The recent deportation of Thongxay Nilakout, a Laotian man convicted of murdering two parents, has ignited a firestorm of debate over immigration policies and due process rights in the United States. Nilakout, 48 at the time of sentencing, was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for the 1992 murder of Gisela Pfleger. He seriously injured her husband, Klaus, in that fateful attack. After serving close to three decades in prison, he was given a chance at parole in 2022. In 2023, he was sent back to South Sudan in a deeply problematic deportation.
Nilakout, who was just 17 years old at the time of his crime, was among eight convicted criminals expelled from the U.S. during a period of heightened scrutiny over immigration enforcement under former President Donald Trump. Without any legal notice, the group rushed toward immediate deportation, having denied the federal judge’s directive to give reasonable advance notice. This decision raises serious concerns about the legal process driving deportations. It’s an opportunity to amplify the rights of people on the receiving end of these unjust actions.
Birte Pfleger, daughter of the slain couple, spoke of her deep sorrow and outrage at the turn of events. “It’s been 31 years living with the irreparable pain and permanent grief,” she said. On the one hand, I wanted him out of there. On the other hand, I am a historian and I have taught constitutional history. It doesn’t matter how much of a scumbag he was; he was denied due process and that’s a constitutional problem.
The 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Because of this, Nilakout’s case has gotten very complicated. He was paroled from a California state prison in 2023. This happened after years of suffering or risking lifelong punishment due to intense legal battles over his rights as a juvenile offender. His impending deportation to South Sudan has sounded alarms among human rights advocates. Advocates say he and the others were denied due process.
Shut out Nilakout and seven others have been expelled from Mexico, Cuba, Vietnam, and Myanmar. This move has spurred nationwide outrage, condemnation, and disbelief from legal experts to advocates. Trina Realmuto, an attorney advocating for immigrant rights, stated, “We are going to continue to fight the policy that conflicts with the statute, the regulations and with the constitution.”
The circumstances of Nilakout’s deportation have drawn criticism from those concerned about the potential dangers he may face upon arrival in South Sudan. Maj Gen James Monday Enoka has indicated that those deported will be investigated, stating, “They will be investigated, the truth will be established and if they are not South Sudanese they will be deported to their rightful countries.” This development raises profound and troubling questions about the state of international law. Its primary concern is preventing any transgressions against individuals sent abroad, particularly in regard to severe human rights violations.
Birte Pfleger shed light on the moral ambiguities at stake in Nilakout’s situation. “The moral dilemma here is that he should have never been let out of prison,” she remarked. Once he was released from prison, ICE either needed to deport him or he needed to self-deport to Laos. He was strapped to the cabin of a Gulfstream jet headed back to South Sudan. This action violated a federal judge’s orders that notice be provided. The real tragedy is that he and the others were denied due process.
Pfleger’s commitment to the constitutional rights of all citizens is the foundation of her opposition to this troubling practice. “I am not involved in victims’ rights organizations or anything like that,” she explained. While I have not attended law school, I have studied at length the constitution and its underlying influences. And I believe due process rights are an important bedrock right. And when they’re no longer basic, we all have a crisis.
The case illustrates larger questions about the intersection of criminal justice and immigration policy in the United States. Advocates lament that rapid deportations without access to proper legal representation erode the foundation of due process and humanitarian protection. As the decades-long debate marches on, advocates for immigrant justice have led the charge in reexamining policies that glorify expeditious removal at the expense of due process.