it has to be possible!

[Anonymous]

Hi again,

My name his Hamid, 22 native english speaker from America, I am still trying to find a way to work in Japan w/o a degree. I was wondering about the possibilities of a student or cultural visa. I was told u could work 20 or so hours with one. Is this true? Many information I am getting from people contradicts what others say. Some say there's no way without a degree, and some say you can always find a way. Any help is greatly appreciated. thanks again guys!

[paul]

Hamid

the degree is if you want to get a working visa that will allow you to work full-time in Japan. If you are on a student visa it means your primary purpose is to study at a school -and you can work part time so you can support yourself. It will be very difficult to live on just a part time income (a teacher working full time at working a 40 hour week can expect to net about $500 a month after expenses). Do you really want to live in Japan and survive on 1/2 that, or a salary of 150,000 yen a month? Dont forget you will also need to find a place to live and pay key money, and cash to tide you over until you find a job.

The student visa is not there for getting a teaching job 'through the back door', but you will also need a letter of recommendation from the school, and proof of registration, and proof that you will be able to support yourself while you are in Japan. If you are on a student visa you will need to get a letter from the school that you are enrolled there, and immigration does often check up on whether you are attending classes (there have been huge numbers of Chinese students enrolling in japanese language classes just so they can get into the country and work illegally) some schools were actually closed down because they were harboring students who had overstayed their visas.

As Glenski mentioned to you on another post- without a degree you can get a student visa, a culture visa or a spouse visa. For anything else an American will need a four year degree
Students by definition, do not need a degree because they are here to study as their main purpose, not to find a teaching job.

For info on working visas go to the following page

http://www.mofa.go.jp/j_info/visit/visa/03.html

[paul]

Culture Visa

Academic or artistic activities that provide no income, activities for the purpose of pursuing specific studies on Japanese culture or arts, or activities for the purpose of learning and acquiring skills in Japanese culture or arts under the guidance of experts (for example, ikebana, tea ceremony, judo, etc.).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

College
Student*
(2 years or 1 year)
Activities to receive education at colleges or equivalent educational institutions, specialized courses of study at miscellaneous schools (senshu gakko), educational institutions designated for preparing persons who have completed 12 years of education at schools in foreign countries to enter college, or technical colleges (koto senmon gakko). Applicants must fulfill certain conditions regarding ability to pay living expenses, etc.

[Osakan]

Hamid,

Paul is right. Without a degree it's near impossible for an American to work in Japan.

Incidentally, why on earth would you, an American, suppose that, "it has to be possible"? It isn't possible precisely because your own country has the most restrictive visa regulations in the world, such that it habitually refuses to countenance entering into reciprocal visa arrangements. I'm not (much) bashing America, but try telling Mexicans, Cubans or Haitians that "it has to be possible".

[Anonymous]

Or canadians. Why would anyone want to lock their best friend out?

[Anonymous]

Or Hong Kongers for that matter. HK gives Americans 3 month visa free access, while a Hong Konger has to get a US Visa for a 3 day stay!

[paul]

Ill tell you a little story- a few years ago I couldnt get a connecting flight through Singapore to New Zealand the week before Christmas (Christmas Eve actually) and the travel agent suggested a flight with an 18 hour stop over in Honolulu and connecting to New Zealand. In most countries you don't even need a visa if you are not going to leave the transit lounge. Places like Singapore airport have shopping centers and gyms and movie theaters between flights. But not Honololu. I was called to the front of the plane by the stewardess and escorted off the plane by an armed security guard and asked why I had no transit visa (which would have meant taking half a day off work so I could get a stamp from the embassy allowing me to spend the day in Honolulu airport). I was taken to a small room and interrogated about my intentions, even though I had an onward ticket, it was 6 in the morning and about $100 on me, and it was Christmas Eve. In the end they let me out of the departure lounge but I had to surrender my ticket and passport at the airline desk. 18 hours later I was escorted to the gate and put on the plane by two armed guards. (I met an English girl on the way back who had the same experience in New York except she was holed up in a hotel for 3 days, couldnt leave, and they even escorted her to the bathroom). Is this how the US normally treats foreign tourists?

[Anonymous]

Sure, that is why there are over 30 million Mexicans in the united states, that is why over 70% of miami speeks spanish, portugues or another European language, that is why the United states is the 5th largest Spanish speaking country in the World. There are over 7 million immigrants from the middle east, Chicago is the second largest polish city outside of Warsaw. Sure, you are right, the United States has a more restrictive immigration policy than Japan, or most other countries in the world when you put them side to side. Right.

[Osakan]

"There are over 30 million Mexicans in the United States". Mexican CITIZENS? Come off it, you can't equivocate between someone of Mexican extraction now naturalised in the US and a Mexican citizen (or other non-US citizen) ON A VISA, which is what's being discussed here.

Riddle me this: Japan has happily entered into working holiday visa agreements with every large English speaking country bar the US. Why not the US?

Possibility 1: Japan has snubbed the US (its major trading and defence partner).
Possibility 2: The US has refused to enter into such an agreement.

Seriously, which do you think is the case?

Your patriotism perhaps does you credit but you oughtn't to allow it to blind you to the fact that it simply IS very much more difficult for a foreign national to get a visa to live and work in the United States than near any other country in the free world.

[Anonymous]

Transit visas are nothing new. To be fair here is the requirement for Australia. Note this again depends on what country you are a citizen of.

All non Australian citizens traveling through Australia must have a valid visa. If you are just transiting through Australia on you way to another country you must obtain a visa overseas before traveling to Australia.



Some non-citizens, who belong to certain categories of passengers, who:

intend to transit Australia by air within 8 hours of their arrival; and
hold confirmed booking and documentation necessary to enter the country of their destination;
do not need a transit visa, as they are deemed to hold a special purpose visa provided they do not leave the airport transit lounge.

The following categories of passengers are covered under this arrangement:

Citizens of the following countries:

Andorra, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Canada, Denmark, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Portugal, Republic of South Africa, Republic of Marshall Islands, San Marino, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Kingdom (including its colonies), U.S.A., Vanuatu, Vatican City, Western Samoa and Zimbabwe;


Residents of Hong Kong holding Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) passports or British National Overseas (BNO) passports;


Residents of Taiwan holding a passport issued by the authorities of Taiwan (other than passports purported to be official or diplomatic passports);


Diplomatic passport holders, excluding holders of Arab non-national passports and diplomatic passports from the following countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Comoros, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, the Republic of Yemen, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Syria, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates.
Note: This list is current at time of publication, but may be changed in the future.

http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/transit.htm

[Osakan]

To re-visit my post of earlier today: I rather bought into the idiocy by suggesting that the 'Mexicans' Ogesa referred to are "naturalised" in the US. Of course they are no such thing, since the vast majority of hispanic people living in the US were born there and so are irrelevant as far as the debate on visas (or Ogesa's wider argument regarding immigration policy) is concerned. To insist on calling them 'Mexicans' when they are full-fledged American citizens who happen to be hispanic looks a lot like discrimination.

By the way, the argument that "70% of [the population of] Miami speaks Spanish", when advanced as evidence for America's having a liberal immigration policy, is as thoroughly silly an argument as can be conceived of. Would Ogesa suggest that white America invited these hispanic "immigrants" to NAME the state of Florida, and most of the major towns (Miami, Orlando, Tampa)? Or does it seem more likely that they were there first?

America has a rich ethnic diversity in its population, yes. Still, these people are all, and equally, American. That the modern American population is so diverse is owing to a variety of historical factors; some good, others obviously bad. It's true that America once had a liberal immigration policy, but that's a historical fact and no longer the case. It's just disingenuous to head-count an ethnic group in America (many of whom have American citizenship that can be counted back for generations) and suggest the result as evidence of America's now having an open-door policy.

[Osakan]

<shamefaced>

I did a bit of research on this and discovered that Ogesa is justified in claiming that the US (still) admits impressively large numbers of immigrants. So, Ogesa, sorry if I rather jumped down your throat.

[Osakan]

Note: Ogesa contacted me off-the-board to continue the debate.

Ogesa,

I'm not prepared to enter into discussions off the board. Like some of the other posters here, I've had bad experiences (abuse &etc). For all that your email was moderate and friendly, I don't want to break my policy, and would prefer to continue the discussion here. I hope that's okay by you and that you'll understand my reasons.


Okay. I've conceded that America DOES still have a comparatively liberal immigration policy. Two things remain true...

The first is that although your point about immigration is legitimate in itself, it's something of a non-sequitur here: the debate was about America's stringent VISA regulations. Short term visas and permanent immigration are related-but-different issues. It remains true that it's comparatively more difficult to get a visa to work in the US than in other countries, and that you've yet to explain why.

Second, your point about immigration policy was correct, still I think the way you argued for it was not. I can't allow that there are 30 million Mexican citizens (ie Mexican passport holders) legitimately living in the US; that claim holds that 1 in 9 people now living in the US is a Mexican - and not an American - citizen. Nor can I think that it's fair to claim Chicago as "the biggest Polish city outside of Warsaw", to support your claim for America's now having a liberal immigration policy. These people just have Polish surnames, they aren't sensibly Polish immigrants, though their grandparents might have been. There has to be a statute of limitations on who can and can't be called an immigrant. Or where does it stop? Can we count the Anglo-Saxon surnames in the New York telephone directory and claim it as the biggest British city outside of London?