A man convicted of repeatedly s****lly assaulting a 10-year-old girl has now been deported to his native Laos, but only after federal officials intervened following a pardon approved by Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and the state’s Board of Pardons.
Tou Lue Vang had already been subject to immigration consequences because of his criminal record. According to accounts of the case, Secretary of State Marco Rubio later revoked Vang’s legal status, clearing the way for his removal from the United States.
The disturbing facts of the underlying crime are difficult to overstate. Vang reportedly told investigators that he viewed what happened as a “mistake” and “a minor thing,” while suggesting that such conduct was considered normal in the society where he grew up. That explanation did not lessen the seriousness of the offense. A child was repeatedly abused, and the person responsible appeared to minimize the harm he caused.
Vang initially received a 12-year prison sentence, yet he reportedly spent only eight months confined in a county facility. He remained in the United States for years afterward, built a family and raised children of his own. Those later circumstances became part of the case for granting him clemency.
The Minnesota Clemency Review Commission supported the pardon by a 4-2 vote. Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison and Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson then voted unanimously in favor of it. Supporters pointed to Vang’s completion of probation, his expressions of remorse, his lack of additional known criminal convictions and a letter of support from the victim. They also acknowledged that a pardon could affect his immigration status.
Federal officials took a different view. The Trump administration moved forward with Vang’s deportation, arguing that noncitizens convicted of serious crimes should not be protected from removal through state clemency.
Walz criticized the result after Vang was sent to Laos. He questioned whether the deportation made the public safer and raised concerns about the effect on Vang’s children. He also argued that people should not always be defined solely by the worst thing they have done.
That argument may resonate in cases involving rehabilitation, lesser offenses, or isolated mistakes. It becomes much harder to accept when the crime involved the repeated sexual abuse of a child. Some actions reveal an extraordinary capacity to harm another person. They also create consequences that may continue long after a sentence has been completed.
The Minnesota Star Tribune nevertheless praised Walz for standing behind the pardon. In its “Cheers and Jeers” section, the newspaper emphasized the unanimous vote, the victim’s letter, Vang’s lack of additional convictions and the careful review conducted by the Pardons Board.
The editorial then made a comparison to the presidential pardons granted to people convicted in connection with the events of Jan. 6, 2021. That comparison is unconvincing. Whatever one believes about the Jan. 6 prosecutions or pardons, those cases involved different defendants, different offenses and different legal questions. Invoking them does not explain why a noncitizen convicted of repeatedly abusing a child should be allowed to remain in the country.
The newspaper also softened the description of Vang’s crime by referring to it as a felony sexual assault committed roughly 20 years ago. That wording may be technically accurate, but it obscures the reality of what happened. This was not an abstract legal violation. It was the repeated rape of a prepubescent girl.
Supporters of the pardon argue that Vang served his sentence, completed probation, avoided further convictions, and earned a second chance. Critics respond that he served remarkably little time for such a serious crime and should have faced deportation years earlier. His later family life does not erase the damage done to the victim, nor does it create an automatic right to remain in the United States.
State officials had the authority to consider clemency. Federal officials had the authority to enforce immigration law. In the end, the pardon did not guarantee that Vang could stay.
Walz and the Star Tribune may see the case as a test of mercy, rehabilitation and due process. Others will see it as an example of political leaders showing more concern for a convicted offender than for the gravity of his crime. When the offense is the repeated sexual abuse of a child, public anger is not difficult to understand.