Japan - Very scary story about Japanese immigration authorities, if true

AN EXTRAORDINARY story is making the rounds among the hacks and other expats in Japan. A Canadian freelance journalist who has lived in Japan for years fell into the ugly whirlpool of Japan’s immigration-and-detention system. For years human-rights monitors have cited Japan’s responsible agencies for awful abuses; in their reports the system looks like something dark, chaotic and utterly incongruous with the country’s image of friendly lawfulness.

Still the case of Christopher Johnson beggars belief. Returning to Tokyo after a short trip on December 23rd he was ushered into an examination room, where his nightmare began. Over the next 24 hours he was imprisoned and harassed. Most of his requests to call a lawyer, the embassy or friends were denied, he says.

From "The Economist"

http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2012/01/japans-immigration-control

Hmmm... there's a lot of missing information in the article. I'm not sure what to think. Clearly, the Immigration authorities acted with a heavy hand at the airport, but the details of how he was handled doesn't strike me as anything that wouldn't happen the same way in the US.

There's a lot missing from the story. Clearly, the guy's goose was cooked long before he got to the airport. It's pretty clear that he did something regarding Fukushima that got someone in authority pissed off enough to get his immigration file marked for "special welcome committee treatment" upon arrival at Narita. The whole issue of filing a possible appeal would probably be moot - it's not as if he's trying to overturn a mistake or arbitrary decision made by an Immigration agent at Narita - the decision had already been made ahead of time at a much higher level. One wonders what the actual issue is. He may or may not know totally himself, but I suspect he knows more than he's sharing in the article.

Regarding the "extortion" for airfare at the airport, I think that's a bit off base as well. Looking just now, the cheapest one-way fare NRT-YVR on Air Canada that doesn't require an advanced purchase is $4015. What he paid to go on vacation to Seoul is irrelevant. What he could buy a round-trip ticket to Canada for in advance from a travel agent is irrelevant. Whether airlines' walk-up fares are reasonable or not is another matter, but $4015 is what anyone that had to purchase a ticket at NRT for same-day travel to Canada would have to pay, regardless of the reason for needing to do so. It sounds like by getting the fare down to $1000, someone at an airline really was trying to do him a favor.

Also, very conspicuously absent is his visa status in Japan. He says that his lawyer advised him not to say what it was. I'm going to take an educated guess that it was other than Permanent Resident. If he had Permanent Resident status, why would his lawyer advise against disclosing it? It seems far more likely that he was other than a PR, which probably means he was on a visa with some restrictions on stay. For example, it sounds like he did some sort of reporting on Fukushima - does his visa status allow for journalism? Or, was he doing back-to-back Temporary Visitors? Who knows. The fact that his lawyer thinks disclosing this could work against him tells me that it's an important detail.

Another confusing thing from the article is this part:

Without hesitation, he wrote on a document: “No proof. Entry denied.”

“But I do have proof,” I said.

Proof of what? The above quote doesn't make any sense without the context of what was needing to be proved. The guy clearly knew what it was based on his response, but doesn't share it in the article.

Note that I'm not saying what happened to this guy is right or fair, or that there aren't problems with Immigration detention in Japan. It's just that there is a lot of missing information, and I think we have only half the story.

The Economist does say in the article that it is unable to confirm the statements.

I did just check NRT-YVR fares for today on expertflyer and the lowest shown that requires no advance purchase is $643++ -- admittedly that is a round trip fare where presumably the second half would not be used. The $4k one way fare you cite is preceded by many, many other less expensive options that do not require advance purchase. Anyone who quoted $4k was clearly not intending to do the purchaser a favor.

But I certainly agree, as does the Economist, that we don't have the full story. The problem is that the Japanese government, by continuing to be non-responsive to press inquiries, is at least indirectly allowing reasonable people to infer that something bad is going on.

I did just check NRT-YVR fares for today on expertflyer and the lowest shown that requires no advance purchase is $643++ -- admittedly that is a round trip fare where presumably the second half would not be used. The $4k one way fare you cite is preceded by many, many other less expensive options that do not require advance purchase. Anyone who quoted $4k was clearly not intending to do the purchaser a favor.

I used expertflyer for my data. I saw those low quotes, but they are for carriers like China Eastern and so on. I doubt that Japan Immigration is going to deport someone to Canada on a flight with a connection through China or another third county. I made the assumption that they'd use only carriers that had non-stop service to Canada from NRT, and I chose YVR as a sample city. That left JL, NH, and AC to consider. Putting 1/21/12 as a sample travel date, the cheapest fare without advance purchase is $4405.

Also, the airline would know that the ticket was for a deportee (or denied permission to land or whatever the specific term is). It's reasonable to assume that they would not allow the purchase of a round-trip ticket since they'd know the return was not going to be used.

Not stating his visa status? Hmm.

Japan has strict laws about what a resident foreigner is allowed to do or not do under each visa classification. If his name was on a watch list, perhaps he was using the "back-to-back tourist visa" method of staying in Japan and working illegally, and he had passed some "magic number" of renewals that raised a red flag.

Or else he did have some kind of work visa and was acting as a quasi-journalist without a journalists' visa. Someone writing a cheerful travel article might have passed without notice, but someone writing a critical article could be got at on the grounds of violating the terms of his visa.

If he had permanent residency or a spousal visa, he would be allowed to pursue any legal occupation that he was qualified for.

The online comments say that story has been modified several times. That's enough to make me wonder how much has been embellished and sensationalized.

I know a lot of Westerners who live more-or-less permanently in Japan. To my knowledge, none of them have had experiences remotely like this.

I went into the "gulag" at NRT for a couple of hours back in 2006. There had been some paperwork errors (not my own) that prevented me from getting a student visa in time to attend classes in Tokyo, so my school suggested that I could simply fly in with the government Certificate of Eligibility and get a landing permit at the airport. After I explained the situation to the front-line inspector what happened, I was taken down the gray hallway to the holding cell, which was dingy but not particularly horrifying (more like a DMV than anything else). I had to fill out paperwork describing my background, prior visits to Japan and the purpose of my current visit.

I ended up in front of a couple of immigration officers who were sympathetic to my situation. The senior officer rejected my initial application for entry "because he had to," and immediately handed me the form for appeal "to the Minister of Justice." The officers suggested that I just apologize and beg for the opportunity to continue my study in Japan. I filled out the appeal and handed it over; it was accepted with the Justice Minister's seal within about 30 minutes, implying that someone higher up in the immigration chain within NRT had the authority to deviate from the procedures but the front-line officers didn't. At any rate, they gave me the standard postage stamp in my passport and I was on my way.

I agree that the guy in this case was probably violating landing permits and got called on it. He calls Tokyo "home," but if he had a proper residence status and re-entry permit they would have no cause to question him like this.

The problem is that the Japanese government, by continuing to be non-responsive to press inquiries, is at least indirectly allowing reasonable people to infer that something bad is going on.

Japan has strong laws and culture relating to personal information protection. That is probably the main reason why the government won't publicize its version of the case.

At any rate, they gave me the standard postage stamp in my passport and I was on my way.

Was it for the Student status for which you had tried to get the visa, or was it for some sort of special status related to the special dispensation granted?

Was it for the Student status for which you had tried to get the visa, or was it for some sort of special status related to the special dispensation granted?

It was a standard student landing permit. Same stamp I would have gotten if I had a visa. They added a red rubber stamp right above it which said "special landing permission" (上陸特別許可).

I have obtained new landing permits and renewals a few times since then (both as a tourist and as a working stiff) and have never had any problems doing so.

I tried to read the guy's story a few days ago and found it very, very difficult to follow.

No doubt the story is complex and the repeated statements that he was asked for a payoff by various guards, airline people, and officials is something I have not heard before. I would have thought that someone would do a bit more investigating to fact check.

But it is still troubling even if only 1/3 of what he says is true.

I would have thought that someone would do a bit more investigating to fact check.

It should be easy enough -- just flagrantly violate Japanese immigration law and see what they do to you. :D

Whether or not the person flagrantly violated the immigration laws, still does not make it any better if said "perp" was treated in the way which was described. Particularly worrisome was the official shakedown should it turn out to be true. That said,one thing that was probably true though, the reaction of the Canadian authorities and little if any help on their part.

Sounds like the guy was living in Japan on a tourist visa and got caught. Dumb!

I agree that the guy in this case was probably violating landing permits and got called on it. He calls Tokyo "home," but if he had a proper residence status and re-entry permit they would have no cause to question him like this.

Exactly- he had to have been in violation, otherwise he would not have been questioned.

Also he was not being extorted when asked to pay for a plane ticket. He was obviously just unaware that a last minute one-way ticket (usually a full Y fare) can easily cost over ¥200,000.

The 'short trip to Korea' was probably for the purpose of re-entering Japan on a back to back tourist visa.

This whole thing reminds me of the Nick Baker saga (http://www.markdevlin.com/NickBaker/thenickbakerdeception.htm), an outrageous injustice done unto a foreigner by the Japanese government...until it wasn't.

Also he was not being extorted when asked to pay for a plane ticket. He was obviously just unaware that a last minute one-way ticket (usually a full Y fare) can easily cost over ¥200,000.

I have been under the impression (perhaps misguided) that the responsibility is on the incoming carrier(s) to take care of getting the deportee out of the country. So he should have actually been on the first Asiana flight back to the Seoul area.

I have been under the impression (perhaps misguided) that the responsibility is on the incoming carrier(s) to take care of getting the deportee out of the country. So he should have actually been on the first Asiana flight back to the Seoul area.

Yeah, I think so. I think that the authorities can fine the airline, which puts the onus on the airline. I think the problem with Japan is that they can deny entry arbitrarily. Maybe the cited 30k yen fee was part of this issue, although this is a modest fine. But, in this case they wouldn't want to bring him back to Seoul because then they will have issues with Korean immigration. In this case Asiana was possibly "responsible" but then they needed to compensate Air Canada for the seat.

Two weeks ago Air NZ forced me to buy a one way ticket ($4500 Y class NRT-LAX is what I purchased) at check-in at AKL. Either Air NZ or IATA has erroneous info that Japan requires a return or outbound ticket if you enter on a 90 day visa. (NZ has this apparently so maybe they are extrapolating thier own laws?) Haven't had any issue with UA, SK, TG, SQ or ANA when my ticket terminated in Japan.

He seems pretty naive if he is not aware of prevailing airfares. BTW, UA does not require advance purchase for its return tickets ex-NRT, so you could in theory buy a ~$1500 return ticket on day of travel as long as the W bucket is available.

I remember a lot of sensationalist articles written by C. Johnson last spring. It's petty if the government decides to retaliate for this. Or maybe it triggered someone in the government to research who this guy is and then the next time he entered the country.....

I'll let you know if I wind up in a dungeon in a couple of weeks. :)

p.s. As FTers we would have at least tried to negotiate a C class ticket. :) "Ok, I agree to fly out for 200k yen but I insist on C class."

NZ has this apparently so maybe they are extrapolating thier own laws?

Japan (actually most countries) have this requirement - it just isn't enforced often.

I'll let you know if I wind up in a dungeon in a couple of weeks. :)

Actually, let us know if you don't wind up in a dungeon. If we don't hear from you, we'll assume that you have. ;)

I have been under the impression (perhaps misguided) that the responsibility is on the incoming carrier(s) to take care of getting the deportee out of the country.

That's my understanding as well, and is backed up by the parts of his narrative that Asiana officials at Narita were involved in his arrangements for travel back to Canada.

So he should have actually been on the first Asiana flight back to the Seoul area.

Separate from the issue of the responsible carrier, there's the issue of where to deport someone (or send someone that's refused landing permission, as was the case here). I think that standard practice is to return them to wherever they arrived from. But what if the person does not have guaranteed admissibility at their point of origin? In this case, had he returned to ICN, even without specific information about his situation, the immigration authorities there would have a lot of questions to ask, given that he had just left the day before. It would be unavoidable for him to disclose that he had been denied landing permission by Japan. That being the case, would Korea want him? Possibly not, which may be why he wasn't just sent back to ICN.

Given that there is non-stop service between NRT and his country of nationality, which presumably cannot deny him entry under any circumstances, it does make sense to return him there. It is an interesting twist that Asiana would still be involved in arranging this, but I suspect that he's their responsibility until he leaves.

Japan (actually most countries) have this requirement - it just isn't enforced often.

Can you provide evidence? I searched the MOFA website after I returned from NZ and there is no such wording regarding the visa waiver program. However, I did find it for citizens who enter on visas.

For one thing, unlike NZ, it is possible to leave Japan by sea using regularly scheduled ferry service from Fukuoka, so it doesn't make sense to have this requirement.

In future I still am going to make sure that I have a ticket booked out of Japan since it is helpful if you get a mad dog immigration inspector. But I have only encountered friendly, docile and doltish immigration agents.

p.s. This makes me wonder what happens if you are a round the world sailor and enter Auckland harbor.

p.p.s. I think Johnson is full of ****. That's what also I thought about his sensationalist articles post Fukushima. I seriously think he suffers from a mild case of mythomania, which is especially problematic if you are a journalist.

He seems pretty naive if he is not aware of prevailing airfares. BTW, UA does not require advance purchase for its return tickets ex-NRT, so you could in theory buy a ~$1500 return ticket on day of travel as long as the W bucket is available.

That would be very helpful in this situation, that is if UA offered non-stop service between NRT and Canada. Since it does not, it's not particularly relevant.

I suspect that everyone involved was most interested in getting him on a flight with non-stop service to a destination where he could not be denied entry. For example, had UA accepted him for travel, and considering that the US does not offer Transit Without Visa, he would have to be admissible to the US in order to make a connecting flight to Canada (or any other destination, or to just arrive in the US). UA would be justifiably concerned that whatever circumstances made him inadmissible to Japan also made him inadmissible to the US. Had UA accepted him for travel and he was ultimately rejected for entry into the US, that would make the situation 10x worse for everyone.

Actually, let us know if you don't wind up in a dungeon. If we don't hear from you, we'll assume that you have. ;)

Well "Mythomaniac" Johnson tells us that he managed to post cries for help on Facebook. I will naturally do it on FT.

Luckily, I have a "get of Narita gulag free card" in the form of a letter from a Japanese government agency.

Yeah, I think so. I think that the authorities can fine the airline, which puts the onus on the airline. Maybe the cited 30k yen fee was part of this issue, although this is a modest fine.

In most situations, a fine on an airline for denied landing permission of a passenger isn't justified and won't be pursued unless the airline made an obvious mistake, which wasn't the case here.

But, separate from any fine, there's the issue of the airline being responsible for guaranteeing his transport out of the country. It's almost universal that a transporting airline is financially responsible for transporting a person denied landing permission back out of the country, even if they made no mistake in transporting them and their travel documents appeared to be in order. And, in a situation that's perhaps somewhat unique to Japan, it also appears that the carrier is responsible for the cost of room, board, and detention of such a person. This 30k yen "extortion" fee that keeps being mentioned appears to me to be an attempt by the airline to collect from the passenger the costs of his detention, rather than a pocket-lining attempt. It appears to me no different than their attempt to make him pay for his departure flight.

I think the problem with Japan is that they can deny entry arbitrarily.

And this is unique as opposed to which other country? As far as I know, this is more or less standard operating procedure in most countries, with the possible exception of those that are permanent residents or equivalent. I'm definitely aware of this every time that I visit another country as a US citizen: I'm applying for permission to be admitted, and this is granted at their discretion. Although I'd hope that such permission is not denied arbitrarily or at random, I recognize that I don't have a vested right for it to be otherwise. Depending on the country I'm visiting, I may or may not even have the right to the American notions of due process, and certainly not equal protection, should be request for admission be denied.

And even in this case, although we don't know the full details, it's clear to me that the decision was not arbitrary or random.

That would be very helpful in this situation, that is if UA offered non-stop service between NRT and Canada. Since it does not, it's not particularly relevant.

I suspect that everyone involved was most interested in getting him on a flight with non-stop service to a destination where he could not be denied entry. For example, had UA accepted him for travel, and considering that the US does not offer Transit Without Visa, he would have to be admissible to the US in order to make a connecting flight to Canada (or any other destination, or to just arrive in the US). UA would be justifiably concerned that whatever circumstances made him inadmissible to Japan also made him inadmissible to the US. Had UA accepted him for travel and he was ultimately rejected for entry into the US, that would make the situation 10x worse for everyone.

I wasn't suggesting this option. It was just a "BTW". Air Canada actually has a one day advance purchase on its discounted economy tickets. Clearly, the norm is not to demand long advance purchase requirements for discounted fares ex-Japan that one is accustomed to in the US and Europe, i.e. 7 or 14 days.

p.s. AC even sells their discounted eco fares ex NRT one way with one day advance purchase. Something that is good to know. UA only has full Y fares for one way travel to the US.

Air Canada actually has a one day advance purchase on its discounted economy tickets.

I know that you're not suggesting this option, and that it's just a BTW, but I'll point out that this too is not particularly relevant to this guy's situation: they were making him purchase a ticket for same-day departure, not departure the next day.

I think you are correct. Asiana had to pay JPY 30k for the Gulag stay so they were trying to get him to cough up the money. I guess fines only happen if he for example came from Ghana without a visa and Asiana forgot to check for his visa. Then the question is how much they had to compensate AC for the seat. It's no different than when your flight has a mechanical and you fly another carrier. The second carrier probably does not demand full fare in that case; they surely have a trading system. Like recently I flew UA to Buenos Aires and the return was a mess. I wound up flying AA back and they first put me in economy because I had an upgraded C class on UA. Then with some arm twisting I managed to get a seat in C on AA. If UA had to pay $6k for that seat (or whatever the full fare C class might be) then I am sure that I would still be kicking and screaming (not really) at UA's check-in counter.

But NZ would similarly not be fined if I had been "arbitrarily" denied entry to Japan as a US citizen, so the "requirement" of an exit plane ticket should not be required by NZ. In fact when you check in online with UA on a ticket terminating in Japan then you enter your date of departure from Japan and they are happy with that. I don't need a visa to enter Japan and I have (honestly) communicated when I will depart Japan and it is within 90 days.

--------

What I don't understand is why he spent the night in the "Gulag". I think that he flew in the morning at 9 am from Seoul, arriving 11 am in NRT so why wasn't he on the 7 pm flight to YVR on the same day?

When I saw "arbitrary" then a Japanese immigration inspector can deny entry just because he doesn't like your skin color even if you have the right papers. If a Canadian shows up in Denmark, let's say, then that could simply not happen. So Japan clearly does not meet "civilized" standards of conduct in that regard that Westerners might expect. In Johnson's case he probably was busted for working in Japan without the requisite work visa.

I know that you're not suggesting this option, and that it's just a BTW, but I'll point out that this too is not particularly relevant to this guy's situation: they were making him purchase a ticket for same-day departure, not departure the next day.

Although he actually departed the following day. He seems to be very money focused (probably due to lack thereof) so he should have been proactive and purchased the ticket before retiring down in the Gulag. :) But, again, Asiana probably could negotiate a deal with AC and not pay them the 400k yen.

But NZ would similarly not be fined if I had been "arbitrarily" denied entry to Japan as a US citizen, so the "requirement" of an exit plane ticket should not be required by NZ.

Actually, they could be fined in such a situation. I know you said that you consulted MOFA. But I just looked it up in Timatic, which is considered authoritative by airlines. I put in US Citizen, New Zealand departure, traveling to Japan, and it in part came back with:

Visitors not holding return/onward ticket could be refused entry.

If you were refused entry by Japan, and this was the reason stated by Immigration, it's conceivable that the carrier could be fined in this situation.

I don't need a visa to enter Japan and I have (honestly) communicated when I will depart Japan and it is within 90 days.

Neither of which is relevant if there is a requirement that you must hold onward or return tickets, even if it is seldom enforced.

What I don't understand is why he spent the night in the "Gulag". I think that he flew in the morning at 9 am from Seoul, arriving 11 am in NRT so why wasn't he on the 7 pm flight to YVR on the same day?

The obvious answer is "not enough time." By the time he got to the front of the line at Immigration, got sent to the back room, and interpreter was arranged for, etc, it could have easily been 1 or 2pm. Then, his refusal of landing paperwork had to be processed, and then he appealed. Once appeal was denied, then arrangements and negotiations with other carriers had to be done, payment made, etc. I can easily see how this all didn't get completed by 6pm.

Now, if he had known up front that there was no way he was going to be admitted once he was initially sent to the back room and that he'd eventually be sent back to Canada, then I suspect he could have argued to be put on the 7pm YVR flight and they probably would have been happy to see him leave the same day. But, considering that he had apparently set up a household with his partner in Tokyo and that Japan was for all intents and purposes his home, I can see how he didn't insist on a speedy resolution just to avoid a night in detention.

When I saw "arbitrary" then a Japanese immigration inspector can deny entry just because he doesn't like your skin color even if you have the right papers. If a Canadian shows up in Denmark, let's say, then that could simply not happen.

I can't speak specifically about a Canadian going to Denmark. But speaking generally about western nations, I don't see anything different about Japan than other countries, and specifically the US. For example, coming into the US, several things are true for foreign visitors:

- It's an assumption under US immigration law that all visitors are intending immigrants.
- If someone is visiting on other than an immigrant visa, the visitor has the burden of proof to overcome this assumption and to establish that their stated purpose as a non-immigrant visitor is true.
- The immigration inspector at the port of arrival has discretionary authority as to whether or not to admit a non-immigrant visitor. This is true even if the visitor has been granted a visa at a US embassy or consulate.
- In the case of visitors using the Visa Waiver Program, the decision of the immigration inspector is final and there is no right to appeal.

It's hard to say what "western standards" are in general, but I would certainly think that a US citizen visiting another country as a visitor should not expect anything more than what the US grants to its visitors as described above.

Although there isn't strictly the authority for an immigration inspector to deny entry based on "color of your skin," there is in practice the ability to do so if they don't like the cut of your jib for whatever reason. Take for example the general requirement that the visitor establish that their stated purpose of the visit is true: it's rather easy for the inspector to make the claim "I don't believe you" and since the visitor has the burden of proof, that's the end of it.

As an aside, I'm not aware that other western countries have substantially different policies than the US, with the possible exception of a right to appeal for non-visa-holding visitors.

Also, as a general matter, if a western country's immigration authorities made a practice of arbitrarily or randomly denying entry to visitors, it would create economic and diplomatic problems. But, using these "arbitrary" powers to deny entry to people they don't want is more or less considered a sovereign right of a nation. In the case mentioned in the OP, Canada is unlikely to make a stink about this precisely because they want to retain the right to do the same to arriving Japanese citizens that it doesn't want to admit. And, as long as each nation doesn't abuse this right to a great degree, it will likely remain the way things are.

So Japan clearly does not meet "civilized" standards of conduct in that regard that Westerners might expect.

I disagree, for several of the reasons I stated above. Plus, we in this thread cannot possibly draw conclusions such as you have without knowing more details, including a) what was his visa status in Japan, and b) what was the stated reason for refusal to land. Without those two key pieces of information, I don't know how anyone could conclude that Japan "clearly" does not meet international standards.

Separate from the issue of the responsible carrier, there's the issue of where to deport someone (or send someone that's refused landing permission, as was the case here). I think that standard practice is to return them to wherever they arrived from.

http://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/hourei/data/icrra.pdf

Article 53 (Destinations of Deportation)
(1) Any person subject to deportation shall be deported to a country of which he/she is a national or citizen.

And regarding who pays for the deportation:

Article 59 (Duty of Sending Back)
(1) The captain of a vessel or aircraft or the carrier who operates a vessel or aircraft that has transported any alien falling under any of the following items shall promptly send such alien back out of Japan at his/her own expense and on his/her own responsibility by the same vessel or aircraft or any other vessel or aircraft owned by the same carrier:
(i) Any person denied landing pursuant to the provisions of Chapter Ⅲ, Section Ⅰor Ⅱ. (= basically any reason why a person might be denied entry at the frontier)
(ii) Any person deported for falling under any of Article 24, items (v) to (vi-2). (= overstayers in transit)
(iii) In addition to those prescribed in the preceding item, and among those who have been ordered within 5 years from the date of landing to be deported for falling under any of the items of Article 24, any alien regarding whom the captain of the vessel or aircraft or the carrier who operates the vessel or aircraft can be considered as having had clear knowledge of the existence of grounds for deportation at the time of his/her landing.
(2) In the case referred to in the preceding paragraph, if the carrier concerned cannot send the alien back by the vessel or aircraft prescribed in the same paragraph, he/she shall send the alien back promptly by some other vessel or aircraft on his/her own responsibility and at his/her own expense.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs, concerning the expense and responsibility of the captain of the vessel or aircraft or the carrier who operates the vessel or aircraft, a supervising immigration inspector may exempt the captain or the carrier from bearing all or part of the expenses and responsibility arising from keeping the alien who falls under paragraph (1), item (i) at a facility designated as provided by a Ministry of Justice ordinance as a place of stay pursuant to the provisions of Article 13-2, paragraph (1), provided that the alien concerned possesses a valid passport with a visa issued by a Japanese consular officer.

And regarding who pays for the deportation:
Reads to me that Asiana was on the hook for getting the perp out of the country and back to Canada.

This story is being vigorously "analyzed" in the comments section of the Economist website (original link in the OP).

It appears now that the "journalist's" visa - issued in 2009 - was up for renewal but not yet finalized.

In addition, (and I suppose it's neither here nor there) the dude apparently had consumed three beers (!) on his a.m. flight into Nippon. So he lands, his papers aren't in order, he smells like alcohol and is belligerent! Jeez, I wonder why he had trouble!?!

But really, shame on the Economist for even thinking there was a story here. I can't imagine their motivation - maybe standing up for a fellow journalist? Who knows?

Unfortunately the US does not fall under the category of "civilized" when it comes to processing of visitors. Maybe Japan seeks to emulate "big brother".


Actually, they could be fined in such a situation. I know you said that you consulted MOFA. But I just looked it up in Timatic, which is considered authoritative by airlines. I put in US Citizen, New Zealand departure, traveling to Japan, and it in part came back with:



If you were refused entry by Japan, and this was the reason stated by Immigration, it's conceivable that the carrier could be fined in this situation.



Neither of which is relevant if there is a requirement that you must hold onward or return tickets, even if it is seldom enforced.



The obvious answer is "not enough time." By the time he got to the front of the line at Immigration, got sent to the back room, and interpreter was arranged for, etc, it could have easily been 1 or 2pm. Then, his refusal of landing paperwork had to be processed, and then he appealed. Once appeal was denied, then arrangements and negotiations with other carriers had to be done, payment made, etc. I can easily see how this all didn't get completed by 6pm.

Now, if he had known up front that there was no way he was going to be admitted once he was initially sent to the back room and that he'd eventually be sent back to Canada, then I suspect he could have argued to be put on the 7pm YVR flight and they probably would have been happy to see him leave the same day. But, considering that he had apparently set up a household with his partner in Tokyo and that Japan was for all intents and purposes his home, I can see how he didn't insist on a speedy resolution just to avoid a night in detention.



I can't speak specifically about a Canadian going to Denmark. But speaking generally about western nations, I don't see anything different about Japan than other countries, and specifically the US. For example, coming into the US, several things are true for foreign visitors:

- It's an assumption under US immigration law that all visitors are intending immigrants.
- If someone is visiting on other than an immigrant visa, the visitor has the burden of proof to overcome this assumption and to establish that their stated purpose as a non-immigrant visitor is true.
- The immigration inspector at the port of arrival has discretionary authority as to whether or not to admit a non-immigrant visitor. This is true even if the visitor has been granted a visa at a US embassy or consulate.
- In the case of visitors using the Visa Waiver Program, the decision of the immigration inspector is final and there is no right to appeal.

It's hard to say what "western standards" are in general, but I would certainly think that a US citizen visiting another country as a visitor should not expect anything more than what the US grants to its visitors as described above.

Although there isn't strictly the authority for an immigration inspector to deny entry based on "color of your skin," there is in practice the ability to do so if they don't like the cut of your jib for whatever reason. Take for example the general requirement that the visitor establish that their stated purpose of the visit is true: it's rather easy for the inspector to make the claim "I don't believe you" and since the visitor has the burden of proof, that's the end of it.

As an aside, I'm not aware that other western countries have substantially different policies than the US, with the possible exception of a right to appeal for non-visa-holding visitors.

Also, as a general matter, if a western country's immigration authorities made a practice of arbitrarily or randomly denying entry to visitors, it would create economic and diplomatic problems. But, using these "arbitrary" powers to deny entry to people they don't want is more or less considered a sovereign right of a nation. In the case mentioned in the OP, Canada is unlikely to make a stink about this precisely because they want to retain the right to do the same to arriving Japanese citizens that it doesn't want to admit. And, as long as each nation doesn't abuse this right to a great degree, it will likely remain the way things are.



I disagree, for several of the reasons I stated above. Plus, we in this thread cannot possibly draw conclusions such as you have without knowing more details, including a) what was his visa status in Japan, and b) what was the stated reason for refusal to land. Without those two key pieces of information, I don't know how anyone could conclude that Japan "clearly" does not meet international standards.

Re the Johnson saga it appears that the 30k "extortion" may have been with regard to getting hotel accommodation. If you pay up they will send you to a hotel with a guarded floor. My guess is that 30K is a rack rate for a NRT hotel although my guess is that this hotel is not exactly the Hilton.

Johnson demonstrated that he is not a savvy traveler thinking that a one way Y ticket is extortion.

Wish me luck next week!

p.s. Asiana actually has a Y fare for ~USD 2000 for NRT-YVR. But that's through Seoul. It's not unreasonable to expect that they could alert Korean authorities to escort CJ to his YVR flight at ICN. But for an airline to "pay" for returning the person to the homeland is not exactly a burden. No more so than non-rev travel.

The BEST comment from the Economist:

Clint Eastman in reply to guest-iissjml January 21st, 21:49

I too sat next to this man on the plane. He was acting in a dishonourable manner. His eyes gazed with Western fury. The glint in his eye was similar in character to the flash of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. I could sense he was American aggressor and luckily the brave guards at the airport senses this fury and fairly treated him to a question session.

The guards were polite and restrained. They offered this dastardly gentlemen gifts, and bowed their heads like true Japanese gentlemen. They offered the man a free meal and massage in order to calm him down, but this man who gave this untruthful account refused the massage and threw the meal from the table, where it hit a small child and burned their hand before bursting into tears. The guards were then distracting offering First Aid to the child and consoling the woman.

This Western man hijacked a baggage cart and drove it away in a high speed, deadly chase across the airport. On the way, he ran over an elderly gentleman and his wife. They died at the scene. He also made rude gestures at the cleansing staff, before driving the cart down the runway and attempting to hijack a plane. Luckily, an ASIMO unit intercepted him and peacefully offered him another meal. This meal was also forcefully rejected but luckily it did not land on a child, but did ruin the carpet of the airplane.

Unfortunately I did not witness the rest, but this man was no ordinary traveller and his Western furious nature lead me to believe that he posed a threat to Japanese harmony.

The BEST comment from the Economist:

Clint Eastman in reply to guest-iissjml January 21st, 21:49

I too sat next to this man on the plane. He was acting in a dishonourable manner. His eyes gazed with Western fury. The glint in his eye was similar in character to the flash of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. I could sense he was American aggressor and luckily the brave guards at the airport senses this fury and fairly treated him to a question session.

The guards were polite and restrained. They offered this dastardly gentlemen gifts, and bowed their heads like true Japanese gentlemen. They offered the man a free meal and massage in order to calm him down, but this man who gave this untruthful account refused the massage and threw the meal from the table, where it hit a small child and burned their hand before bursting into tears. The guards were then distracting offering First Aid to the child and consoling the woman.

This Western man hijacked a baggage cart and drove it away in a high speed, deadly chase across the airport. On the way, he ran over an elderly gentleman and his wife. They died at the scene. He also made rude gestures at the cleansing staff, before driving the cart down the runway and attempting to hijack a plane. Luckily, an ASIMO unit intercepted him and peacefully offered him another meal. This meal was also forcefully rejected but luckily it did not land on a child, but did ruin the carpet of the airplane.

Unfortunately I did not witness the rest, but this man was no ordinary traveller and his Western furious nature lead me to believe that he posed a threat to Japanese harmony.

OK, someone better explain to me whether this is weird humor or something else. I have absolutely no clue what is going on here, nor its relevance to the original topic.

OK, someone better explain to me whether this is weird humor or something else. I have absolutely no clue what is going on here, nor its relevance to the original topic.

Not weird humor at all. It was absolutely hilarious!

It's relevance to the original topic is that it is a parody of a Japanese person's reaction to Mr. Johnson's experience.

Meanwhile on 2 channel, people are probably talking about how he was actually busted for being a North Korean spy.

Meanwhile on 2 channel, people are probably talking about how he was actually busted for being a North Korean spy.

The only news you can believe is on 4chan.

Not weird humor at all. It was absolutely hilarious!

It's relevance to the original topic is that it is a parody of a Japanese person's reaction to Mr. Johnson's experience.

Thanks hailstorm. I thought that if it was good enough for the Economist it was good enough for here.

C'mon, Richard, you can lighten up a little bit. Just a little humor to counter the "seriousness" of the topic. All in good fun.

The BEST comment from the Economist:

Clint Eastman in reply to guest-iissjml January 21st, 21:49

I too sat next to this man on the plane. He was acting in a dishonourable manner. His eyes gazed with Western fury. The glint in his eye was similar in character to the flash of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. I could sense he was American aggressor and luckily the brave guards at the airport senses this fury and fairly treated him to a question session.

The guards were polite and restrained. They offered this dastardly gentlemen gifts, and bowed their heads like true Japanese gentlemen. They offered the man a free meal and massage in order to calm him down, but this man who gave this untruthful account refused the massage and threw the meal from the table, where it hit a small child and burned their hand before bursting into tears. The guards were then distracting offering First Aid to the child and consoling the woman.

This Western man hijacked a baggage cart and drove it away in a high speed, deadly chase across the airport. On the way, he ran over an elderly gentleman and his wife. They died at the scene. He also made rude gestures at the cleansing staff, before driving the cart down the runway and attempting to hijack a plane. Luckily, an ASIMO unit intercepted him and peacefully offered him another meal. This meal was also forcefully rejected but luckily it did not land on a child, but did ruin the carpet of the airplane.

Unfortunately I did not witness the rest, but this man was no ordinary traveller and his Western furious nature lead me to believe that he posed a threat to Japanese harmony.

I don't know what it is but this has me laughing SO hard.

...one thing that was probably true though, the reaction of the Canadian authorities and little if any help on their part.

Ha! That stood out for me as well.. "No surprise there," I thought...

Ha! That stood out for me as well.. "No surprise there," I thought...

Finally, a brother that agrees with my utterances!:D

Well it turns out that the Canadian journalist was attempting to reenter the country without a work visa or a re-entry permit, on yet another 90-day tourist visa. (http://www.japanprobe.com/2012/02/16/chris-johnson-posts-new-article-says-he-was-using-90-day-tourist-visas/)

Well it turns out that the Canadian journalist was attempting to reenter the country without a work visa or a re-entry permit, on yet another 90-day tourist visa. (http://www.japanprobe.com/2012/02/16/chris-johnson-posts-new-article-says-he-was-using-90-day-tourist-visas/)

Can I say it? Yawn...........I mean he had the easiest of immigration creds to obtain (the crack cocaine of Japanese creds), after 2 maybe 3 you get pleaded to take out permanent residency so they don't have to see you again....he must have pissed someone off, somewhere.....

Strictly speaking, as long as he was not working or living in Japan. He would be able to enter with no visa (visa waiver).

If you really are in the process of getting a work visa renewed, don't you also get something stamped in your passport to that effect? I've never heard of anybody who was legitimately in the middle of a visa renewal getting into that kind of trouble.

If you really are in the process of getting a work visa renewed, don't you also get something stamped in your passport to that effect? I've never heard of anybody who was legitimately in the middle of a visa renewal getting into that kind of trouble. Well in my experience, yes! Still think there is more going on here than meets the eye!

Strictly speaking, as long as he was not working or living in Japan. He would be able to enter with no visa (visa waiver). Yes, actually one is allowed 6 months in any calendar year (for a Canadian passport in this case).

Yes, actually one is allowed 6 months in any calendar year (for a Canadian passport in this case).

What do you mean? It is 90 days for Canadians just like US Citizens. UK and dome other Euro countries get 6 months.

Or are you saying a cumulative 6 months after multiple entries? If so, can you give me a reference to this regulation?

p.s. I got pulled over by a cop (on foot!) today because my stop at the stop sign was "not perfect". It was funny.

What do you mean? It is 90 days for Canadians just like US Citizens. UK and dome other Euro countries get 6 months.

Or are you saying a cumulative 6 months after multiple entries? If so, can you give me a reference to this regulation?

p.s. I got pulled over by a cop (on foot!) today because my stop at the stop sign was "not perfect". It was funny.

Maybe he's talking about the Working Holiday visa that Canadians can get? Although that's only for people under 30, and can only be used once in a lifetime...

p.s. did you get points on your record for getting pulled over?

What do you mean? It is 90 days for Canadians just like US Citizens. UK and dome other Euro countries get 6 months.

Or are you saying a cumulative 6 months after multiple entries? If so, can you give me a reference to this regulation?

p.s. I got pulled over by a cop (on foot!) today because my stop at the stop sign was "not perfect". It was funny.

I will stand by my comment of 180 days per calendar year is permissible, whether you can have them consecutively or not is at the discretion of the immigration officer at your port of disembarkation.

Maybe he's talking about the Working Holiday visa that Canadians can get? Although that's only for people under 30, and can only be used once in a lifetime...

p.s. did you get points on your record for getting pulled over?

I was not talking about a working holiday which for Canadians/Australians/Dutch/New Zealanders and possibly a few others is good for 2 terms of 6 months. Many, including myself, that have(had) this permission usually do it consecutively.

I will stand by my comment of 180 days per calendar year is permissible, whether you can have them consecutively or not is at the discretion of the immigration officer at your port of disembarkation.

Well, this is the official government information site on the matter:

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

It mentions nothing of a calendar year limit.

Well, this is the official government information site on the matter:

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

It mentions nothing of a calendar year limit.

+1. I too have never heard anything about a calendar year limit.

Well, this is the official government information site on the matter:

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

It mentions nothing of a calendar year limit.

+1. I too have never heard anything about a calendar year limit.

You make do with what you know, and I will make do with what I know!:)

You make do with what you know, and I will make do with what I know!:)

You may well be right. I've just never heard it. Is it specific to Canuks?

You may well be right. I've just never heard it. Is it specific to Canuks?

There are old posts in other forums that talk about this:

http://forum.gaijinpot.com/showthread.php?51255-180-day-annual-limit-for-tourist-visa-!

But I've seen nothing in recent years to corroborate.

Keep in mind that the guy wasn't going back to Canada for 2 or 3 months but rather went to Korea for a short time and then came back.

To the immigration people that obviously looked quite suspicious and we all know what the outcome was.

I was told (by numerous people and companies) that if you leave the country when your renewal is being processed the renewal is automatically canceled. Also (don't have time to look back) didn't he mention that, previously, immigration held his passport until everything was renewed? I've never had that happen nor have I heard of it before now.

I will stand by my comment of 180 days per calendar year is permissible, whether you can have them consecutively or not is at the discretion of the immigration officer at your port of disembarkation.

Q, I'm really trying to understand what you're trying to say. I'm not sure why you're being so obtuse about your source of information while at the same time being so specific about the information.

I think what you're trying to say is that you have personal knowledge, whether official or unofficial, of what the actual "rule of thumb" used by Japan Immigration is with regard to repeated Temporary Visitor entries. If that's the case, that would be most useful to know.

I was told (by numerous people and companies) that if you leave the country when your renewal is being processed the renewal is automatically canceled. Also (don't have time to look back) didn't he mention that, previously, immigration held his passport until everything was renewed? I've never had that happen nor have I heard of it before now.

Same here.

I also call BS on his claim that immigration officials told him it was OK to work on temporary visitor status while his papers were being renewed. No way in heck that anyone at immigration would say this.

My experience has been that if you tell them you're scheduled to fly out on a business trip that they will expedite the renewal.

Q, I'm really trying to understand what you're trying to say. I'm not sure why you're being so obtuse about your source of information while at the same time being so specific about the information.

I think what you're trying to say is that you have personal knowledge, whether official or unofficial, of what the actual "rule of thumb" used by Japan Immigration is with regard to repeated Temporary Visitor entries. If that's the case, that would be most useful to know. As said you pointed out above, said information, whether unofficial or official, is valuable. Why would anyone share it freely?

As said you pointed out above, said information, whether unofficial or official, is valuable. Why would anyone share it freely?

Yeah def google this one. This guy was just trying to mickey mouse his way in to Japan.
They don't let you work, PERIOD on a visitor's visa.

Yeah def google this one. This guy was just trying to mickey mouse his way in to Japan.
They don't let you work, PERIOD on a visitor's visa.

I was responding to another OP, we were discussing something that has nothing to do with what you are referring to above!
Cheers

I did had some rather bad experience with Japanese immigration.

Had to go there in 2009 and 2010 for work - got a proper Visa ("Entertainer", don't laugh..) from their embassy, both entries went fine (even though took longer than queuing up in GRU when arriving on the last morning flight.. and that means something :D ) - but it was Nagoya where I entered, and not Narita. And my Visa was perfectly fine. Now, the first time, I was exiting the country not in Nagoya, but in Osaka.. 2010 in Nagoya.. that all went fine, nothing spectacular I guess..

Now, recently, that in late 2011 I was flying to Narita, without Business to do there (just using the ultra-cheap OS Business fare for new-year-celebration) BUT FLYING BUSINESS CLASS and just wanting to enter with a tourist Visa (My country don't need a Visa for Japan, it's basically the "stamp and go".. oh well, and give your fingerprints and crap..) they seriously went crazy. Of course the immigration "officer" found the two Visas, asked me where my current Visa was - upon which I told him I don't need one to enter Japan as tourist - he didn't understood, probably only speaking a very few sentences.. - his superior came over - asked again, where my Visa was, I told them again, don't need one, they asked for Boarding Pass, it said "Business" on it (well, of course..) - at this moment they really started to get "angry", luckily I was able to produce them a slip of my fare code, which stated the ultra-low amount of money I paid for my ticket, and eventually they understood the concept of flying in Business class when on private.. but for a few seconds, the situation really went hot, and did I already know about the japanese Gulag underground Narita, I certainly wouldn't have stayed so easy about that. Lesson learned, Japan don't want tourists, perfectly fine, Seoul/Beijing/Shanghai/HK/Singapore/KL are cheaper and offer more variety anyway. And they don't treat you like sh*t..

The conclusion to all of this could be that immigration facilities - like restaurants, hotels and airports - garner their own share of mixed reviews!

Which takes nothing away from the fact that CJ acted like a selfish, self-entitled d-bag and, as a result, brought absolutely everything upon himself.

I did had some rather bad experience with Japanese immigration.

...

Lesson learned, Japan don't want tourists, perfectly fine, Seoul/Beijing/Shanghai/HK/Singapore/KL are cheaper and offer more variety anyway. And they don't treat you like sh*t..

Actually, that's not the lesson at all. I get the feeling that you're omitting some important details from your story. Did you get your entertainer visas cancelled by the immigration authorities when you left Japan each time? If you did, you should have had no problem re-entering on a tourist visa (waiver) on your holiday.

Actually, that's not the lesson at all. I get the feeling that you're omitting some important details from your story. Did you get your entertainer visas cancelled by the immigration authorities when you left Japan each time? If you did, you should have had no problem re-entering on a tourist visa (waiver) on your holiday.

I'm not sure if "Cancelled" is the correct word, but yes, I correctly had them stamped when I exited both in 2009 and 2010.. (they are valid for max. 3 months, and it's a single entry, just with the difference to a normal tourist Visa that you're allowed to work in the entertainment industry (not what you now might think ;) ) )

Then, after having had two such Visas, simply visiting the country for leisure must have ring some alarms with them, especially as travelling in Business class :D I could only assume that "Entertainer" Visa are usually used slightly different, and not only for visits of 6 or 7 days each time.. so they thought I was some kind of weirdo :p

I'm not sure if "Cancelled" is the correct word,
I'm sure it's the right word. How so? Because that's the word that was stamped over my final visa extension when I left the country and informed the immigration officials that it was my final departure on that visa status. The agent at the ordinary counter directed me to the office at the end of the hall with directions to inform them that I was making a "kataho shukkoku" (I might have that wrong - It was kata-something shukkoku... definitely not kata-michi or kata-pila).

I've just checked the passport. It's there - "CANCELLED" - in big, red, upper-case letters over the sticker with the 2D barcode.


but yes, I correctly had them stamped
If you're not sure whether cancelled is the right word (and it is). How can you be sure you had them correctly stamped?

I'm sure it's the right word. How so? Because that's the word that was stamped over my final visa extension when I left the country and informed the immigration officials that it was my final departure on that visa status. The agent at the ordinary counter directed me to the office at the end of the hall with directions to inform them that I was making a "kataho shukkoku" (I might have that wrong - It was kata-something shukkoku... definitely not kata-michi or kata-pila).

I've just checked the passport. It's there - "CANCELLED" - in big, red, upper-case letters over the sticker with the 2D barcode.


If you're not sure whether cancelled is the right word (and it is). How can you be sure you had them correctly stamped?

What do you try to indicate with your post?

I'm 100% sure that the process was correct. First of all, the company who do the Visa is in this business for 20 years+, and is making sure approx. 1000 people get such Entertainer Visas for the event, yearly.

The Entertainer Visa I'm talking about is a one-page, including picture entry into your passport. Its valid for 3 months of entry after it gets granted, i.e. if you get your passport to the embassy on 1st May, it's valid 1st May (day of issue) to 1st August (date of expiry), for entry into the country.

Upon entry, you get the sticker with the stapler "note" added. Basically it says "Landing Permission", "Date of Permit", "Until", "your status" (Entertainer in this case, otherwise for example Temporary Visitor, this is what I got in 2011 when arriving without a Visa) and, of course, "Duration" (3 months) - that, and the barcode.

What you get when you leave Japan with this kind of Visa (Both Entertainer and Temporary Visitor) is simply another stamp near/partly over the barcode, which (in English) says "Departed", the place it was (example: Kansai, Chubu, Narita) and the date - that's it. No "cancelled" over the Entertainer Visa, or over the barcode, or anything elsewhere. It's a one-time-entry anyway, just as the "Temporary Visitor" you get when you visit without a Visa as you don't need one for leisure, and it has been used. It does NOT get cancelled, it simply was used already. China is using a very similar system, entry stamp, exit stamp, Visa page is left as it is. Sometimes they do a remark on it, but it's random. In Japan, both (all) times on exiting the country, I got the "Departed" stamp, but certainly nothing over the Visa itself. And I can assure you, that's the correct way. Otherwise, Japan immigration would be doing it wrongly for 1000 pax on 2 airports yearly at least..

Your kind of Visa was obviously different (I doubt you got an Entertainer one.. they're one-time-entry only.. can't be extended), and indeed needed a "Cancel" stamp, but I can guarantee you, mine was stamped in the correct way. I don't like to be accused of having done something wrong if I'm 100% sure that the process was perfectly ok.

And I don't know why you want to deny the fact that Japanese immigration can be overly strict. It's not like this is a personal insult to you. It's just what I've experienced, and many others. In fact, as long as they're strict but fair, no one is harmed. But if they indeed (I'm also not sure if the story posted here is really true, some parts of it do sound quite weird to say at least) do act against the law, then reporting it is in no way wrong.

I simply stated what I personally had experienced, if you don't want to believe me, that's fine, you don't have to, I know I don't talk crap, it happened, it was not that bad of an experience, I'm just writting down what has happened.

It simply seems the Japanese immigration officers did not understand that you could also enter Japan with a regular Visa when you had "Entertainer" Visas before. I'm sure they would not have let me in if there was indeed something wrong with any prior departure, which wasn't the case.

It's just, like in the original story (Which again, I'm not sure is really the truth..) a case when Japanese immigration does wonder about your allowance to enter the country when you want to do so on a tourist Visa, when you before had any other kind of work/entertainer/whatever Visa.

As they must be thinking you're trying to illegally work in Japan then. That's it. Simple. If the story the OP was posting is true, the person there was simply accused of abusing the tourist/visitor Visa for actually staying there without this reason (They must have accused him of a Visa run)

While Japan does allow Visa-on-Arrival for many western countries, they are also one of the most strict countries about checking those. They are very serious, giving barcodes into your passport, also also require Visa for activities (See:Entertainer) where most other countries where visitors don't need one.

In fact, Japan is the only country in the world where the profession I'm doing(used to) DOES require a Visa compared to a regular visitor. And there are PLENTY of others. They're extremely strict on this. If you do any kind of work, no matter what exactly, it's a demand to get a Visa. Visa on arrival in Japan is only given if you're trully just visiting, nothing else.

What do you try to indicate with your post?
Just trying to make sense of your story since you said you were unsure that cancelled was the right word - and yet sure that your passport was stamped correctly. From your response it seems you are sure that cancelled is the wrong word (in the context of your visa). Confusion cleared. Thanks.

If you do any kind of work, no matter what exactly, it's a demand to get a Visa. Visa on arrival in Japan is only given if you're trully just visiting, nothing else.
One can visit Japan and conduct business meetings with clients etc. on a temporary visitor visa. No work visa required.

In fact, Japan is the only country in the world where the profession I'm doing(used to) DOES require a Visa compared to a regular visitor. And there are PLENTY of others.

Then why do websites of places like the US specifically list entertainer travelling for work as not allowed under the VWP? Journalist travelling to conduct an interview is also a very common one which is not allowed

They're extremely strict on this. If you do any kind of work, no matter what exactly, it's a demand to get a Visa. Visa on arrival in Japan is only given if you're trully just visiting, nothing else.

From the Japanese ministry of Foriegn affairs website

Nationals of these countries and regions are not required to obtain a visa to enter Japan when the purpose of their visit is commerce, a conference, tourism, visit to relatives/acquaintances, etc.

However, only in cases in which the foreign national engages in paid activities in Japan, and in cases in which the period of stay of the foreign national exceeds the period of stay stipulated in each arrangement, it is necessary to obtain a visa.

This is fundamentally in line with the VWP for most countries

I had to interrupt my usual 'lurking' on this site to thank mbloes for the biggest laugh I've had in some time.

Also, I am amused to read about 'rules of thumb' used by immigration agents, or 'overly strict' agents re definitions, etc. etc. It reminds me of those who insist they are not married because they are in the process of getting a divorce.

Friends, until the divorce is granted, one's marital status is married. (There may be pro tem 'rules of thumb' invented to cover this situation, but the anatomy involved is not the thumb....) Similarly, if one is not married, then one's marital status is single, one is not "in the process of getting married" .

Continuing the analogy: assuming any original work visa this man had had, had expired, then his work visa status was not, "in the process of renewal" but, he did not have a work visa. The return within a short period of time, to continue with work as a journalist, does not describe a tourist. Thus, the status of his tourist visa is somewhat irrelevant. He was therefore without immigration status of any kind.

I appreciate that the man in question was frightened by how the officials behaved after they came to this conclusion. He had taken things for granted, and found out the hard way that he'd made a huge mistake.

I am sorry if he was frightened, but to have been temporarily incarcerated is not altogether unheard of in such circumstances - he was being deported, and therefore would be retained in a secure facility until such time.

The BEST comment from the Economist:

... threw the meal from the table, where it hit a small child and burned their hand before bursting into tears.
....


Are we really expected to believe that the meal burst into tears?

Obviously this account is rife with hyperbole if it isn't out and out fiction.

Are we really expected to believe that the meal burst into tears?

Obviously this account is rife with hyperbole if it isn't out and out fiction.

Um...yeah. That particular comment was a parody. A joke. A shame you didn't get it.

Um...yeah. That particular comment was a parody. A joke. A shame you didn't get it.

Meh. As parody I rate it a few notches below Mickey Rooney's "parody" of Holly Golightly's Japanese neighbour. If anything, I think the OP's life is somewhat better for not getting it.

VPescado - a poster here recently put forward an argument for eating whalemeat that mirrored the reasoning parodied by Jonathan Swift in one of the world's greatest and most famous satires. I pointed this out:


I see your view as more akin to "a modest proposal (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html)".

tl;dr
Um...yeah. That particular comment was a parody. A joke. A shame you didn't get it.
I felt the same way.

Um...yeah. That particular comment was a parody. A joke. A shame you didn't get it.


Um...yeah. Likewise.;)

Well, I think we have a large enough sample size to categorize posters in this thread as follows:

With a sense of humor:
MB (me)
hailstorm
airportairplane
simpleflyer
LapLap

No sense of humor:
RichardInSF (the OP!)
jib71

Cannot be determined at this time:
VPescado

Please let me know if you would like to be re-categorized (proof not required).

Closed for moderator review.

l'etoile
sr. moderator