Daughter of Korean priest detained by ICE after visa hearing
The Episcopal Diocese of New York and immigrant advocacy groups are calling for the immediate release of Go Yeon-soo, saying she was unfairly detained despite having legal status, and that immigration authorities bypassed proper legal procedures.
Go, a graduate of Scarsdale High School in Westchester County, is the daughter of the Rev. Kim Ky-rie, the first woman ordained in the Seoul Diocese of the Anglican Church of Korea.
According to the family, Go entered the United States in March 2021 on an R-2 visa, a dependent visa for family members of R-1 religious visa holders, following her mother's relocation. The family said her stay was legally extended in 2023 and that her status remains valid through the end of 2025. However, immigration authorities reportedly interpreted her status differently and deemed her stay unlawful.
On July 31, Go appeared before the New York Immigration Court and was given a continuance for her hearing, which was rescheduled for October. But shortly after exiting the courthouse, she was detained by ICE agents. She is currently being held at the ICE office in Manhattan and is expected to be transferred to a detention facility for immigrants.
'Her mother receives regular calls from Yeon-soo, and she's being held at 26 Federal Plaza, which, as we know, is not a facility with showers, beds or hot meals,' said the Rt. Rev. Matthew Heyd, bishop coadjutor of the Episcopal Diocese of New York, during a press conference Saturday. 'These detentions are not only illegal — they're immoral.'
The press conference was held outside the ICE office in Manhattan by the diocese and a coalition of immigrant advocacy organizations.
The case comes amid growing concerns over the treatment of immigrants, particularly among the Korean community. Last month, Tae-heung Kim, a 40-year-old Ph.D. student at Texas A&M University, was detained by federal agents at San Francisco International Airport and remains in custody.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Korea Herald
2 hours ago
- Korea Herald
Pentagon policy chief calls S. Korea 'role model' for N. Korea deterrence, defense spending
A senior Pentagon official has described South Korea as a "role model" in its willingness to take "more of the lead" in defending against North Korea and in its defense spending, as Washington prioritizes deterring Chinese threats while calling on allies to take on greater security burdens. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby made the remarks in a social media post on Thursday as he commented on a recent phone conversation between South Korean Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back and US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. "South Korea continues to be a role model in its willingness to take more of the lead in a strong defense against the DPRK and in its spending on defense," Colby wrote on X, formerly Twitter. DPRK is short for North Korea's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. "We and the ROK are closely aligned on the need to modernize the Alliance in response to the regional security environment. We will work closely with Seoul to ensure a strategically sustainable Alliance that is ready to defend against shared threats," he added. ROK stands for South Korea's official name, the Republic of Korea. His remarks apparently underscored US President Donald Trump's expectations that allies will make greater efforts for their own defense, backed by their increased spending on defense, as the United States focuses on countering the "pacing threat" from an increasingly assertive China. The remarks came amid expectations that South Korean President Lee Jae Myung and Trump might discuss Seoul's defense spending and the future direction of the alliance in the name of alliance "modernization" when they meet in a White House summit that Trump said will take place in the coming weeks. The Pentagon has said that South Korea and other Asian allies are also subject to the "global standard" of spending 5 percent of their gross domestic product, a goal that North Atlantic Treaty Organization members have agreed to achieve by 2035 following Trump's demand. Colby has been tasked with crafting the Pentagon's new National Defense Strategy to prioritize increasing allies' "burden-sharing" and deterring Chinese threats in the Indo-Pacific. Hegseth directed that a final NDS draft be provided to him no later than Aug. 31.
![[Kim Seong-kon] Without care, we too, can become abusers](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwimg.heraldcorp.com%2Fnews%2Fcms%2F2025%2F08%2F05%2Fnews-p.v1.20250805.ff3930a91f0a481b9e5d7c4089e58346_T1.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
Korea Herald
6 hours ago
- Korea Herald
[Kim Seong-kon] Without care, we too, can become abusers
We tend to think there is a crystal-clear distinction between opposite things. However, it's rarely so simple. Oftentimes, things that at first glance appear contrary instead end up looking surprisingly alike or blend into one another, especially when they are pushed to the extreme. For example, the far left and far right, though technically opposites, bear an astonishing resemblance, as we see when we compare Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler. Similarly, we think that there is a radical difference between terrorists and ordinary people. Therefore, we naturally believe that we are far removed from terrorists and have nothing to do with violent extremism. We assume there is a particular group of people who can be labeled 'terrorists.' In reality, however, even those of us who think we are the most ordinary of people can become terrorists if we are not careful. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a terrorist as 'someone who uses violence and intimidation to achieve a political and ideological aim.' According to this definition, anyone can fall into the category of a terrorist if they try to impose their political beliefs on others using force. If so, we can find quite a few terroristic people in our society who do not hesitate to use violence for ideological causes. The same goes for 'abusers.' In the Oxford English Dictionary, an abuser is 'someone who treats another person in a cruel, violent or unfair way.' Given the parameters of that definition, anyone can stumble into the category of an abuser if they treat others in an unfair or manipulative way. Although we might firmly believe that we are not doing so, we could be perpetrating abuse without realizing it. We can become abusers if we treat others in a rude, inhumane or manipulative way. It can happen between a father and a child, or between a husband and a wife. It can also happen between a teacher and a student, or between an employer and an employee. What Koreans call 'gapjil' is an example of abuse between people with power and those they have power over. Recently, I saw a poster that said: 'Does someone degrade you in public or private? Does he get angry if you are not submissive? Does he insist you are wrong? Does he blame you for everything? Does he pressure you to do things that make you uncomfortable? Does he force you to drink, or do things that you do not want to do? Does he expose you to danger because of your identity? Then, this is abuse.' If the above things belong to the category of 'abuse,' no one is completely free from the accusation of being an abuser. For example, if we pressure someone to drink against their will in a bar, which is quite common in Korean society, we might be abusing the person. If we ignore or degrade the opinions of our children or students simply because they are young, we might be abusers there, as well. If we provoke, blame or threaten family members, we are abusing them. If we have power, we can easily become abusers. If we do not have power, we may unwittingly turn into a terrorist. Sometimes, a powerful man can become both an abuser and a terrorist. If a political leader tries to impose his ideological beliefs on his people by force, he becomes an abuser and a terrorist. He may think he is doing the right thing, but he is not, because there is only a thin line between right and wrong, and good and evil. In order not to become abusers or terrorists, we should respect different voices, opinions and perspectives. We also should respect and embrace others who are different from us or weaker than us. If we force others to join us or be like us in the name of unity, we are likely to end up becoming terrorists or abusers. Nobody wants to be a terrorist or an abuser. Yet, we can easily become one unless we are extra careful and supercautious. We should know that there is only a thin wall between terrorists and abusers and us.
Korea Herald
6 hours ago
- Korea Herald
[Editorial] Tax reform misstep
Misguided tax policies threaten to derail South Korea's fragile market rebound The Lee Jae Myung administration's first major tax reform was intended to tackle rising fiscal pressures and address long-standing structural imbalances in South Korea's tax regime. Instead, it has rattled markets, drawn criticism from global financial institutions and exposed fractures within the ruling party. On Friday, just a day after the blueprint's release, the benchmark Kospi and tech-heavy Kosdaq indices each fell by around 4 percent, a sharp reversal for markets that had only recently begun to regain momentum. Investor sentiment, already tentative, swiftly deteriorated. At the heart of the controversy are two measures: raising the top corporate tax rate by 1 percentage point to 25 percent and lowering the threshold for capital gains taxation on large shareholders from 5 billion won ($3.6 million) to 1 billion won. These proposals would reverse cuts introduced under the previous Yoon Suk Yeol administration and are projected to raise 8.2 trillion won in additional revenue next year. Yet the backlash has been swift and pointed. Critics have highlighted the reform's poor timing, lack of strategic coherence and a clear disconnect from the government's stated goal of capital market revitalization. CLSA described the measures as 'only sticks, no carrots.' Citigroup downgraded Korean equities in its emerging markets portfolio, citing misalignment with Korea's "value-up" initiative. JPMorgan similarly warned that any credible rerating of Korean stocks would require more than cosmetic shifts in policy. The irony is difficult to overlook. An administration that campaigned on market revitalization — pledging, no less, to drive the Kospi to 5,000 points — now finds itself accused of undermining its own narrative. Markets reacted unequivocally. Within a single trading session, 116 trillion won in market capitalization was wiped out. This erosion of household and institutional wealth is not merely symbolic; brokerages estimate it could shave more than 8 trillion won off future consumption. Political consequences have been just as swift. At least 13 lawmakers from the ruling Democratic Party of Korea have raised objections, while senior party figures have contradicted one another over whether the capital gains threshold should be reconsidered. Compounding the confusion are mixed signals from the presidential office, which have further heightened investor anxiety. Such incoherence is particularly damaging in a market where foreign investors account for nearly a third of all trading volume. These stakeholders depend not just on fundamentals, but on clarity, consistency and credible policymaking. Many observers argue the reforms stray from international norms. The dual imposition of capital gains and transaction taxes is widely viewed as excessive, particularly in comparison to major markets that opt for one or the other. The revised threshold for large shareholders is also seen as overly aggressive. Meanwhile, long-promised dividend tax relief has proved underwhelming, as it is narrowly targeted and still capped at a steep 35 percent, well above the 25 percent ceiling proposed in April by Democratic Party lawmaker Lee So-young. More fundamentally, the reform poses a critical question: Must fiscal consolidation come at the expense of market stability? In an open, export-driven economy exposed to global volatility, US tariffs and rising geopolitical risk, abrupt shifts in tax policy could alienate the very investors South Korea seeks to attract. President Lee is right to stress the importance of fiscal discipline. But credibility rests not only on budget arithmetic — it also depends on coherence. South Korea needs tax reform. What it does not need is a policy lurch that unsettles markets, contradicts strategic priorities and undercuts investor trust. If the Lee administration is serious about building a more dynamic, investment-friendly economy, it must steer clear of ad hoc reversals and restore clarity to its reform agenda.
