Governor Walz’s Explanation Makes Things Worse
Vang arrived in the country in 1994 and received legal status during the Clinton administration. In 2006, however, he was convicted of repeatedly sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl. That conviction made him subject to deportation, but he remained in the country for years. His case drew renewed attention after President Donald Trump’s administration began taking […]
Vang arrived in the country in 1994 and received legal status during the Clinton administration. In 2006, however, he was convicted of repeatedly sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl. That conviction made him subject to deportation, but he remained in the country for years.
His case drew renewed attention after President Donald Trump’s administration began taking steps to enforce the deportation order. Before that could happen, Minnesota’s clemency system intervened. Gov. Tim Walz approved a pardon that supporters said would help Vang avoid serious immigration consequences.
The decision sparked immediate outrage, particularly because of the nature of Vang’s crime.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio later revoked Vang’s legal status, and Vang was deported to Laos.
“Americans should never have to live in fear that foreign sex predators — shielded from deportation by their own elected officials — could endanger them or their children,” Rubio told Fox News after the removal.
“That’s why I terminated his legal status in the United States,” he added. “Vang has now been removed from our country and will never pose a threat to any American ever again.”
The central question is why Minnesota officials believed Vang deserved clemency in the first place.
Documents reviewed by Fox News reportedly show that members of the Minnesota Clemency Review Commission placed significant weight on the effect deportation would have on Vang’s six children. The board approved the pardon by a 4-2 vote.
“Very tough case, but the kids not having a father is not in the best interest of society,” Commissioner Zach Linstrom wrote in support of the decision.
Another commissioner, Artika Roller, noted that Vang had requested clemency because of his immigration situation.
That reasoning is difficult to accept without also considering the child who was assaulted. A pardon designed to protect Vang’s relationship with his children inevitably raises questions about whether the victim’s suffering was given equal weight.