Governor Pardons Illegals Days Before Leaving Office!

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz convened an emergency pardon session to stop the deportation of a man convicted of a violent felony — and the move is igniting a furious debate about whether state clemency power is now a tool to override federal immigration law.

Quick Take

Walz called an emergency Board of Pardons meeting on May 27, 2026, and unanimously granted a pardon to Jai Vang, a man taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody during Operation Metro Surge.
Vang was convicted in 1994 of aiding and abetting armed robbery — a violent felony — and subsequently lost his green card, making him deportable to Laos.
The pardon was explicitly timed to prevent imminent deportation, with Walz openly stating he hoped it would stop the removal.
Critics argue the governor weaponized state clemency to obstruct federal immigration enforcement; supporters say a man who has lived in Minnesota since toddlerhood should not be exiled to a country he barely knows.

What Actually Happened at the Emergency Pardon Meeting

On May 27, 2026, Governor Tim Walz convened a special session of the Minnesota Board of Pardons — a three-member body consisting of the governor, Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, and Attorney General Keith Ellison. All three voted yes. Walz declared on the record, “I, Governor Walz, vote to grant this pardon,” and the board announced, “Chai Vang, your pardon has been granted.” The meeting was not routine. It was called specifically because Immigration and Customs Enforcement had Vang in custody and deportation was imminent. ^[1]^[3]

The subject of the pardon appears in public records under multiple names — Jai Vang, Chai Vang, and in separate but related coverage, At “Ricky” Chandee — a naming inconsistency that has muddied public understanding of the case and given both sides room to accuse the other of sloppy or dishonest reporting. What is consistent across all credible sources is the core fact: a man with a decades-old violent felony conviction, who lost his green card as a result, was facing removal to Laos when the state intervened. ^[2]^[3]^[7]

The 1994 Conviction That Started Everything

Vang was convicted in 1994 of aiding and abetting armed robbery, with some reporting also describing the underlying conduct as involving aggravated assault with a weapon and a drive-by shooting. He was 18 years old at the time. He served his sentence. According to Fox 9, he lost his green card following those convictions, which is the legal mechanism that placed him in deportable status decades later. ^[2] The conviction is not in dispute. What is disputed is whether a completed sentence from 32 years ago should still define a man’s fate today.

Walz’s Stated Rationale — and Why It Deserves Scrutiny

Walz argued that deporting Vang to Laos served no meaningful public safety purpose, given that Vang had not lived there since childhood. That argument is not unreasonable on its face — rehabilitation and passage of time are legitimate clemency considerations. But the governor did not stop there. He convened an emergency session timed precisely to beat a federal deportation clock. That is not a quiet act of compassion; it is a deliberate intervention in a federal enforcement action. When a governor openly states he “hopes” a pardon will stop a deportation, he is not just exercising clemency — he is choosing a side in a constitutional standoff between state and federal authority. ^[3]^[4]

……….Minnesota Governor Tim Walz convened a special, emergency session of the Minnesota Board of Pardons to unanimously grant a pardon to a Laotian native, preventing his imminent deportation by federal authorities.

* The Individual: The man is Jai Vang, a 49-year-old native…

— JV (@joveg8) May 28, 2026

Fox 9 reported that with the pardon granted, “the federal government’s legal basis for his deportation may be removed.” The word “may” is doing enormous work in that sentence. Whether a state pardon actually eliminates federal deportability under immigration law is a contested legal question — and the fact that neither Immigration and Customs Enforcement nor the Department of Justice immediately responded to press inquiries means the practical outcome remains unresolved. ^[2]^[3] That ambiguity benefits the pro-pardon side in the short term, but it also means Walz may have handed critics a long-running story if federal authorities proceed with removal anyway.

This Is Bigger Than One Man’s Case

Minnesota is not alone in this pattern. New York Governor Kathy Hochul similarly pardoned a Laotian immigrant to block deportation, a case covered by the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund. ^[6] Governors using emergency clemency to obstruct Immigration and Customs Enforcement removal orders is becoming a recognizable playbook, not an isolated act of mercy. That matters because it reframes the debate entirely — this is no longer just about Jai Vang. It is about whether state executives can systematically use pardon power to nullify federal immigration enforcement, case by case, emergency meeting by emergency meeting.

Where Common Sense Lands on This

The humanitarian case for Vang is real and should be acknowledged honestly. A man who came to America as a toddler, committed a crime at 18, served his time, and built a life over three decades is not a cartoonish villain. But the rule of law is not a buffet. Federal immigration law exists, deportability consequences for violent felonies exist, and governors do not get to selectively override federal statutes because they find the outcome politically inconvenient or personally sympathetic. Walz called an emergency session — not to weigh rehabilitation in the abstract, but to beat a federal deportation flight. That is an obstruction dressed in clemency clothing, and voters deserve to call it exactly what it is. ^[1]^[2]^[3]