labor if it was a family member doing it, whereas stacking shelves certainly would be. If I'm letting someone live in my house, why should it matter if they're family when it comes to having them do chores?

There are over 11 million illegals in this country. The typical reaction is to give them extensive welfare, and in certain cases, job and tuition preferences over citizens.

Myth status: BUSTED

Illegal immigrants pay more into social security than they take out. I don't even live in your country and I know this, come on - read a book.

That's only social security, there are many, many other programs. Illegal immigrants qualify for some of them, it depends on the state.

Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeituni_Onyango

She ignored deportation orders and managed to receive subsidized housing and a disability pension. She's not unique.

>" I don't even live in your country and I know this, come on - read a book."

I think that comment was uncalled. If you wanted to point out OP disinformation you could just provided the source and it would be as much effective and also would be better appreciated.

Sorry but I'm not willing to be tolerant of intolerance. The chance of actually turning around a wilfully ignorant racist on the internet is very low; broadcasting the message "these attitudes are not socially acceptable" is easier (I suppose you could consider that prevention rather than cure?)

Do you think that's the expressed intended reaction or an unintended result?

My guess is it would be difficult to find any piece of document where it states something along the lines of "The goal of this program is to make this country more appealing for illegal immigrants, by offering them extensive welfare and preferential job and tuition situations, especially over those of our citizens."

I think what's more likely is that you are citing unfortunate byproducts of an imperfect solution to a complicated problem. Not a "typical reaction."

I'm not an expert on these things, though.