Why You Should Care that Kansas Is Attempting to Intervene in Ninth Circuit Border Case
Section 212(f) is a powerful tool — but only if the courts allow the president to use it
 
By Andrew R. Arthur on May 7, 2024
On March 7, five states — led by Kansas Attorney General (AG) Kris Kobach — filed a motion to intervene in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, a case currently pending on appeal in the Ninth Circuit. You should care how that request plays out, because it could possibly either reinforce or spell doom for a future president’s use of the authority under section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — which is similar to but broader than Title 42 — to secure the border against illegal migrants.

Section 212(f), in Brief. Section 212(f) of the INA provides, in pertinent part, that:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

To put section 212(f) into context, the preceding section 212(a) of the INA contains the grounds of inadmissibility, reflecting Congress’ determinations as to which aliens should be admitted to the United States and on what terms, and which aliens should be barred from admission.

Section 212(f) trumps all of them, at least when it comes to admissibility. Basically, in section 212(a) of the INA, Congress says that certain aliens may be admitted to the United States, but then allows the president to say none of them are.

How broad is the authority in section 212(f)? As the Supreme Court explained in its landmark 2018 decision in Trump v. Hawaii (assessing the legality of executive branch travel restrictions for given aliens from certain countries, which were premised on that provision):

https://cis.org/Arthur/Why-You-Should-Care-Kansas-Attempting-Intervene-Ninth-Circuit-Border-Case

Relevant info starts at 5:37:50 mark.

Summary?

God  help us if amnesty is granted !

Midweek morning insomnia muttering thank-you's, Pookie!

(camera cuts away)

Stephen Moore
@StephenMoore
Capital gains tax rates under Joe Biden's plan:
Georgia - 50.09%
Iowa - 50.3%
Kansas - 50.3%
Idaho - 50.4%
Nebraska - 50.44%
Maine - 51.75%
Oregon - 54.5%
Minnesota - 55.45%
New York - 55.5%
New Jersey - 55.5%
California - 57.9%
This will bring vital investment in start-up companies to a standstill!
3:57 PM · May 7, 2024

Thomas Del Beccaro
@tomdelbeccaro
The result will be predictable:
1.  Assets sales will drop because the tax on sales is too high.
2. Asset values will drop because the high tax will weaken supply.
3. Capital gains tax revenue will drop as sales drop.
4. CA saw a drop in Public Offerings of stock from 191 in 2022 to just 25 in 2023 causing higher deficits in CA. The proposed Biden tax will only make that worse as companies look for other states for lower taxes.  That will result in CA Democrats looking to raise income taxes.
5.  Less public offerings will reduce economic growth because companies will not be able to raise capital to expand and hire employees. 
As Calvin Coolidge said, a tax that is too high is not paid.   Once again.
8:19 PM · May 7, 2024