Urgent.News

What's breaking now, across thousands of outlets.

Saturday, 22 August 2026 Reading Room

World

The Democratic Party of Korea appointed Lim Mi-ae as the head of the party's support team for regional committees outside of the National Assembly. The party also launched a task force (TF) to engage with the public on livelihood issues.

Translated from Korean Read in Korean

hani.co.kr ·

We haven't written up this one. Hankyoreh has the full story — the link below goes straight to it.

This story

This is one outlet's version. Read the fullest account.

Read the original at hani.co.kr →

More in World

A U.S. federal judge on Friday blocked a Trump administration plan to suspend immigration visas for nationals of 75 countries, many of them in Africa and Asia, amid criticism that the move would hurt the U.S. economy and harm families. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Hawood K. Gee in Los Angeles came in a lawsuit filed by the American Immigration Lawyers Association and other groups representing immigrants and refugees. The State Department said it would comply with the ruling but had no immediate comment on whether it would appeal. The presidential proclamation, issued on June 22, would have taken effect on Wednesday and applied to immigrants applying for visas in 75 countries, including nearly all African countries except for Egypt, South Africa and the African island nations of Mauritius and Seychelles. It would have barred new immigrant visas for people from those countries, but would not have affected non-immigrant visas, such as tourist and business visas. The proclamation cited a U.S. law that gives the president authority to suspend entry of noncitizens whenever the president determines that their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The judge on Friday issued a worldwide injunction, which applies across the United States, blocking the proclamation. The Trump administration argued that the suspension was needed to protect national security and prevent people who might pose a terrorism risk or could not be properly vetted from entering the country. But challengers said the ban would affect people who pose no security threat, such as family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, and could not be properly reviewed because of faulty government databases. The U.S. government has not provided a detailed estimate of how many people would be affected by the ban. The American Immigration Lawyers Association said it was pleased with the ruling. “This is a critical victory for the rule of law and for families and businesses who will not be unnecessarily harmed by an unjust and sweeping ban,” said the association’s president, Jeremy Robbins. The White House had no immediate comment on the ruling. The U.S. Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision. “We are reviewing the court’s decision and will consider all available options,” a department spokeswoman said. The ruling marked a significant setback for President Donald Trump’s hardline immigration policies. It also came as Trump is seeking re-election and has made immigration a central issue in his campaign. Trump has repeatedly vowed to crack down on immigration, saying it poses a threat to national security and U.S. jobs. The president has issued several proclamations and executive orders aimed at tightening immigration. In January, U.S. District Judge Rya Zobel in Boston rejected a similar challenge to a Trump administration plan to require international students to leave the country if their universities switched to online-only classes. Zobel declined to issue an injunction blocking the plan, saying she did not think it was likely to cause irreparable harm. But Gee, in Friday’s ruling, wrote that the presidential proclamation likely exceeded Trump’s authority under U.S. law. Gee said the proclamation was motivated by “widespread and unjustified harms” against immigrants and refugees. The judge cited examples of people who would be harmed by the ban, including a U.S. citizen’s 92-year-old mother in the Philippines who would be unable to immigrate to the United States. Gee also cited a U.S. permanent resident who had applied for a visa for his wife and two children in Guinea. The judge said the government had not shown that the ban was necessary to prevent terrorism or protect national security. Gee said the government had not provided evidence that people from the affected countries posed a heightened risk of terrorism. The judge also noted that the government had not shown that the ban would help protect U.S. workers. The ruling was hailed by immigrant advocacy groups. “This is a huge victory for families and communities across the country,” said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California, San Francisco. “These bans were just a cruel and unnecessary attempt to keep families apart,” Gelernt said. The ruling was also welcomed by business groups. “This is a positive development for U.S. businesses that rely on high-skilled talent from around the world,” said a statement from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups had filed a statement in support of the lawsuit. The groups said the ban would have harmed U.S. businesses and the economy. They said many U.S. companies rely on high-skilled workers from abroad. The groups argued that the ban would have hurt the U.S. economy and led to lost business and revenue. The White House and the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

·hani.co.kr

More from Saturday 22 August →