# Temporary work in the US/career breaks



## adwillis (Sep 1, 2008)

Hi,

After graduating from university 15 months ago I am now thinking about doing some work in the US preferably somewhere like New York for a few months.

The trouble is most of these temporary jobs seem to be only open to those still studying as a full time student.

Does anyone know where jobs are advertised for people in the UK who want to take a few months career break?

Thanks.


----------



## Bevdeforges (Nov 16, 2007)

Your best option might be to look into a formal exchange program - like CIEE. They can get you a visa (as part of an exchange program) and will give you assistance in finding the job for up to a year.

It is extremely difficult to get any sort of working visa for the US, especially for a temporary job. It is simply a long and expensive process for the employers, and not really worth doing (from their point of view) for someone who will only be with them for a few months.
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## synthia (Apr 18, 2007)

I just looked at the CIEE website, and the programs are for students. Since you have not been a student for so long, there really aren't any options for you.

You would be much better off looking into Working Holiday Visas. The US only has two programs, with Australia and New Zealand, so you wouldn't be able to come to the US. But you could go to Canada, I think, or Australia, or anywhere in Europe. There's Japan, too.


----------



## American Guy (Aug 27, 2008)

There are no "working holiday" visa programs in the US. If you want a student/student work visa, then you'll have to be a student here in the US and work while you are a student. Otherwise, nothing. We don't admit people on visa simply to work a few months and then go home. Our employment needs don't require this kind of visa program.


----------



## Fatbrit (May 8, 2008)

American Guy said:


> There are no "working holiday" visa programs in the US. If you want a student/student work visa, then you'll have to be a student here in the US and work while you are a student. Otherwise, nothing. We don't admit people on visa simply to work a few months and then go home. Our employment needs don't require this kind of visa program.


There are J1 and H2 visas providing this sort of employment. Admittedly, they are limited in scope, and the H2 is very limited in availability,

I'm afraid I've never seen a correlation between immigration policy and benefit for the country. Well, perhaps if I stand on my head while scratching my left love handle with my right pinkie singing a Dolly Parton number after finishing off a bottle of JD, I might envision one. But apart from that, I just don't see it.


----------



## synthia (Apr 18, 2007)

I'm told that doesn't work either.

The US now has WHV arrangements with New Zealand and Australia. And there is a short-term work visa for students that doesn't require study in the US. It's for five months, and usually for seasonal work. US students have the same option, to go to European countries with a visa that allows temporary or seasonal work.

Unfortunately, the poster has been out of school too long to qualify for these visas.

US visa policies exist to keep people out. Given a choice, the State Department wouldn't let anyone in. They make coming as a tourist miserable, and tourism actually makes money for the country. So, if they try and keep out people who are bringing lovely pounds and Euros, they really aren't going to want people who are going to take jobs from Americans, even temporarilly.

The latest thing, though I think they may back down on it, is reqiring people who are going to come in on the visa waiver program to register on-line at least three days before flying so they can be vetted. Then they are essentially expecting the airlines to police this and deny boarding to anyone who hasn't vetter. Of course, they don't have any way of getting the information to the airlines, and that isn't theri job anyway. There's been a big brouhaha about it, so maybe they will abandon the idea.

It doesn't make me feel more secure that they spend money trying to keep Europeans out while the security at seaports is spotty at best.

Personally, I think that if the program goes in, every country in Europe should start requiring the same. Sort of what Brazil did, making Americans stay in immigration the exact amount of time that the average Brazilian had to wait in Miami. If it was taking twelve hours to get into the US, then Americans sat for twelve hours in Rio. Seemed fair to me.


----------



## Tiffani (Dec 4, 2007)

before I moved to Australia in January, we were concerned that our business visa wouldn't come through in time and we would have to enter on an electronic tourist visa which would've required a nominal fee and registration online at least 24 hours prior to arrival (or something like that). I was really surprised that they didn't have the visa waiver program and that they required this mini-visa for all visitors (apart from NZers). 

The airlines are already policing visa entry requirements for the US government -- and every other government for that matter -- so it shouldn't really be anything new for them. If anything, it should streamline the entire process.


----------



## Bevdeforges (Nov 16, 2007)

synthia said:


> The latest thing, though I think they may back down on it, is reqiring people who are going to come in on the visa waiver program to register on-line at least three days before flying so they can be vetted. Then they are essentially expecting the airlines to police this and deny boarding to anyone who hasn't vetter. Of course, they don't have any way of getting the information to the airlines, and that isn't theri job anyway. There's been a big brouhaha about it, so maybe they will abandon the idea.


I had heard about that one, but AFAICT this is just an "official" version of the online "information form" we've had to fill out for the airline when booking tickets online. My understanding is that the information (passport number, etc.) had to be transmitted to the US half an hour before the flight leaves so the immigration folks at the arrival point could be "ready" for any potential persons of interest when they de-plane.

I agree completely - the US is making even tourist travel a royal pain in the butt. I know people who won't travel to the US for holidays any more, thanks to all the hassle and I can't say I blame them. I'm currently in the US, visiting family, but I have to admit I had very little difficulty this trip - though I'm getting very used to giving them the "correct" answers to avoid problems.
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## RICHNTRISH (Jun 4, 2008)

synthia said:


> US visa policies exist to keep people out. Given a choice, the State Department wouldn't let anyone in. They make coming as a tourist miserable, and tourism actually makes money for the country. So, if they try and keep out people who are bringing lovely pounds and Euros, they really aren't going to want people who are going to take jobs from Americans, even temporarily


So why is that then ?Why doesn't the department for tourism do something about this ? Is this just something that has come about with the Bush administration or has it always been the same ?Surely without tourism places like Florida would hardly even exist .


----------



## YaGatDatRite (Aug 7, 2008)

Richintrish -

Its partly that but much more. America was well-known as tourist (or traveler) *unfriendly* even before 9.11, so all the hassles related to obtaining visas, airport and airline checks, customs, etc are not completely new.

The feds keep putting in new programs (remember, 'policies' have to be approved by lawmakers) but these on-and-off programs are fully under the local jurisdictions like the TSA, or the airport authorities for example.

The issue is that even with all the programs (AND policies) you can barely keep out everyone who wants to get here. And believe it or not, even post 9.11 , so many wanna get in, its totally crazy. The last 30 million of US population rise, from 1991 census to 2001, was fueled entirely by immigration. Thats a full 10% rise FYI

At last count, the country had 12 million illegals and not all of them from across the border. Given the current economic climate, they'd rather do everything to keep people out. Its an election year, they need to be seen as doing SOMETHING. E.g. the response to Hurrican Gustav . we did SOMETHIN even if it was hardly useful....!

America's infrastructure can barely handle 300 M people, even an additional 10 or 15 million puts a strain on it. That said, every other country makes it difficult if not impossible to get in, register, stay longer than authorized, etc. This is by far better than many other countries I've traveled to, where officials sometimes don't even have a clue what the current rule or program is in effect.....Travel to Sri Lanka and you'll know what I mean. Or even Singapore for that matter.

This may be extrapolating the issue a lot more, but trying to implement a uniform set of rules across 5 timezones, 100s of airports and seaports, an largely porous border on two sides ... oh, its a humongous undertaking.


----------



## tcscivic12 (Jul 2, 2008)

YaGatDatRite said:


> Richintrish -
> 
> Its partly that but much more. America was well-known as tourist (or traveler) *unfriendly* even before 9.11, so all the hassles related to obtaining visas, airport and airline checks, customs, etc are not completely new.
> 
> ...


I agree with this.


----------



## Bevdeforges (Nov 16, 2007)

RICHNTRISH said:


> So why is that then ?Why doesn't the department for tourism do something about this ? Is this just something that has come about with the Bush administration or has it always been the same ?Surely without tourism places like Florida would hardly even exist .


Well, for starters, the US doesn't have a national department of tourism. That seems to be the province of the individual states, and they spend a big part of their advertising budget advertising their states to residents of other states, rather than in the international market.

It has pretty much always been this way, though things have gotten considerably worse since 9/11 and the various "security" acts that have been passed.

Florida draws many of its tourists from the US Northeast. California draws from most of the rest of the US. The international tourists are just a bonus - and they are just tourists, not potential long-term residents. The real hassle is for those trying to get visas.
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## twostep (Apr 3, 2008)

Bevdeforges said:


> Well, for starters, the US doesn't have a national department of tourism. That seems to be the province of the individual states, and they spend a big part of their advertising budget advertising their states to residents of other states, rather than in the international market.
> 
> It has pretty much always been this way, though things have gotten considerably worse since 9/11 and the various "security" acts that have been passed.
> 
> ...


I cannot follow your logic Bev. Tourism falls under State rule and immigration under Federal rule. Two cups of tea. 

Basic laws of supply and demand. Why spend money on advertising and accomodating foreign tourists when you have plenty and regular ones in-house.

There is no need to cuddle potential long-term residents as the demand is there and seems to be getting bigger by the day.

FYI - my worst ever experience immigration/customs - Heathrow UK :>(


----------



## Bevdeforges (Nov 16, 2007)

twostep said:


> I cannot follow your logic Bev. Tourism falls under State rule and immigration under Federal rule. Two cups of tea.
> 
> Basic laws of supply and demand. Why spend money on advertising and accomodating foreign tourists when you have plenty and regular ones in-house.
> 
> ...


Just look to what Richntrish posted - they seemed to feel that the "tourism department" should have some influence over the immigration situation. They don't because there is no national tourism department and because even the state tourism departments are only interested in tourists, most of whom come from within the US and pose no immigration problems.
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## Fatbrit (May 8, 2008)

YaGatDatRite said:


> America's infrastructure can barely handle 300 M people, even an additional 10 or 15 million puts a strain on it.


America's infrastructure can't handle the population now..........but that's because it's been starved of any investment for the last 25+ years, not because it couldn't cope with it. Here in Phoenix I can drive out of the metropolitan area in a 4WD for hundreds of miles in almost any direction and not meet or see another soul. So I don't really think we're overcrowded.

The argument for controlling immigration is surely that it has been used to undermine the pay and working conditions of Americans, not that the infrastructure can't handle it.


----------



## twostep (Apr 3, 2008)

Bevdeforges said:


> Just look to what Richntrish posted - they seemed to feel that the "tourism department" should have some influence over the immigration situation. They don't because there is no national tourism department and because even the state tourism departments are only interested in tourists, most of whom come from within the US and pose no immigration problems.
> Cheers,
> Bev


As the word says tourism departments are involved in tourism. No reason for them to cross the line from State to Federal and get involved in immigration. The US is not advertising for immigrants. 
Does the UK have a central tourism department which is involved in the immigration process?


----------



## synthia (Apr 18, 2007)

There is no department of tourism to do anything.

The airlines currently don't check visas for immigration, but because if you aren't admitted they are required to provide a free ride back to the originating airport. That's not such a burden for passengers with round trip tickets, but a pain for those arriving on one-way tickets.


----------



## RICHNTRISH (Jun 4, 2008)

Yeah sorry Synthia i was refering to tourism not immigration , as you were saying that the state dept dont seem to wish to make visa's easy for tourists , that just seems crazy especially given the state of the US economy at the moment . 
We get TV ads here in the UK from goverment depts in countrys such as Australia and New zealand practically begging for tourists , because they know it will boost their economy .


----------



## twostep (Apr 3, 2008)

RICHNTRISH said:


> Yeah sorry Synthia i was refering to tourism not immigration , as you were saying that the state dept dont seem to wish to make visa's easy for tourists , that just seems crazy especially given the state of the US economy at the moment .
> We get TV ads here in the UK from goverment depts in countrys such as Australia and New zealand practically begging for tourists , because they know it will boost their economy .



You will see an occasional Quantas add here. New Zealand - an unknown.

You want to visit FL? Come on over we can offer closed beaches, barricaded beach fronts and locals on vacation further inland right now.

I do not understand the visa issue. For most countries the VWP applies - let them you you are coming, show your face and your passport. Roundtrip tickets are preferred. Makes sense.

I do not believe some of the entry/visa problems I hear. In most cases there is just a bit missing and that bit is vital.


----------



## Bevdeforges (Nov 16, 2007)

RICHNTRISH said:


> Yeah sorry Synthia i was refering to tourism not immigration , as you were saying that the state dept dont seem to wish to make visa's easy for tourists , that just seems crazy especially given the state of the US economy at the moment .
> We get TV ads here in the UK from goverment depts in countrys such as Australia and New zealand practically begging for tourists , because they know it will boost their economy .


The problem is that the State Department doesn't really deal with tourism - except that they are the "port of entry" for the visa process. But AFAIK, State doesn't even make the visa rules - they only enforce what they are given by USCIS.
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## synthia (Apr 18, 2007)

twostep, only 27 countries are in the visa waiver program, all of them in Europe except for OZ, NZ, Japan, and Singapore. 

Starting January 12, instead of just getting on a plane, as we do when going to Europe, travelers who are coming in on the visa waiver program will have to complete an on-line registration prior to their trip, so they can be 'vetted'. 

What I don't understand is why we are spending so much money to screen, say, Swiss tourists, when our seaports are an absolute sieve.


----------



## Tiffani (Dec 4, 2007)

synthia said:


> What I don't understand is why we are spending so much money to screen, say, Swiss tourists, when our seaports are an absolute sieve.


now THAT is a good point... not to mention our land borders north and south...


----------



## synthia (Apr 18, 2007)

Well, they know how to tighten airport security, I guess. The seaports are a whole other game.


----------



## Tiffani (Dec 4, 2007)

indeed, and unless The Fence gets built, there's not a whole lot of stopping people crossing the land borders, either.


----------

