Tim Walz Just Pardoned WORST of the WORST Illegal Alien!

The victim’s own letter helped erase the crime that once guaranteed her abuser’s deportation.

Story Snapshot

Minnesota’s pardon board cleared Tou Lue Vang’s sex-crime conviction after two decades.
The victim supported the pardon in writing, according to the attorney general’s office.
The decision lets Vang challenge a federal deportation order but does not guarantee he stays.
A separate case shows the board also pardoned Jai Vang to avert deportation after a 1994 robbery.

What Minnesota’s Board Actually Did, And Why It Matters

Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Chief Justice Natalie Hudson voted as Minnesota’s Board of Pardons to grant a full pardon to Tou Lue Vang, whose conviction involved abuse of a 10-year-old more than twenty years ago. The pardon removed the conviction from his record and gave him a chance to fight removal to Laos in immigration court. Ellison’s office told The New York Times the victim supported the pardon and the Clemency Review Commission recommended it.

That same board also convened special sessions this month to hear clemency petitions from noncitizens in detention. In a closely watched case, the board unanimously pardoned Jai Vang, who was convicted of aiding and abetting armed robbery in 1994 at age 18, after years without new offenses and with support from local prosecutors. Walz argued deporting a long-settled, taxpaying father who has not reoffended would not make Minnesota safer.

How A State Pardon Hits Federal Deportation Gears

Federal immigration law treats many state convictions as triggers for removal. A valid state pardon can erase or blunt those triggers for certain crimes, which can reopen relief that deportation law would otherwise close. Legal scholarship and explainers describe how a governor’s pardon can remove the conviction basis for removal, or at least restore discretion to an immigration judge, depending on the offense category. That is why defense lawyers pursue state clemency when a very old conviction collides with a fresh immigration arrest.

Supporters stress the purpose of clemency: it measures the person now, not the rap sheet then. They point to steady work, family, sobriety, and long gaps without crime. In Tou Lue Vang’s case, the victim’s letter adds a rare and powerful signal about harm, remorse, and closure, which helps explain the commission’s endorsement and the board’s final vote. Skeptics argue that deportation is a federal safety measure, not a moral test, and that violent or sexual offenses should bar relief even decades later.

The Backlash From Washington And Why It Resonates

The Department of Homeland Security blasted Minnesota’s recent pardons for noncitizens with violent histories, warning such actions can thwart long-standing removal orders. A senior official called the approach “insane,” accusing state leaders of protecting “criminal illegal aliens” over citizens. Republican figures echoed that line, framing the pardons as part of a broader sanctuary push that undermines national security priorities. That rhetoric lands with many voters because it sounds like common sense: consequences should stick, and borders should mean something.

The three-person Minnesota Board of Pardons:

Gov. Tim Walz
A.G. Keith Ellison
Chief Justice Natalie Hudson

Unanimously granted this child rapist a pardon.

He was being fast-tracked for deportation because of the conviction. https://t.co/VL0mvzIKV4

— Sean Nienow (@SNienow) July 2, 2026

Yet deportation is not automatic even after a conviction, and clemency is not amnesty. A state pardon is a legal event with defined effects. For some crimes, it cancels the conviction basis for deportation; for others, it reopens the door to discretionary relief. The person still faces federal review and must meet strict standards to remain. In short, a pardon changes the legal math; it does not guarantee the end result.

What Conservatives Should Weigh Next

Public safety should come first. That requires two hard filters. First, the board must demand clear, verifiable proof of rehabilitation: decades without crime, steady work, and community backing from prosecutors or victims. Second, the offense category matters. Some crimes should almost never qualify. Where those filters are met, a narrow pardon can serve justice and accountability by matching punishment to the person’s life today, not just the worst page of a very old file.

Law-and-order values include both firm lines and earned mercy. Minnesota’s decision on Tou Lue Vang rests on a unique fact: the victim supported it. That does not erase his past. It does signal that, for her, a legal reset helps close the book. Federal courts will still decide whether he stays or goes. The state has taken its measure. Now the federal system will take its own, with the conviction off the scale but the record of conduct still in view.