Woman condemns Vietnamese husband's deportation to South Sudan
A woman in Pierce County, Washington state, has expressed outrage after her husband was unexpectedly deported to South Sudan instead of Vietnam as planned.
Tuan Thanh Phan came to the U.S. from Vietnam in 1991 at age 9 with legal permanent residence status. In 2000, he was convicted of first-degree murder and second-degree assault following a gang-related shooting that injured a bystander, resulting in approximately 25 years in prison. His green card was revoked in 2009 during his sentence, leading to a deportation order.
ICE took him into custody on his March 3 release and transferred him from the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma to a Texas immigration facility. In a May 21 press release, the Department of Homeland Security labeled him and his fellow deportees 'uniquely barbaric monsters who present a clear and present threat to the safety of the American people.'
Ngoc Phan, 40, had prepared extensively for her husband's anticipated deportation to Vietnam, collecting luggage, arranging family pickup abroad and planning to reunite with him within three to five years to begin fresh. 'We've accepted it. We planned for it, and we were looking forward to it,' she told NPR.
Trending on NextShark:
But on May 20, ICE agents collected her husband and others, first indicating South Africa as the destination, then switching to South Sudan with minimal advance notice. 'I'm angry about it,' she said. 'They want to call him a barbaric monster without really understanding the details of his case ... He [already] did 25 years.'
Phan's deportation is part of the Trump administration's strategy to send immigrants to third countries when their home nations would not accept them. Vietnam has historically limited acceptance of deportees, though it signed a 2020 agreement making it easier to accept those who arrived before 1995 — ideally including Phan's situation.
Federal judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, however, ruled the deportations violated due process by not providing adequate time to contest removal to a non-origin country. Murphy ordered the men be given credible fear interviews while detained at a U.S. military base in Djibouti, where they remain as the administration appeals to the Supreme Court.
Trending on NextShark:
Ngoc says she has not been able to contact her husband since his departure. The Supreme Court has given lawyers until June 4 to respond to the government's appeal.
This story is part of The Rebel Yellow Newsletter — a bold weekly newsletter from the creators of NextShark, reclaiming our stories and celebrating Asian American voices.
Trending on NextShark:
Subscribe free to join the movement. If you love what we're building, consider becoming a paid member — your support helps us grow our team, investigate impactful stories, and uplift our community.
Subscribe here now!
Trending on NextShark:
Download the NextShark App:
Want to keep up to date on Asian American News? Download the NextShark App today!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
Why in the world is Trump punishing Moldova with tariffs?
President Trump's tariff blasts continue. The White House released its latest list on July 31 and it is clear that no nation is safe — not allies, enemies, neighbors or distant lands. No menacing power escapes the vigilance of the president's team, ever alert to those 'ripping off' the United States of America. Case in point: Moldova. Dominating both sides of the Dniester River — well, one side actually — this Eastern European colossus of 2.3 million people (about the size of Houston) could inflict mortal damage on the American economy. In 2024 alone, the U.S. bought nearly $136 million (with an 'm') worth of goods from the Moldovans, whereas they bought only $51 million from us. With the U.S. economy valued at more than $30 trillion (with a 'T') we could probably only bear such abuse for … well, forever. In a July 9 letter to Moldovan President Maia Sandu, Trump made clear that America will not be bullied by Moldova any longer. He imposed a tariff of 25 percent on every bottle of wine or fruit juice the Moldovans force us to buy. Calling the deficit with Moldova a 'major threat to our Economy and, indeed, our National Security!' the president warned of even higher tariffs if Moldova retaliates or tries to send goods into the U.S. through transshipment. The letter accuses Moldova of taking advantage of us for 'many years.' Tariff rates are one of Trump's favorite weapons, employed under the dubious premise that the U.S. faces a trade deficit 'emergency.' The legality of such action aside — the Supreme Court has yet to rule — the president uses this weapon for a variety of non-economic goals. He has threatened Canada for indicating it might recognize a Palestinian state, and Brazil to try to save former President Jair Bolsonaro from prosecution. Moldova has committed no such offenses — at least none charged — but Trump wants trade with Moldova and a host of other countries to be based on 'reciprocity.' Whatever the precipitating dynamics, punishing Moldova for its involvement in international trade serves no reasonable Western security or broader policy interests. It undermines them. Sandwiched between Ukraine and Romania, Moldova has a long history of not being a country. The people of this region, who were unwillingly traded between Romania and Russia for nearly a century, gained independence from a collapsing Soviet Union in 1991. With a population that is 75 percent Moldovan-Romanian, some within the Russian and Ukrainian minorities feared the country's absorption into neighboring Romania. During a brief internal war in 1992, Moscow positioned a 'peacekeeping force' on the eastern side of Dniester River to guard the self-proclaimed state of Transnistria — which is still there, not recognized even by Russia. This force is small, locally recruited and considered less than formidable. But it is part of a sustained campaign by Moscow to prevent Moldova from embracing the West. This same motive drove Vladimir Putin to unleash a brutal invasion and occupation of much larger Ukraine. If victorious there, he is unlikely to be more accommodating toward Moldova. Moldova is the poorest country in Europe, and its elected leaders and population have been seeking stability. After Russia invaded Ukraine, Moldova applied to join the EU. It was quickly granted candidate status, and negotiations for membership began. In 2024, the country reelected pro-EU President Sandu and in a referendum enshrined the country's 'European course' in its constitution — despite massive Russian interference and disinformation. The EU has not been cowed by Moscow and developed a generous aid and development package. Most Moldovan goods enter the world's largest trading bloc duty-free, a policy that was further extended to agricultural products last month. Under President Biden, the U.S. had been similarly supportive, providing more than $400 million in military and humanitarian aid in part to help reduce the country's dependence on Russian gas. Trump sees no need for aid to Moldova, or indeed for most foreign assistance. Other moves supporting Trump's 'America First' orientation also penalize Moldova. Eliminating the U.S. Agency for International Development meant the loss of virtually all projects in Moldova — including for democracy promotion and economic and energy development. At the same time, cutting resources for election monitoring and an independent press leaves the field open for Russian interference. Such indifference, along with Trump's shifting attitude toward Ukraine and transactional foreign policy, leaves Moldova exposed. A study by the Stimson Center concluded, 'With a White House that seems increasingly eager to align its perspectives with Moscow at the expense of traditional allies, its willingness to support Moldova's democratic transformation in the face of Russian opposition is now uncertain.' Neighboring Romania, a member of both the EU and NATO, has a huge stake in the fate of Moldova. An intimidated or occupied satellite country — a second Belarus — on the Alliance's more than 400-mile border would dramatically change the strategic equation. This should get Washington's attention — at least of those willing to honor the American commitment to NATO. Preserving an independent and economically healthy Moldova thus serves European and American interests. Increasing the cost of doing business with the U.S. and damaging democratic efforts there does not. Supporting Moldova costs the U.S. very little. Excusing a tiny trade deficit to a strategically important democracy does not make Americans suckers. Helping Moldova does not require a military commitment. The country has been cooperating with NATO but is constitutionally neutral. Rather than punishing the country, the U.S. could and should offer support. This could be based on a view of the geopolitical map — or, even better, from an appreciation of a resilient people's desire for democratic choice. Ronald H. Linden is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Pittsburgh, where he directed the Center for European Studies and the Center for Russian and East European Studies.
Boston Globe
18 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
How ‘South Park' became the buzziest thing on TV — in its 27th season
Would the famously confrontational, proudly juvenile 'South Park' creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone take the money and run to safer ground? The answer came swiftly with the series' A brief summary: Trump is having a sexual relationship with Satan, a privilege once reserved for Saddam Hussein (see: the 1999 movie 'South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut'). Satan is a little disappointed in the size of the president's penis. Advertisement In a private room at Mar-a-Lago, Dora the Explorer, who has been kidnapped by ICE agents, is found giving a man an intimate massage. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem goes on a rampage gunning down puppies — a reference to Noem's Vice President JD Vance is depicted as Tattoo, the little person portrayed by Hervé Villechaize in the original 'Fantasy Island,' welcoming guests to Mar-a-Lago. At one point, Trump, wearing a white suit worthy of Ricardo Montalban's Mr. Roarke, literally boots him offscreen. And so on. The White House responded to all of this by declaring that the series 'hasn't been relevant for over 20 years,' reaffirming that 'South Park' is actually more relevant than ever. Comedy Central announced this week that episode 2 of the new season had more than 6 million multi-platform viewers and the biggest audience share (the percentage of the television audience watching a particular program at one time) in the history of the series, which premiered in 1997. (In lieu of a new episode on Aug. 13, Comedy Central also proclaimed this Wednesday 'South Park Day,' which kind of sounds like something 'South Park' would take pleasure in mocking. Episode 3 of the new season is scheduled to drop on Aug. 20). 'South Park' is, by definition, ridiculous, and I mean that in the best possible way. The very first episode, which ran Wednesday instead of a new installment, was called 'Cartman Gets an Anal Probe' (I still remember it fondly). The show works in broad strokes; Noem wasn't entirely wrong when she took 'South Park' to task for hitting the easiest possible elements of her persona (shooting dogs, trying to look glamorous as she does inhumane things). But that's how satire often works. It pinpoints dominant traits and hammers away at them. And when Parker and Stone ridicule something, or someone, it means they deem those targets ridiculous. Not scary. Not corrupt. Ridiculous. Advertisement In the past, Parker and Stone have shown an eagerness to take on both liberal pieties and conservative sacred cows; they drew the ire of Sean Penn after depicting him and other famous Hollywood denizens as deluded, self-righteous crusaders in the 2004 film 'Team America: World Police.' Parker and Stone lean libertarian, which gives them more people to insult and enrage. But there's something perfect about the current 'South Park' moment. A series that detractors dismiss as crude and over-the-top has gotten under the skin of a president whose rhetoric has more in common with professional wrestling and internet trolling than diplomacy. The show is addressing him with blunt force mockery, a tone that he understands. And people are watching — not just NPR listeners, but also 'South Park' bros, many of whom presumably voted for Trump. Equal-opportunity offenders pull in an eclectic crowd. In summary: Parker and Stone got paid. Paramount got its merger. 'South Park' ratings are through the roof. And political satire and democracy live another day. Chris Vognar can be reached at
Fast Company
18 minutes ago
- Fast Company
AI-generated errors set back this murder case in an Australian Supreme Court
A senior lawyer in Australia has apologized to a judge for filing submissions in a murder case that included fake quotes and nonexistent case judgments generated by artificial intelligence. The blunder in the Supreme Court of Victoria state is another in a litany of mishaps AI has caused in justice systems around the world. Defense lawyer Rishi Nathwani, who holds the prestigious legal title of King's Counsel, took 'full responsibility' for filing incorrect information in submissions in the case of a teenager charged with murder, according to court documents seen by The Associated Press on Friday. 'We are deeply sorry and embarrassed for what occurred,' Nathwani told Justice James Elliott on Wednesday, on behalf of the defense team. The AI-generated errors caused a 24-hour delay in resolving a case that Elliott had hoped to conclude on Wednesday. Elliott ruled on Thursday that Nathwani's client, who cannot be identified because he is a minor, was not guilty of murder because of mental impairment. 'At the risk of understatement, the manner in which these events have unfolded is unsatisfactory,' Elliott told lawyers on Thursday. 'The ability of the court to rely upon the accuracy of submissions made by counsel is fundamental to the due administration of justice,' Elliott added. The fake submissions included fabricated quotes from a speech to the state legislature and nonexistent case citations purportedly from the Supreme Court. The errors were discovered by Elliott's associates, who couldn't find the cases and requested that defense lawyers provide copies. The lawyers admitted the citations 'do not exist' and that the submission contained 'fictitious quotes,' court documents say. The lawyers explained they checked that the initial citations were accurate and wrongly assumed the others would also be correct. The submissions were also sent to prosecutor Daniel Porceddu, who didn't check their accuracy. The judge noted that the Supreme Court released guidelines last year for how lawyers use AI. 'It is not acceptable for artificial intelligence to be used unless the product of that use is independently and thoroughly verified,' Elliott said. The court documents do not identify the generative artificial intelligence system used by the lawyers. In a comparable case in the United States in 2023, a federal judge imposed $5,000 fines on two lawyers and a law firm after ChatGPT was blamed for their submission of fictitious legal research in an aviation injury claim. Judge P. Kevin Castel said they acted in bad faith. But he credited their apologies and remedial steps taken in explaining why harsher sanctions were not necessary to ensure they or others won't again let artificial intelligence tools prompt them to produce fake legal history in their arguments. Later that year, more fictitious court rulings invented by AI were cited in legal papers filed by lawyers for Michael Cohen, a former personal lawyer for U.S. President Donald Trump. Cohen took the blame, saying he didn't realize that the Google tool he was using for legal research was also capable of so-called AI hallucinations. British High Court Justice Victoria Sharp warned in June that providing false material as if it were genuine could be considered contempt of court or, in the 'most egregious cases,' perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
