On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 23:49:34 +0900, Rodney Webster
<rgw_news001@knot.mine.nu> wrote:

>I did a search on the internet, and there are various sites (including 
>Japanese police homepages) that state that you have to have been in the 
>country the license was issued in for a *total* of three months after it 
>was issued.  This means that your trip to England would not disqualify 
>you if, for example, you travelled to England one month after getting 
>you license, and then after returning to the US were there for two more 
>months, making a total of three months.  This naturally assumes that the 
>total length of your time in England was verifiable via your passport.

>Your original post, and this last one, also, do not make clear whether 
>you were in the US for a total of three months after getting your 
>license, and whether this was verifiable even without the missing stamp.

Yes, I was in the USA for 3 years after my license issue with several
international departures and returns so I had well more than the
necessary 3 months in total. The only problem was the one trip to the
UK at 2 months after the license when the US immigrations officer did
not stamp my passport on my return. This one event caused all
subsequent evidence in my passport of residency to be null and void
according to the local menkyo center.

>> How about the rule is not as stupid and unfair as the idiotic way in
>> which they choose to use it? 

>The rule clearly states the conditions required, so it is not a question 
>of how it is applied.  Either your passport showed proof that you were 
>in the US for a total of three months after your passport was issued, 
>and they were wrong, or it did not show proof and they were right.

It did show proof in the form of subsequent departures (and returns
all clearly stamped). But they interpreted the law so literally that
they deemed my proof moot since it was based on events that occurred
AFTER the missing stamp.  I contend that a certain amount of
compassionate (not to mention common sense) judiciousness could have
been applied here. 

>If it was the former case then it was an all too common case of the 
>Japanese authorities not knowing the rules they are meant to uphold.

I think it was a case of them applying the rules for the sake of the
rules and not for the people who they are designed to protect.

>> Actually it is called the U.S. Customs and Immigration Facility at
>> Newark International Airport Terminal C. Yes, they were stupid to be
>> so lax but I am a U.S. citizen and in those pre-9/11 days it was quite
>> common for large groups of US Citizens to be cursorily visually
>> inspected and passed through in groups without so much as a check of
>> the luggage or a stamp in the passport. 

>Thank you, I did not know that.  But it is the immigration authorities 
>that stamp your passport, regardless of what the building is called, is 
>it not?

Yes, it is.

>I have been to the US a couple of times since 9/11, and I can assure you 
>that all the airport security now have a shoe fetish.

I'll bet.

Raj