Tim Walz is finding himself in the political hot seat once again after offering a defense of a controversial pardon that ended with the Trump administration deporting a convicted child rapist out of the United States.
The controversy centers on Tou Lue Vang, a Laotian national who was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct after repeatedly sexually assaulting a young girl in St. Paul over several years beginning when she was in elementary school. Federal authorities say Vang lost his legal status following the conviction and was already under a final order of removal.
Despite that history, Minnesota’s Board of Pardons voted to grant Vang clemency on June 10. The board consists of Democratic Gov. Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson.
Last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that Vang’s legal status had been terminated and that he had been 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 said.
“That’s why I terminated his legal status in the United States. Vang has now been removed from our country and will never pose a threat to any American ever again.”
The Trump administration’s move was celebrated by immigration enforcement advocates and conservatives who viewed the case as another example of progressive politicians placing sympathy for offenders ahead of the safety of law-abiding citizens.
Walz, however, appeared puzzled by the deportation. “Did that make us any safer?” Walz asked during remarks reported by Minnesota media outlets. “Did that make the children that are left behind any more stable?” “Did it improve the idea that we can’t all be judged by our worst day?”
Walz added that the offenses were “horrific crimes” while arguing that the pardon process considered multiple factors. He also stressed that the clemency decision was not tied to immigration policy and noted that other applicants facing immigration consequences had been denied pardons.
The governor has also pointed to support from the victim for Vang’s pardon as one factor considered by the board.
That explanation has done little to quiet critics.
Federal immigration officials and Republican lawmakers blasted the decision from the moment it became public. Homeland Security officials argued that a pardon could not erase the underlying crimes or the public safety concerns surrounding a convicted child predator.
“Governor Tim Walz’s decision to pardon an illegal alien convicted child rapist so he can remain in our country is disgusting,” Homeland Security official Lauren Bis said following the clemency decision.
“These are the criminal illegal aliens he and his Minnesota sanctuary politicians are protecting.”
According to federal records, Vang entered the United States in 1994 and received legal status during the Clinton administration. Authorities say the assaults occurred between 2002 and 2004 and involved repeated abuse of a child beginning when she was just 10 years old.
For critics of Walz, the question is not whether people deserve redemption. The question is why a convicted child rapist became a cause worth championing in the first place.
My take …
You know you’re in political trouble when your defense of a convicted child rapist starts with, “Did that make us any safer?”
Well, Governor, let’s see. The man is now thousands of miles away in Laos. He can no longer live in Minnesota. He can no longer live anywhere in America. He can no longer victimize American children.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say yes, that probably made us safer.
This is one of those moments where normal Americans and political elites seem to be speaking entirely different languages. Most parents hear “repeatedly raped a 10-year-old girl” and immediately arrive at the conclusion that the offender should be nowhere near children ever again. Somehow, in certain political circles, that’s where the debate begins.
Nobody is saying people should be judged forever for making a bad decision on a random Tuesday afternoon. We’re talking about years of sexual abuse against a child.
The Trump administration looked at this situation and came to a very simple conclusion – why exactly is this person still here? Marco Rubio answered that question with a deportation order. The rest of America probably answered it with a nod.
DBS WIRE SOURCES:
- KTTC — Coverage of Walz comments regarding deportation and pardon controversy
- Department of Homeland Security statements regarding Tou Lue Vang deportation and legal status revocation
