By Kiera Howard 
On a Wednesday morning in late July, fifteen families in Michigan’s Hmong community received nearly identical letters from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The letters requested their attendance at routine interviews. Nothing in the correspondence suggested what was coming.
Among those who received letters was Pang Nhia Hang Bailey, a 53-year-old grandmother who had lived in the United States since 1978. When she arrived at the Detroit ICE office on July 30, agents detained her. Fourteen others were taken into custody the same day.
Two weeks later, on August 13, Bailey was on a military deportation flight to Laos, a country she had never known. Her case is exposing how decades-old convictions are being used to deport refugees whose families served as American allies during the Vietnam War.
Table of Contents
The Secret War and America’s Promise
The Hmong people’s connection to the United States runs deep. From 1961 through 1975, the Central Intelligence Agency recruited Hmong fighters in Laos for covert operations during what became known as the Secret War. These mountain people disrupted communist supply lines, gathered intelligence, and rescued downed American pilots.
Thousands of Hmong died in combat. When the United States withdrew from Southeast Asia in 1975, the new communist government in Laos began systematic persecution of the Hmong for their American alliance. Families fled to refugee camps in Thailand. Many waited years for resettlement.
The United States accepted Hmong refugees beginning in the mid-1970s as part of what was understood to be a promise: you fought for us, we will protect you. The resettlement program brought approximately 260,000 Hmong to America over the following decades. Michigan became home to one of the largest Hmong communities in the country.
Bailey’s family was part of this wave. Born in Laos in 1972, she left for France in 1973 at age one. Her family was accepted for US resettlement in 1978. She grew up in America, attended American schools, and built an American life.
A Life Built Over Nearly Five Decades
Bailey married Scott Bailey in 1999. Over the next two decades, they raised four children: Skylyer, now 23, Scarlytte, 21, Scott Jr., 17, and Sylus, 16. The family lives in the Detroit metropolitan area. All four children are United States citizens. Bailey and her husband have one grandchild.
She worked, paid taxes, and maintained a green card that allowed her to live and work legally in the country. That card expired in 1995, but she remained under ICE supervision with regular check-ins.
Her husband describes their family as typical. The kids went to school, played sports, graduated. Three have already finished high school. The youngest will graduate in 2027. They celebrated birthdays, holidays, and milestones like any American family. For 47 years, this was home.
When a Single Mistake Becomes Permanent
In February 2000, federal prosecutors charged Bailey and her husband with bank fraud. An earlier case from June 1999 had been dismissed, but prosecutors filed new charges. Bailey pleaded guilty in May 2000.
The exact sentence she received is not specified in court records, but family members confirm she served time and paid all required fines. Her husband later characterized the incident as an “irresponsible decision as young people” that they deeply regretted.
Under immigration law as it existed before 1996, Bailey might have been able to argue her case before a judge who could weigh her mistake against her ties to America. But laws passed in 1996 changed everything.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act created a new category called “aggravated felony.” Fraud convictions meeting certain criteria fall into this category. Once classified as an aggravated felony, the conviction triggers mandatory deportation.
The laws eliminated discretion. Immigration judges lost their authority to consider rehabilitation, family circumstances, length of residence, or community ties. For aggravated felonies, deportation became automatic.
The laws also applied retroactively, meaning convictions that occurred before 1996 could be used as grounds for deportation years later. Someone who had served their sentence, paid their debt to society, and lived peacefully for decades could suddenly face removal.
In 2007, an immigration judge issued Bailey’s removal order. The judge had no legal authority to consider that she’d been in America since age six, that she had four children who were US citizens, or that she’d maintained a clean record since 2000. The law required deportation.
The Laos Problem
For 18 years after that 2007 order, Bailey remained in the United States. She reported to ICE annually as required. She lived openly, working and raising her family.
The reason she wasn’t deported was simple: Laos wouldn’t take her.
The Lao People’s Democratic Republic has no formal repatriation agreement with the United States. Historically, the Lao government refused to issue travel documents for deportees. Without those documents, ICE cannot complete a deportation. This resistance protected thousands of people with final removal orders who had built American lives over decades.
The Trump administration decided to change this. In June 2025, the State Department imposed visa restrictions on Lao government officials and their families. The message was clear: accept your nationals back or face consequences.
The pressure worked. A consular officer at the Lao Embassy in Washington told reporters the embassy issued travel documents for 145 people in 2025. In a typical year, they issue about ten. The tenfold increase opened the door for deportations that had been impossible for nearly two decades.
Detained During Compliance
Bailey showed up for her July 30 check-in at the Detroit ICE field office as she had every year since 2007. Her husband Scott went with her. He waited in the lobby while she met with agents.
After two hours, an ICE agent came out and told Scott his wife was being detained and would be deported. He didn’t get to see her or say goodbye. Within hours, she was transferred to a detention facility in Texas.
Michigan State Representative Mai Xiong, the state’s first Hmong American legislator, began receiving calls from constituents reporting similar detentions. All told, approximately fifteen Hmong and Laotian refugees were taken into custody that day and in the days following. Nearly all had been summoned for “interviews” with no indication detention was planned.
Xiong is herself a former refugee. Her father fought alongside American forces during the Secret War. Born in a refugee camp in Thailand, she came to the United States as a child. She sees Bailey’s detention as a betrayal of promises made to her community.
“These individuals came to the U.S. legally as children of Hmong veterans who served with America during the Vietnam War,” Xiong stated publicly. “They are fathers, sons, husbands, loyal employees, taxpayers, and members of our community.”
Christine Sauvé of the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center reported that detainees were calling family members from detention facilities to report poor conditions. Bailey told her husband she had to use her shoes as a pillow at one facility. Detainees reported being hungry and sleeping on concrete floors.
Attorney Aisa Villarosa of the Asian Law Caucus called the operation “covert” and raised “glaring due-process questions about every step of their detention and processing.”
After detention in Texas, Bailey was moved to South Louisiana ICE Processing Center. The rapid transfers across multiple states made family visits nearly impossible and complicated legal representation.
The Government’s Characterization
On August 13, the Department of Homeland Security issued a press release announcing the deportations. The headline read: “ICE Deports Heinous Criminal Illegal Aliens Including a Gang Member, Pedophiles, and Drug Traffickers.”
The release named twelve individuals, listing their convictions. Among them: “Pang Ngia Hang, 53-year-old illegal alien, convicted for bank fraud.”
Her name appeared in a list that included individuals convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, distributing sexually explicit material to minors, and obstructing murder investigations. The Department of Homeland Security labeled all of them “heinous criminals” and “barbaric.”
Bailey’s conviction: a non-violent financial crime from 25 years ago for which she had already served her sentence.
The Flight
Flight tracking data and statements from Rep. Xiong confirm the deportation operation. A military aircraft departed Alexandria, Louisiana on August 11. It stopped at Guantanamo Bay to pick up additional detainees, refueled in Hawaii, and continued to Southeast Asia.
The flight carried 32 people total. At least fifteen were Michigan residents detained in the July operation. The plane made stops in both Vietnam and Laos, distributing deportees to countries many had never lived in.
According to Rep. Xiong, those deported to Laos were initially held in a military compound in Vientiane, the capital. They would need to secure sponsors before being released into Laotian society.
For Bailey, this presents extraordinary challenges. She left Laos at age one. She speaks no Lao. She has no family connections in the country. She belongs to the Hmong ethnic group, which faces historical persecution from the Lao government for their American alliance during the war.
Human Rights Watch has documented harsh treatment of returned Hmong in Laos, including arbitrary detention. Family members of other Michigan detainees expressed fear that their relatives would be targeted because of their families’ work with the United States.
Community Mobilization
The detentions sparked immediate organizing. Scott Bailey created a GoFundMe campaign to raise funds for legal representation. The campaign described his wife as a mother and grandmother who made a mistake 25 years ago and had lived peacefully ever since. As of October 2025, the campaign had raised over $1,500 from 27 donations.
Rep. Xiong organized a rally at the Michigan State Capitol on August 8. Families of detained refugees, attorneys, community leaders, and elected officials gathered to demand transparency and release.
Michigan House Resolution 164 was introduced calling on federal authorities to explain the legal basis for the detentions, ensure due process was followed, provide access to counsel, and conduct individualized reviews before proceeding with deportations.
Twenty-seven Michigan lawmakers signed a letter to the ICE Detroit field office demanding the immediate release of the detainees.
Legal organizations including the Asian Law Caucus and Michigan Immigrant Rights Center began investigating potential challenges. Attorneys filed motions seeking bond hearings and emergency stays of removal. Some argued that prolonged detention without individualized hearings violates Fifth Amendment due process protections.
In September 2025, a federal judge in Boston ruled that detaining someone without a bond hearing based solely on a prior arrest violates due process. While that case involved different facts, the underlying constitutional principle applies broadly: the government cannot deprive someone of liberty without individualized justification.
Legislative Efforts
In August 2023, Representatives Judy Chu, Pramila Jayapal, Zoe Lofgren, and Ayanna Pressley introduced the Southeast Asian Deportation Relief Act. The bill specifically addresses situations like Bailey’s.
The Act would limit the Department of Homeland Security’s authority to detain or deport Southeast Asian refugees from Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam who arrived in the United States before January 1, 2008. It would create a pathway for already-deported individuals to reopen their cases and return to the United States. It would end in-person ICE check-ins, replacing them with virtual appointments every five years. And it would grant work authorization to those with removal orders.
Quyen Dinh, executive director of the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, called the bill “a crucial step toward restoring humanity and compassion in our immigration system for our community members who seek to live in safety with their families.”
The bill has not progressed. Nearly two years after introduction, it remains in committee with no scheduled vote. Without legislative action, enforcement continues under the 1996 laws that make deportation mandatory.
The Scope of the Problem
Approximately 15,000 Southeast Asian Americans currently live in the United States with final removal orders. The vast majority arrived as refugees or were born in refugee camps. Most committed crimes as teenagers or young adults in the 1980s and 1990s. Most have American families. Most have already served their sentences and lived peacefully for years or decades.
All of them could face sudden detention and deportation if their countries of origin agree to issue travel documents.
Over 2,000 Southeast Asian refugees have already been deported to Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. Many, like Bailey, had never lived in the countries they were sent to.
The pattern extends beyond Southeast Asian refugees. Long-term legal permanent residents with decades of American residence face similar enforcement when old convictions resurface, even after multiple green card renewals. Immigration law treats past mistakes as permanent bars to remaining in the country regardless of rehabilitation or family circumstances.
Where She Is Now
Bailey arrived in Laos on August 13, 2025. According to Rep. Xiong’s updates, she and other deportees were initially confined in a military facility. The conditions and requirements for release remain unclear.
Her husband and children remain in Michigan. They can attempt to communicate by phone when connections allow. Any in-person visits would require international travel to a country where they have no connections and their wife and mother speaks no language.
Scott Bailey and their four children face life without their family’s center. Their youngest son has two years of high school remaining. Bailey will miss his graduation from 8,000 miles away.
The family’s fundraising page states that money raised will help Bailey “live in Laos peacefully until we reunite.” Under current law, there is no clear pathway for that reunion. She would need her deportation order vacated, which typically requires congressional action, a gubernatorial pardon that affects the underlying conviction, or a successful legal challenge that overturns the 1996 laws’ application to her case.
Implications for Others
Bailey’s deportation demonstrates that compliance with supervision requirements offers no protection. She attended every required check-in for 18 years. She lived openly and followed every rule. When diplomatic circumstances changed and travel documents became available, that compliance was used to facilitate her removal.
The Trump administration’s success in pressuring Laos to cooperate could be replicated with other countries. Cambodia and Vietnam both have thousands of nationals with removal orders living in the United States. If those governments begin issuing travel documents in significant numbers, a wave of similar deportations could follow.
Community organizing showed its limits. Despite rallies, resolutions, legal filings, and media attention, the deportations proceeded. The most that advocacy achieved was visibility and documentation of what happened.
The failure of the Southeast Asian Deportation Relief Act to advance in Congress signals that legislative relief is unlikely in the near term. Without new laws, the 1996 framework that makes deportation mandatory remains in place.
Courts could still provide relief. If federal courts rule broadly that prolonged detention without individualized bond hearings violates due process, ICE would face new constraints. If courts find that retroactive application of the 1996 laws violates constitutional protections, the entire enforcement regime could be called into question.
But those are long-shot possibilities. For now, approximately 15,000 people remain vulnerable to sudden detention at check-ins they are required to attend.
Questions of Justice
Bailey’s case raises fundamental questions about justice and redemption in American immigration law.
She was six years old when she arrived in America. She spent 47 of her 53 years in this country. She raised four American children. She complied with every requirement immigration authorities imposed for 18 years.
A single conviction from 2000 erased all of that. She served her criminal sentence then. In 2025, she received an additional punishment: permanent exile.
The legal framework makes no allowance for the passage of time, for rehabilitation, for family circumstances, or for the length and depth of someone’s American life. A conviction triggers deportation, full stop.
For refugees whose families served as American allies in war, this raises additional moral questions. The Hmong were recruited to fight and die for American objectives. When that fight was lost, America promised protection through resettlement. Deporting those refugees or their children decades later for youthful mistakes breaks that promise.
Whether that promise can be restored depends on choices yet to be made. Congress could pass relief legislation. Courts could impose due process requirements. Executive policy could shift. Public pressure could force change.
None of those has happened yet. Enforcement continues. More families wait, knowing that any check-in could be the last.
The Silence After Deportation
Pang Bailey’s life in America ended on August 13, 2025. Her life in Laos, a country she never knew, has begun.
Her family maintains the GoFundMe page with occasional updates. Communication is sporadic. The details of her daily existence in Laos remain largely unknown to those who love her.
In Michigan, her community grieves. Rep. Xiong continues advocating. Attorneys continue filing motions. Families with similar circumstances watch and wait.
The laws that made Bailey’s deportation possible remain unchanged. The 1996 framework that eliminates judicial discretion and makes deportation automatic for broad categories of offenses continues to govern. Approximately 15,000 Southeast Asian Americans live with final removal orders that could be executed whenever diplomatic arrangements permit.
Bailey’s story is one of many. But for her husband, her four children, and her grandchild, it is everything.
This reporting draws from Newsweek investigations, official Department of Homeland Security statements, court records, the Bailey family GoFundMe campaign, statements by Michigan State Representative Mai Xiong, Detroit News coverage, Asian Law Caucus legal analysis, and Congressional records from the Southeast Asian Deportation Relief Act (H.R. 5248).