By Guy Page

Both Republican challengers for the U.S. Senate nomination oppose the Biden administration decision to waive a Trump administration Title 42 rule allowing border and immigration workers to send back illegal immigrants based on Covid-19 status. 

Former U.S. Army officer Gerald Malloy of Perkinsville came out against rescinding Title 42 regulation earlier this week. Yesterday, Christina Nolan, former United States Attorney, issued this statement:

“The border is already overrun with fentanyl and other illegal drug activity resulting in deaths in America. The Biden Administration has admitted the policy decision will exacerbate the problem, and I join Members on both sides of the aisle in having grave concerns about the implications and timing of the decision. Opioid overdose deaths have skyrocketed in Vermont at a faster pace than anywhere in the country, highlighting the need to secure the border, support the police, and fund recovery programs for treatment and prevention in Vermont.

“According to state data released this week, an all-time high 210 Vermonters died of an opioid overdose last year.”

“The current administration should retain, not remove, the provisions of Title 42 at our southern border,” Malloy, a retired U.S. Army officer, told Vermont Daily Chronicle. “I am in favor of putting up a Wall along our southern border to curb the illegal immigration, drug flow, crime, and economic impact crises we are in right now, and have been in for over 15 years.  

“I believe there is a distinct possibility that removing the provisions of Title 42 will cause a loss of control at our southern border and I would urge the current administration not to make yet another bad policy decision that will adversely impact our Country.”

However, the two candidates differ on the Biden nomination of Ketanji Brown-Jackson for the U.S. Supreme Court. She was confirmed yesterday.

On March 28, Nolan made waves in Republican waters when she endorsed the nomination of Brown-Jackson. “She has the required legal experience, temperament and clear understanding of the judicial branch’s role interpreting the law,” Nolan, a former U.S. Attorney for Vermont, said. “As a former prosecutor, I will always treat each judicial nominee with the respect they deserve, and vote for or against them based solely on their qualifications even if I may not agree with every decision they’ve ever made.”

“Diversity is crucially important in all facets of public life,” Nolan added. “As a candidate to become Vermont’s first female senator, I believe Judge Jackson will bring much-needed diversity to the highest Court in the land, and hope that she is confirmed swiftly.”

After  a couple weeks of being noncommittal about KBJ, Malloy staked out a position in an email to Vermont Daily Chronicle Monday. 

“I have further considered what my vote would be for the nomination of Ketanji Jackson Brown to the Supreme Court if I were a US Senator,” Malloy said. “Although I would, as I previously indicated, desire to meet a nominee of this importance in person and participate in hearings, based on my research of her record on crime, specifically related to child pornography, I would vote against her confirmation.  

Malloy also faults the administration for picking a candidate based on gender and race.

“I also believe that it is wrong, and not in the best interest of the United States, for a Presidential candidate or a President to seek political gain by limiting consideration for a Supreme Court nomination based on gender or race, or any factor other than character and qualification,” Malloy said.