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.

Advertisement

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.

Ramsey County prosecutor Tami McConkey opposed the pardon. She argued that Vang had already received considerable leniency during the original criminal proceedings. According to McConkey, prosecutors offered a lighter punishment because the victim, who was 12 by the time of the case, had been pressured by relatives not to cooperate with authorities.

McConkey also said Vang appeared more focused on the effect of the conviction on his own family than on the harm inflicted on the victim.

“While Mr. Vang expresses shame and regret about what his children experience when they learn of the offense, he does not share any thoughts or insight about what the victim must have gone through,” she said.

Advertisement

Statements attributed to Vang after his arrest make the clemency decision even more troubling. According to the criminal complaint, Vang told police, “I made a mistake, but this is a minor thing. It is a cultural thing in Thailand to marry and have sex with girls as young as 12.”

That statement does not sound like a clear acceptance of responsibility. It minimizes the crime and attempts to explain it through an appeal to cultural practice.

Vang was sentenced to 12 years in state prison, but the sentence was stayed. Instead, he received 30 years of supervised probation and served eight months in a county facility.

Commissioner Nadine Graves also supported clemency. In her written decision, she noted that the victim supported the pardon, that Vang’s wife had remained with him and forgiven him, and that he had completed probation.

“The victim supports this pardon. His wife stayed and has forgiven. He also has immigration concerns. He has remorse and was discharged from probation,” Graves wrote.

That claim may have influenced the commission, but it does not erase the seriousness of the offense or the troubling circumstances surrounding the original case. Prosecutors had already reported that the victim faced family pressure not to cooperate. Any later expression of support for clemency should therefore be viewed with care.

The pardon cannot be dismissed as the isolated judgment of an independent board. Minnesota’s clemency commissioners are appointed by the governor, the attorney general and the chief justice of the state Supreme Court. Each official appoints three members.

In this case, the relevant officials were Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, who was appointed to the court by Walz. That means the commission reflects choices made by the state’s political and legal leadership.

Acting Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis sharply criticized the pardon when it was announced.

“Governor Tim Walz’s decision to pardon an illegal alien convicted child rapist so he can remain in our country is disgusting,” Bis said. “These are the criminal illegal aliens he and his Minnesota sanctuary politicians are protecting.”

The broader issue is not whether Vang’s children deserved sympathy. Children can suffer deeply when a parent is incarcerated or deported, even when that parent committed a serious crime. But compassion for an offender’s family cannot become a reason to minimize the victim or shield the offender from the legal consequences of his actions.

Vang received legal status, committed an appalling crime, and became deportable under federal law. Minnesota officials then used the pardon process in a way that could have allowed him to remain in the country.

Rubio’s decision ended that possibility, but the case still deserves scrutiny. It shows how a clemency system can produce a result that appears to place concern for a convicted offender ahead of public safety, accountability, and justice for the victim.

The fact that Walz personally approved the pardon makes the episode especially significant. As a former vice-presidential candidate and a national Democratic figure, his judgment is a legitimate subject of public examination.

Voters are entitled to ask how such a decision was reached, whose interests were prioritized, and why the suffering of the victim appears to have received less attention than the immigration concerns of the man convicted of assaulting her.

The Western Journal