<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/mcdonalds-hr-chief-exits-after-ceo-shakeup-260024">McDonald's&nbsp;Corp</a> agreed to&nbsp;pay&nbsp;$26&nbsp;million&nbsp;to&nbsp;settle&nbsp;a nearly seven-year-old&nbsp;lawsuit&nbsp;accusing the fast-food chain of underpaying US&nbsp;staff at its corporate-owned restaurants in&nbsp;California.

The preliminary&nbsp;settlement resolves claims that the company used a timekeeping system that cheated workers out of overtime, barred workers from taking rest breaks during their shifts, and forced workers to clean and iron their uniforms out of pocket.

It resolves claims by about 38,000 cashiers and cooks in&nbsp;California, and is the largest&nbsp;wage&nbsp;settlement against Chicago-based&nbsp;McDonald's&nbsp;in the United States, representatives for the plaintiffs said.

The accord requires&nbsp;McDonald's&nbsp;to&nbsp;pay&nbsp;required overtime, track&nbsp;pay&nbsp;electronically, provide rest breaks during rather than at the start or end of shifts, and provide replacement work uniforms when old uniforms become damaged or worn out.

McDonald's&nbsp;denied wrongdoing as part of the&nbsp;settlement. The accord requires court approval.

In a statement,&nbsp;McDonald's&nbsp;said it still believes its employment practices complied with&nbsp;California&nbsp;labor law. It also said it is improving training at company-owned restaurants "to promote continued compliance with all&nbsp;wage&nbsp;and hour laws."

McDonald's&nbsp;has long been a target of labor organizers who claim it underpays workers and provides unsafe working conditions at company-owned and franchised restaurants.

On November&nbsp;12, the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/microsoft-to-probe-work-of-israeli-facial-recognition-startup-it-funded-262511"> American Civil Liberties Union</a> and workers in Michigan sued&nbsp;McDonald's&nbsp;for allegedly allowing sexual harassment to flourish at its restaurants.

Then on November&nbsp;21, a group of Chicago-area workers sued&nbsp;McDonald's&nbsp;and several franchisees over a recent restaurant redesign that they said left them vulnerable to physical attacks by angry customers.

Lawyers for the&nbsp;California&nbsp;workers may seek fees of up to one-third of the&nbsp;settlement amount, according to court papers.

McDonald's&nbsp;has roughly 14,000 US&nbsp;restaurants, of which approximately 95 per cent&nbsp;are franchised. It has more than 38,000 restaurants worldwide.

McDonald's Corp agreed to pay $26 million to settle a nearly seven-year-old lawsuit accusing the fast-food chain of underpaying US staff at its corporate-owned restaurants in California.

McDonald's Corp agreed to pay $26 million to settle a nearly seven-year-old lawsuit accusing the fast-food chain of underpaying US staff at its corporate-owned restaurants in California. The preliminary settlement resolves claims that the company used a timekeeping system that cheated workers out of overtime, barred workers from taking rest breaks during their shifts, and forced workers to clean and iron their uniforms out of pocket. It resolves claims by about 38,000 cashiers and cooks in California, and is the largest wage settlement against Chicago-based McDonald's in the United States, representatives for the plaintiffs said. The accord requires McDonald's to pay required overtime, track pay electronically, provide rest breaks during rather than at the start or end of shifts, and provide replacement work uniforms when old uniforms become damaged or worn out. McDonald's denied wrongdoing as part of the settlement. The accord requires court approval. In a statement, McDonald's said it still believes its employment practices complied with California labor law. It also said it is improving training at company-owned restaurants "to promote continued compliance with all wage and hour laws." McDonald's has long been a target of labor organizers who claim it underpays workers and provides unsafe working conditions at company-owned and franchised restaurants. On November 12, the American Civil Liberties Union and workers in Michigan sued McDonald's for allegedly allowing sexual harassment to flourish at its restaurants. Then on November 21, a group of Chicago-area workers sued McDonald's and several franchisees over a recent restaurant redesign that they said left them vulnerable to physical attacks by angry customers. Lawyers for the California workers may seek fees of up to one-third of the settlement amount, according to court papers. McDonald's has roughly 14,000 US restaurants, of which approximately 95 per cent are franchised. It has more than 38,000 restaurants worldwide.

McDonald's to pay $26 million to settle California wage lawsuit

The US government plans to collect the DNA of all migrants detained after entering the country illegally, officials said Wednesday.

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/will-deny-citizenship-to-immigrants-who-use-public-benefits-us-242502">Department of Homeland Security</a> (DHS) is developing a plan to take DNA samples from each of the undocumented immigrants and store it in a national database for criminal DNA profiles, they said.&nbsp;

Speaking to journalists on grounds of anonymity, DHS officials said the new policy would give immigration and border control agents a broader picture of the migrant and detainee situation.

And stored on the FBI's CODIS DNA database, it could also be used by others in law enforcement and beyond.

"It does enhance our ability to further identify someone who has illegally entered the country," said one official.

"It will assist other organisations as well in their identification ability."

Watch: US Immigrant raids - over 40 protesters arrested in New York

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-immigrant-raids-over-40-protesters-arrested-in-new-york-236312/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Officials said they were in fact required to take the DNA samples by rules about the handling of arrested and convicted people that were issued by the Justice Department in 2006 and 2010, but which had not been implemented.

They said the program for collecting DNA was still being developed, and they did not have a date set for implementation.

Collecting and storing the DNA of people simply detained and not tried or convicted of a crime has drawn criticism from civil rights advocates.

"Forced DNA collection raises serious privacy and civil liberties concerns and lacks justification, especially when DHS is already using less intrusive identification methods like fingerprinting," Vera Eidelman, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.&nbsp;

"This kind of mass collection also alters the purpose of DNA collection from one of criminal investigation to population surveillance, which is contrary to our basic notions of freedom and autonomy," Eidelman said.

Earlier this year the US Border Patrol began performing "rapid DNA" tests on migrants who cross the border as family units to determine if the individuals were actually related and were not making fraudulent claims.

The new program will collect much more genetic information than that program, and will store it.

"This is fundamentally different from rapid DNA," said a second official.

"This is a more-full scope DNA profile."

The US government plans to collect the DNA of all migrants detained after entering the country illegally, officials said Wednesday. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is developing a plan to take DNA samples from each of the undocumented immigrants and store it in a national database for criminal DNA profiles, they said.

The US government plans to collect the DNA of all migrants detained after entering the country illegally, officials said Wednesday. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is developing a plan to take DNA samples from each of the undocumented immigrants and store it in a national database for criminal DNA profiles, they said. Speaking to journalists on grounds of anonymity, DHS officials said the new policy would give immigration and border control agents a broader picture of the migrant and detainee situation. And stored on the FBI's CODIS DNA database, it could also be used by others in law enforcement and beyond. "It does enhance our ability to further identify someone who has illegally entered the country," said one official. "It will assist other organisations as well in their identification ability." Watch: US Immigrant raids - over 40 protesters arrested in New York × Officials said they were in fact required to take the DNA samples by rules about the handling of arrested and convicted people that were issued by the Justice Department in 2006 and 2010, but which had not been implemented. They said the program for collecting DNA was still being developed, and they did not have a date set for implementation. Collecting and storing the DNA of people simply detained and not tried or convicted of a crime has drawn criticism from civil rights advocates. "Forced DNA collection raises serious privacy and civil liberties concerns and lacks justification, especially when DHS is already using less intrusive identification methods like fingerprinting," Vera Eidelman, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. "This kind of mass collection also alters the purpose of DNA collection from one of criminal investigation to population surveillance, which is contrary to our basic notions of freedom and autonomy," Eidelman said. Earlier this year the US Border Patrol began performing "rapid DNA" tests on migrants who cross the border as family units to determine if the individuals were actually related and were not making fraudulent claims. The new program will collect much more genetic information than that program, and will store it. "This is fundamentally different from rapid DNA," said a second official. "This is a more-full scope DNA profile."

US to collect DNA of all undocumented migrants

The US government may have separated "thousands" more immigrant children from their parents than previously known but inadequate record-keeping means the exact number is still unclear, an internal watchdog said on Wednesday.

The Office of Inspector General at the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said the agency had identified many more children in addition to the 2,737 that were included as part of a class action lawsuit challenging the separations brought by the American Civil Liberties Union last year.

The administration of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/rigging-polls-was-at-the-direction-sole-benefit-of-trump-ex-lawyer-michael-cohen-191059">President Donald Trump</a> implemented a 'zero tolerance' policy to criminally prosecute and jail all illegal border crossers even those travelling with their children, leading to a wave of separations last year.

But the auditor said in a report that prior to the officially announced policy the government had ramped up separations for other reasons related to a child's safety and well-being, including separating parents with criminal records or lack of proper documents. Those separations were only tracked informally, making it impossible for the auditor to know the exact number.

The policy sparked outrage when it became public, and the backlash led Trump to sign an executive order reversing course on June 20.

But separations have continued since then, the report said. HHS, which runs the Office of Refugee Resettlement that is responsible for the children's care, told the auditor that at least 118 had been separated between July 1 and November 7, 2018.

The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said that 65 of those 118 children were separated because the parents had a criminal history but in some cases the agency did not provide the details of that history.

DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the report's findings.

The auditor raised concerns that the government is still not adequately counting separation cases.

"It is not yet clear whether recent changes to ORR's systems and processes are sufficient to ensure consistent and accurate data about separated children," the report said.

The US government may have separated "thousands" more immigrant children from their parents than previously known but inadequate record-keeping means the exact number is still unclear, an internal watchdog said on Wednesday.

The US government may have separated "thousands" more immigrant children from their parents than previously known but inadequate record-keeping means the exact number is still unclear, an internal watchdog said on Wednesday. The Office of Inspector General at the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said the agency had identified many more children in addition to the 2,737 that were included as part of a class action lawsuit challenging the separations brought by the American Civil Liberties Union last year. The administration of President Donald Trump implemented a 'zero tolerance' policy to criminally prosecute and jail all illegal border crossers even those travelling with their children, leading to a wave of separations last year. But the auditor said in a report that prior to the officially announced policy the government had ramped up separations for other reasons related to a child's safety and well-being, including separating parents with criminal records or lack of proper documents. Those separations were only tracked informally, making it impossible for the auditor to know the exact number. The policy sparked outrage when it became public, and the backlash led Trump to sign an executive order reversing course on June 20. But separations have continued since then, the report said. HHS, which runs the Office of Refugee Resettlement that is responsible for the children's care, told the auditor that at least 118 had been separated between July 1 and November 7, 2018. The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said that 65 of those 118 children were separated because the parents had a criminal history but in some cases the agency did not provide the details of that history. DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the report's findings. The auditor raised concerns that the government is still not adequately counting separation cases. "It is not yet clear whether recent changes to ORR's systems and processes are sufficient to ensure consistent and accurate data about separated children," the report said.

US separated 'thousands' more immigrant children: Watchdog

A US judge closely questioned the government on Monday as he weighed whether to temporarily halt an order from President Donald Trump that bars asylum for migrants who illegally cross the border with Mexico.

Trump cited an overwhelmed immigration system for his recent proclamation that officials will only process asylum claims for migrants who present themselves at an official entry point. Civil rights groups argue that Trump's November 9 order violated administrative and immigration law.

At hearing in San Francisco federal court, US District Judge Jon Tigar repeatedly asked a Justice Department attorney whether Trump's order was justified and supported by actual evidence.

"To say something is true does not make it true," Tigar said.

The judge did not issue a ruling during the hearing. Any decision would likely be procedural and would restore prior asylum rules while the rights groups made their case for a preliminary injunction at a future hearing.

Tigar was nominated to the court by President Barack Obama.

The hearing came as thousands of Central Americans, including a large number of children, are travelling in caravans towards the US border to escape violence and poverty at home. Some have already arrived at Tijuana, a Mexican city on the border with California.

Rights groups have said immigrants are being forced to wait days or weeks at the border before they can present themselves for asylum, and the administration has been sued for deliberately slowing processing times at official ports.

At the hearing, American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt said the order clearly conflicted with the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows any person present in the United States to seek asylum, regardless of how they entered the country.

Gelernt said the ACLU has recently learned Mexican authorities have begun barring unaccompanied minors from applying at US ports of entry.

"These kids are in desperate danger," he said.

Caravan participants began to arrive last week in Tijuana on the Mexican side of the US border, which has put a strain on humanitarian shelters where many will wait to seek asylum. Their presence has also strained Tijuana's reputation as a welcoming city, with some residents screaming at the migrants, "Get out!"

Trump sent more than 5,000 soldiers to the 2,000-mile (3,100 km) frontier with Mexico to harden the border, although critics dismissed the move as a political stunt ahead of congressional elections on November 6.

A US judge closely questioned the government on Monday as he weighed whether to temporarily halt an order from President Donald Trump that bars asylum for migrants who illegally cross the border with Mexico.

A US judge closely questioned the government on Monday as he weighed whether to temporarily halt an order from President Donald Trump that bars asylum for migrants who illegally cross the border with Mexico. Trump cited an overwhelmed immigration system for his recent proclamation that officials will only process asylum claims for migrants who present themselves at an official entry point. Civil rights groups argue that Trump's November 9 order violated administrative and immigration law. At hearing in San Francisco federal court, US District Judge Jon Tigar repeatedly asked a Justice Department attorney whether Trump's order was justified and supported by actual evidence. "To say something is true does not make it true," Tigar said. The judge did not issue a ruling during the hearing. Any decision would likely be procedural and would restore prior asylum rules while the rights groups made their case for a preliminary injunction at a future hearing. Tigar was nominated to the court by President Barack Obama. The hearing came as thousands of Central Americans, including a large number of children, are travelling in caravans towards the US border to escape violence and poverty at home. Some have already arrived at Tijuana, a Mexican city on the border with California. Rights groups have said immigrants are being forced to wait days or weeks at the border before they can present themselves for asylum, and the administration has been sued for deliberately slowing processing times at official ports. At the hearing, American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt said the order clearly conflicted with the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows any person present in the United States to seek asylum, regardless of how they entered the country. Gelernt said the ACLU has recently learned Mexican authorities have begun barring unaccompanied minors from applying at US ports of entry. "These kids are in desperate danger," he said. Caravan participants began to arrive last week in Tijuana on the Mexican side of the US border, which has put a strain on humanitarian shelters where many will wait to seek asylum. Their presence has also strained Tijuana's reputation as a welcoming city, with some residents screaming at the migrants, "Get out!" Trump sent more than 5,000 soldiers to the 2,000-mile (3,100 km) frontier with Mexico to harden the border, although critics dismissed the move as a political stunt ahead of congressional elections on November 6.

US judge questions Trump administration on asylum policy

Clemente Torres has proudly cast his vote in person at Dodge City's lone polling place in every election since he became a naturalized citizen 20 years ago.

This year is different.

After Republican officials said in September they would move the Hispanic-majority city's only polling place to a remote spot outside the city limits, across railroad tracks and away from bus lines, Torres decided to vote by mail.

"I wanted to be sure I could vote," said Torres, 57, who works at a meatpacking plant in this western Kansas city best known for its history as a Wild West outpost. "I didn't want to take any chances."

Torres and other voters interviewed by Reuters said they were worried voting would be more difficult at the new location. Some were skeptical of the official explanation: that construction will hinder access to the usual site.

The move sparked an outcry from voting rights groups that say Republicans are trying to limit Hispanic votes. The American Civil Liberties Union asked the courts to force Dodge City to open another polling site – a request denied by a judge on Thursday.

Democrats are mobilizing to rent vans, line up volunteers to drive people to the polls and set up a hotline to ask for rides.

Kansas is just one front in a broad national struggle over voting restrictions passed by Republicans, who say they are needed to combat voter fraud.

Democrats and advocacy groups are scrambling in courtrooms and on the ground to resist efforts they say will stack the deck against minority voters likely to back Democrats in next Tuesday's elections, where control of the US Congress will be at stake.

The national voting rights debate, which accelerated after the US Supreme Court struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, has been particularly intense this year in states with tight, high-stakes election races such as Kansas, Georgia, North Dakota and Tennessee.

"There are a lot of grim things happening, but people are awake and highly engaged to fight back on this issue," said Leah Aden, deputy director of litigation at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

'SLAP IN THE FACE'

On a recent afternoon in Dodge City, where about 60 percent of the 27,000 residents are Hispanic, many of the mostly Hispanic workers pouring out of a beef processing plant during a shift change were surprised to find a trio of Kansas Democrats waiting for them.

"Do you know your polling place has moved?" Democratic congressional candidate Alan LaPolice asked as he and two aides handed out more than 300 packets with bilingual information on where to vote and how to call for a ride to get there.

Alejandro Rangel-Lopez, 18, a first-time voter in November and a plaintiff in the ACLU lawsuit, said the new polling site would make it tough on people unable to get time off from work to vote, or had transportation or language issues.

"People can't just leave the plants to vote. You can't just run over on your lunch break," Rangel-Lopez said.

Suspicions about the motive behind the polling place change come naturally in Kansas, where Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach, one of the country's foremost advocates of restrictive voting and immigration laws, is in a tight race for governor against Democrat Laura Kelly.

"This is a slap in the face to voters here," said Ford County Democratic Party Chairman Johnny Dunlap. "They should be making voting easier, not harder."

Debbie Cox, the Republican county clerk who ordered the move, declined requests for comment on her decision to set up a new polling place about 4 miles (6 km) from the old one.

But the state's elections director, who works under Kobach, said Cox chose the best available alternative with adequate parking and space.

'KOBACH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS'

"I have trouble understanding how this was voter suppression. There just weren't many options for polling sites that fit the criteria," Kansas Elections Director Bryan Caskey said. "I can say with 100 percent certainty that Secretary Kobach had nothing to do with this."

Kobach has relentlessly promoted theories about the threat of voter fraud and was a leader on President Donald Trump's disbanded election integrity commission formed to look into possible fraud in the 2016 election.

While Republicans say new voting restrictions such as tougher ID requirements and aggressive voter-roll purges are necessary to ensure honest elections or clean up voter rolls, independent studies have found that voter fraud is extremely rare.

Other states with major election races also have wrestled with voting rights issues. In North Dakota, where Democrat Heidi Heitkamp and Republican Kevin Cramer are in a close Senate race, Native American tribal leaders have mobilized to help up to 10,000 residents in rural reservations whose voting eligibility has been threatened by a state law requiring a residential street address on ID's.

Many reservation residents use post office boxes for mail delivery and do not have street addresses. The law, which Republicans said was aimed at fighting voter fraud, was passed after Heitkamp was elected to the Senate by fewer than 3,000 votes in 2012 with strong Native American support.

Precinct maps and satellite images of the state's five reservations are being used to help generate street addresses, which can be recorded and printed on tribal letterhead, said OJ Semans, co-executive director of Four Directions, a Native American voting rights group.

"This is about being pushed into a corner and having to fight back," Semans said. "We want to make sure the state thinks twice about doing something like this again."

Groups in Georgia sued to block Democrat Stacey Abrams' opponent for governor, Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who is also the state's top election official, from throwing out more than 50,000 voter registration applications put on hold under the state's "exact match" law requiring personal information on voter applications to match state databases.

The lawsuit alleged the vast majority of the disputed applications were from black voters.

Jimmy Carter, a former US president and Georgia governor, even weighed in, calling on Kemp to resign his post supervising elections. Kemp has refused to step down and says he is fairly applying Georgia's laws.

In Tennessee, home to another crucial US Senate race between Democrat Phil Bredesen and Republican Marsha Blackburn, a lawsuit by voting rights groups led a judge to order that people in majority-black Shelby County be allowed to fix their incomplete voter registration applications and vote.

Democrats in Tennessee have formed the first statewide voter protection team to watch for problems at the polls. Tennessee Democratic Party Chairwoman Mary Mancini calls them an "army of poll watchers."

Clemente Torres has proudly cast his vote in person at Dodge City's lone polling place in every election since he became a naturalized citizen 20 years ago. This year is different.

Clemente Torres has proudly cast his vote in person at Dodge City's lone polling place in every election since he became a naturalized citizen 20 years ago. This year is different. After Republican officials said in September they would move the Hispanic-majority city's only polling place to a remote spot outside the city limits, across railroad tracks and away from bus lines, Torres decided to vote by mail. "I wanted to be sure I could vote," said Torres, 57, who works at a meatpacking plant in this western Kansas city best known for its history as a Wild West outpost. "I didn't want to take any chances." Torres and other voters interviewed by Reuters said they were worried voting would be more difficult at the new location. Some were skeptical of the official explanation: that construction will hinder access to the usual site. The move sparked an outcry from voting rights groups that say Republicans are trying to limit Hispanic votes. The American Civil Liberties Union asked the courts to force Dodge City to open another polling site – a request denied by a judge on Thursday. Democrats are mobilizing to rent vans, line up volunteers to drive people to the polls and set up a hotline to ask for rides. Kansas is just one front in a broad national struggle over voting restrictions passed by Republicans, who say they are needed to combat voter fraud. Democrats and advocacy groups are scrambling in courtrooms and on the ground to resist efforts they say will stack the deck against minority voters likely to back Democrats in next Tuesday's elections, where control of the US Congress will be at stake. The national voting rights debate, which accelerated after the US Supreme Court struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, has been particularly intense this year in states with tight, high-stakes election races such as Kansas, Georgia, North Dakota and Tennessee. "There are a lot of grim things happening, but people are awake and highly engaged to fight back on this issue," said Leah Aden, deputy director of litigation at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's Legal Defense and Educational Fund. 'SLAP IN THE FACE' On a recent afternoon in Dodge City, where about 60 percent of the 27,000 residents are Hispanic, many of the mostly Hispanic workers pouring out of a beef processing plant during a shift change were surprised to find a trio of Kansas Democrats waiting for them. "Do you know your polling place has moved?" Democratic congressional candidate Alan LaPolice asked as he and two aides handed out more than 300 packets with bilingual information on where to vote and how to call for a ride to get there. Alejandro Rangel-Lopez, 18, a first-time voter in November and a plaintiff in the ACLU lawsuit, said the new polling site would make it tough on people unable to get time off from work to vote, or had transportation or language issues. "People can't just leave the plants to vote. You can't just run over on your lunch break," Rangel-Lopez said. Suspicions about the motive behind the polling place change come naturally in Kansas, where Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach, one of the country's foremost advocates of restrictive voting and immigration laws, is in a tight race for governor against Democrat Laura Kelly. "This is a slap in the face to voters here," said Ford County Democratic Party Chairman Johnny Dunlap. "They should be making voting easier, not harder." Debbie Cox, the Republican county clerk who ordered the move, declined requests for comment on her decision to set up a new polling place about 4 miles (6 km) from the old one. But the state's elections director, who works under Kobach, said Cox chose the best available alternative with adequate parking and space. 'KOBACH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS' "I have trouble understanding how this was voter suppression. There just weren't many options for polling sites that fit the criteria," Kansas Elections Director Bryan Caskey said. "I can say with 100 percent certainty that Secretary Kobach had nothing to do with this." Kobach has relentlessly promoted theories about the threat of voter fraud and was a leader on President Donald Trump's disbanded election integrity commission formed to look into possible fraud in the 2016 election. While Republicans say new voting restrictions such as tougher ID requirements and aggressive voter-roll purges are necessary to ensure honest elections or clean up voter rolls, independent studies have found that voter fraud is extremely rare. Other states with major election races also have wrestled with voting rights issues. In North Dakota, where Democrat Heidi Heitkamp and Republican Kevin Cramer are in a close Senate race, Native American tribal leaders have mobilized to help up to 10,000 residents in rural reservations whose voting eligibility has been threatened by a state law requiring a residential street address on ID's. Many reservation residents use post office boxes for mail delivery and do not have street addresses. The law, which Republicans said was aimed at fighting voter fraud, was passed after Heitkamp was elected to the Senate by fewer than 3,000 votes in 2012 with strong Native American support. Precinct maps and satellite images of the state's five reservations are being used to help generate street addresses, which can be recorded and printed on tribal letterhead, said OJ Semans, co-executive director of Four Directions, a Native American voting rights group. "This is about being pushed into a corner and having to fight back," Semans said. "We want to make sure the state thinks twice about doing something like this again." Groups in Georgia sued to block Democrat Stacey Abrams' opponent for governor, Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who is also the state's top election official, from throwing out more than 50,000 voter registration applications put on hold under the state's "exact match" law requiring personal information on voter applications to match state databases. The lawsuit alleged the vast majority of the disputed applications were from black voters. Jimmy Carter, a former US president and Georgia governor, even weighed in, calling on Kemp to resign his post supervising elections. Kemp has refused to step down and says he is fairly applying Georgia's laws. In Tennessee, home to another crucial US Senate race between Democrat Phil Bredesen and Republican Marsha Blackburn, a lawsuit by voting rights groups led a judge to order that people in majority-black Shelby County be allowed to fix their incomplete voter registration applications and vote. Democrats in Tennessee have formed the first statewide voter protection team to watch for problems at the polls. Tennessee Democratic Party Chairwoman Mary Mancini calls them an "army of poll watchers."

Ahead of US elections, fears of voter suppression and efforts to fight back

A US federal judge blocked part of President Donald Trump&#39;s immigration ban,&nbsp;ordering authorities to stop deporting refugees and other travellers stuck at US airports.

Trump had signed an executive order restricting people from seven Muslim-majority countries for the next three months and&nbsp;the arrival of refugees for at least 120 days.&nbsp;

The American Civil Liberties Union, which sought the temporary stay, said it would help 100 to 200 people with valid visas or refugee status who found themselves detained in transit or at US&nbsp;airports after Trump signed the order late on Friday.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Final word: Judge issued stay on Muslim ban, said no one could be removed/sent back. But unclear what will happen to those detained.
&mdash; Jackie Vimo (@JackieVimo) <a href="https://twitter.com/JackieVimo/status/825536554579980288">January 29, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The Union tweeted, &quot;Victory!!!!!!&quot; after district Judge Ann Donnelly gave the verdict.&nbsp;

The exact number of those affected is unclear, but Donnelly ordered the government to provide lists of all those detained at US airports since the measure went into effect.

Donnelly said sending travellers back to their home countries following Trump&#39;s order exposes them to &quot;substantial and irreparable injury.&quot;

&quot;Our courts today worked as they should as bulwarks against government abuse or unconstitutional policies and orders,&quot; the American Civil Liberties Union said.&nbsp;

The emergency court ruling was cheered at Boston&#39;s Logan International Airport, one of the several major US airports where protesters angry with Trump&#39;s order gathered.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Sunday condemned the restrictions on immigration imposed by&nbsp;Trump, seeing them as unjustified, her spokesman said.

&quot;She is convinced that even in the necessarily resolute battle against terrorism it is not justified to place people from a certain origin or belief under general suspicion,&quot; Steffen Seibert was quoted as saying by national news agency DPA.

British Prime Minister Theresa May&nbsp;does &quot;not agree&quot; with the restrictions on immigration.&nbsp;

&quot;Immigration policy in the United States is a matter for the government of the United States, just the same as immigration policy for this country should be set by our government,&quot; a spokesman said.

&quot;But we do not agree with this kind of approach and it is not one we will be taking. If there is any impact on UK nationals then clearly we will make representations to the US government about that.&quot;

Silicon Valley heads have also slammed Trump&#39;s ban on immigration,&nbsp;&nbsp;fearing it could prevent them from accessing a global reservoir of talent.

&quot;Apple would not exist without immigration, let alone thrive and innovate the way we do,&quot; said Tim Cook in a memo to staff obtained by AFP.

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings called the president&#39;s first week in office &quot;very sad&quot;, saying in a Facebook post that &quot;Trump&#39;s actions are hurting Netflix employees around the world, and are so un-American it pains us all&quot;.

&quot;It is time to link arms together to protect American values of freedom and opportunity.&quot;

Nearly 200 Google employees are directly impacted by the measures, according to an internal memo from CEO Sundar Pichai.

&quot;We&#39;re concerned about the impact of this order and any proposals that could impose restrictions on Googlers and their families, or that could create barriers to bringing great talent to the US,&quot; said the head of the internet giant.

Meanwhile, Iran has said that Americans who already hold Iranian visas can enter the country,&nbsp;even though Tehran has vowed to respond in kind to a US&nbsp;ban on visitors from Iran and six other Muslim countries.&nbsp;

&quot;Unlike the US, our decision is not retroactive. All with valid Iranian visa will be gladly welcomed,&quot; Iran&#39;s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Twitter.

(Agencies)

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

District judge Ann Donnelly ordered authorities to stop deporting refugees and other travellers stranded at US airports

A US federal judge blocked part of President Donald Trump's immigration ban, ordering authorities to stop deporting refugees and other travellers stuck at US airports. Trump had signed an executive order restricting people from seven Muslim-majority countries for the next three months and the arrival of refugees for at least 120 days. The American Civil Liberties Union, which sought the temporary stay, said it would help 100 to 200 people with valid visas or refugee status who found themselves detained in transit or at US airports after Trump signed the order late on Friday. Final word: Judge issued stay on Muslim ban, said no one could be removed/sent back. But unclear what will happen to those detained. — Jackie Vimo (@JackieVimo) January 29, 2017 × The Union tweeted, "Victory!!!!!!" after district Judge Ann Donnelly gave the verdict. The exact number of those affected is unclear, but Donnelly ordered the government to provide lists of all those detained at US airports since the measure went into effect. Donnelly said sending travellers back to their home countries following Trump's order exposes them to "substantial and irreparable injury." "Our courts today worked as they should as bulwarks against government abuse or unconstitutional policies and orders," the American Civil Liberties Union said. The emergency court ruling was cheered at Boston's Logan International Airport, one of the several major US airports where protesters angry with Trump's order gathered. German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Sunday condemned the restrictions on immigration imposed by Trump, seeing them as unjustified, her spokesman said. "She is convinced that even in the necessarily resolute battle against terrorism it is not justified to place people from a certain origin or belief under general suspicion," Steffen Seibert was quoted as saying by national news agency DPA. British Prime Minister Theresa May does "not agree" with the restrictions on immigration. "Immigration policy in the United States is a matter for the government of the United States, just the same as immigration policy for this country should be set by our government," a spokesman said. "But we do not agree with this kind of approach and it is not one we will be taking. If there is any impact on UK nationals then clearly we will make representations to the US government about that." Silicon Valley heads have also slammed Trump's ban on immigration, fearing it could prevent them from accessing a global reservoir of talent. "Apple would not exist without immigration, let alone thrive and innovate the way we do," said Tim Cook in a memo to staff obtained by AFP. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings called the president's first week in office "very sad", saying in a Facebook post that "Trump's actions are hurting Netflix employees around the world, and are so un-American it pains us all". "It is time to link arms together to protect American values of freedom and opportunity." Nearly 200 Google employees are directly impacted by the measures, according to an internal memo from CEO Sundar Pichai. "We're concerned about the impact of this order and any proposals that could impose restrictions on Googlers and their families, or that could create barriers to bringing great talent to the US," said the head of the internet giant. Meanwhile, Iran has said that Americans who already hold Iranian visas can enter the country, even though Tehran has vowed to respond in kind to a US ban on visitors from Iran and six other Muslim countries. "Unlike the US, our decision is not retroactive. All with valid Iranian visa will be gladly welcomed," Iran's foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Twitter. (Agencies)

US Federal Court halts part of Trump's immigration ban, world leaders condemn restrictions

The Obama administration released a redacted version of President Barack Obama&#39;s once-secret policy on drone strikes abroad following a freedom of information lawsuit filed last year, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said on yesterday. 
 
The release of the 18-page Presidential Policy Guidance document, as well as other department of defense papers, follows an order by a US district court judge in February requiring the justice department to disclose the document, also known as &quot;the Playbook.&quot; 
 
It sets out the law and rules the government must follow when carrying out targeted killings and the capture of terrorist suspects abroad. 
 
Obama pledged in 2013 to provide greater transparency about counter-terrorism operations, including drone strikes overseas, amid calls by some US lawmakers and rights groups for more openness. 
 
ACLU&#39;s deputy legal director, Jameel Jaffer, welcomed the release of the documents, saying they provide new details about policy standards and insights into the process for targeting individuals with lethal force or for capture. 
 
&quot;Its release now will inform an ongoing debate about the lawfulness and wisdom of the government&#39;s counter-terrorism policies,&quot; Jaffer said in a statement. 
 
The ACLU&#39;s lawsuit sought information, among other things, on the law and policies used to justify lethal force and how the government picks targets. 
 
According to the documents, published by the ACLU, strikes against high-value terrorist targets can be taken &quot;when there is near certainty&quot; that the person is present, and that no civilians will be injured or killed, and is necessary to &quot;achieve US policy objectives.&quot; 
 
The administration has defended its use of drones as essential in fighting al-Qaeda and other militants in countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen. Some drone strikes have killed civilians who were not targets, igniting local anger. 
 
&quot;The President has emphasised that the US government should be as transparent as possible with the American people about our counter-terrorism operations, the manner in which they are conducted, and their results,&quot; national security council spokesman Ned Price said of yesterday&#39;s release of documents. 
 
&quot;Our counter-terrorism actions are effective and legal, and their legitimacy is best demonstrated by making public more information about these actions as well as setting clear standards for other nations to follow,&quot; he added. 
 
Naureen Shah, Amnesty International&#39;s US director for security and human rights, also welcomed the documents but said more was needed to ensure the policy was followed. 
 
&quot;The Obama administration&#39;s disclosures are welcome but they only tell part of the story and obscure disturbing practices. We still know extremely little about the standards that would govern signature strikes and so-called rescuer strikes, which have involved potentially unlawful killings,&quot; Shah added. 
 
(Reuters)

Amnesty's US director for human rights welcomed the disclosure, but said 'they only tell part of the story and obscure disturbing practices'

The Obama administration released a redacted version of President Barack Obama's once-secret policy on drone strikes abroad following a freedom of information lawsuit filed last year, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said on yesterday. The release of the 18-page Presidential Policy Guidance document, as well as other department of defense papers, follows an order by a US district court judge in February requiring the justice department to disclose the document, also known as "the Playbook." It sets out the law and rules the government must follow when carrying out targeted killings and the capture of terrorist suspects abroad. Obama pledged in 2013 to provide greater transparency about counter-terrorism operations, including drone strikes overseas, amid calls by some US lawmakers and rights groups for more openness. ACLU's deputy legal director, Jameel Jaffer, welcomed the release of the documents, saying they provide new details about policy standards and insights into the process for targeting individuals with lethal force or for capture. "Its release now will inform an ongoing debate about the lawfulness and wisdom of the government's counter-terrorism policies," Jaffer said in a statement. The ACLU's lawsuit sought information, among other things, on the law and policies used to justify lethal force and how the government picks targets. According to the documents, published by the ACLU, strikes against high-value terrorist targets can be taken "when there is near certainty" that the person is present, and that no civilians will be injured or killed, and is necessary to "achieve US policy objectives." The administration has defended its use of drones as essential in fighting al-Qaeda and other militants in countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen. Some drone strikes have killed civilians who were not targets, igniting local anger. "The President has emphasised that the US government should be as transparent as possible with the American people about our counter-terrorism operations, the manner in which they are conducted, and their results," national security council spokesman Ned Price said of yesterday's release of documents. "Our counter-terrorism actions are effective and legal, and their legitimacy is best demonstrated by making public more information about these actions as well as setting clear standards for other nations to follow," he added. Naureen Shah, Amnesty International's US director for security and human rights, also welcomed the documents but said more was needed to ensure the policy was followed. "The Obama administration's disclosures are welcome but they only tell part of the story and obscure disturbing practices. We still know extremely little about the standards that would govern signature strikes and so-called rescuer strikes, which have involved potentially unlawful killings," Shah added. (Reuters)

Obama administration releases redacted version of drone policy