The Economist - USA (2019-12-21)

The EconomistDecember 21st 2019 United States 41

R

alph northam, the governor of Vir-

ginia, has no plan to wrest guns from

their owners. His proposed gun-control

measures are far more modest. But the Vir-

ginians who gathered this month at a meet-

ing of the board of supervisors of Augusta

County, in the state’s rural west, were not

buying that. The meeting included a vote

on whether the county should declare it-

self a “Second Amendment sanctuary”. It

was held at a high school to accommodate

the crowd that was expected to show up. In

the end, so many people came to protest

against supposed Democratic plans to dis-

arm them that they could not all fit in, and

loudspeakers had to be set up outside for

the latecomers.

At least 60 of Virginia’s 95 counties have

declared themselves Second Amendment

sanctuaries in recent weeks. They follow

counties in states such as Colorado and

New Mexico. They have borrowed from the

left the rhetoric of the “sanctuary cities”

movement, where local governments limit

their co-operation with federal immigra-

tion authorities in an attempt to protect il-

legal immigrants from deportation. But, in

practice, for a county to declare itself a Sec-

ond Amendment sanctuary is little more

than a howl of rage from rural gun owners.

In Virginia the movement began in No-

vember, when Democrats took control of

both houses of the state’s legislature for the

first time in over two decades. Gun control

was a big issue in that election. After a gun-

man killed 12 people in Virginia Beach in

May, Mr Northam called a special legisla-

tive meeting on gun control. The Republi-

cans, who at the time had a majority in both

chambers, put a quick end to it. Gun-con-

trol groups responded by pumping money

into the election. When they take office in

January, the Democrats plan to introduce

tighter background checks and a ban on the

purchase of some types of guns.

Yet what is popular in Virginia’s fast-

growing cities and suburbs, where well-

educated and immigrant newcomers have

settled, is anathema in rural areas like Au-

gusta County. According to Terry King, a 66-

year-old retired welder, the Democrats’

measures were “opening a door you can’t

close”. What started with background

checks would surely end with the confisca-

tion of the guns he had been using to hunt

deer and rabbits since he was a child. Like

others in the predominantly male crowd,

he wore an orange “Guns save lives” sticker

on his plaid flannel shirt. The stickers had

been handed out by the Virginia Citizens

Defence League (vcdl), a gun-rights outfit

which helped draft the county’s resolution.

“The problem is the people who have

moved into the cities,” said Gary Colvan, a

60-year-old former carpenter on disability

benefits who stood in the cold for two

hours to show his support. City dwellers

did not understand, he went on, that it was

not just a question of culture: rural Virgin-

ians needed guns to defend their families.

“Out here a police officer can be half an

hour away,” he said. Mass shootings pained

him, of course, but armed citizens made

America safer, not more dangerous.

Fired up by organisations like the vcdl,

elected officials have exploited such feel-

ings. But whether they add up to much

more than a protest is unclear. Sanctuary

cities are a practical proposal; they do not

involve breaking the law. If Second Amend-

ment sanctuaries are to mean anything,

though, local police have to refuse to en-

force state laws that local leaders think are

unconstitutional. Augusta County’s sher-

iff, Donald Smith, told a local newspaper he

would refuse to collect guns from citizens

if the state asked him to. Later he moaned

that the media had reported that he

“wouldn’t enforce the law”, when actually

what he meant is that “the constitution is

the law”. As legal defences go, it seems a

shaky one. 7

STUARTS DRAFT

Rural Virginians pledge to protect their

guns from urban Democrats

Gun control

From our cold

dead hands

“I

t wascreepy. I avoidedanycontact

with the father...there were always

periods where [I] didn’t get paid for a few

weeks”, said an au pair quoted in a 2018

report on problems in the au-pair in-

dustry. The report, written by the Inter-

national Human Rights Law Clinic at the

American University, revealed that many

au pairs endured illegally low wages and

abuse. One au pair interviewed was

forced to sleep in a dog’s play area. An-

other developed a bladder infection

because she wasn’t permitted enough

bathroom breaks.

In America au pairs occupy a curious

legal space. A State Department pro-

gramme allows 20,000 young foreigners

to spend a year or two in America to

attend college classes while living with

an American host family. In exchange for

providing up to 45 hours of child care,

they are paid a stipend of at least $195.75 a

week, or $4.35 per hour. Critics say that

the programme, which has little over-

sight, is rife with abuse. In early Decem-

ber, an appeals court in Massachusetts

struck a blow for au pairs when it upheld

a ruling that in a number of north-east-

ern states and Puerto Rico, they must be

covered by the same protective laws that

apply to other workers.

Culture Care Au Pair, an agency that

sponsorsaupairs,hadsuedthestate,

hoping to exempt au pairs from rules for

domestic workers passed in 2014. It

claimed that au pairs are not typical

workers as they are participating in a

cultural and educational exchange pro-

gramme. That argument was thrown out.

In Massachusetts, that means au pairs

must now be paid the minimum wage

(soon to be $12.75 per hour), as well as

guaranteed set meal breaks and the like.

The court’s decision is the second defeat

for the au pair industry. Earlier this year

10,000 au pairs were awarded $65.5m in a

class action suit in Colorado.

A large part of the appeal of employ-

ing an au pair is how much cheaper it is

than other child care options. Nation-

wide, nannies cost on average $596 a

week in 2018. In states like Massachu-

setts and New York they earn far more.

The federal government defines “afford-

able” child care as no more than 7% of a

family’s income. Over 40% of families

spend more than 15% of income on care,

according to Care.com, a website which

helps people to find carers. Monique Tú

Nguyen, head of Matahari Women Work-

ers’ Centre, which protects low-wage

earners, says the ruling is a “huge win for

au pairs”. Parents might resent it, but

they will have to stump up.

Helpforthehelp

Au pairs

NEW YORK

A court rules au pairs must be treated on a par with other workers