12-11-25 Scott Sloan Show

Don't want to be an American idiot. Here we go, calm before the storm, so to speak, so to speak. Sloni on 700 WLW as the winter weather starts to move in. I got till tonight. Then all halls are going to break loose. So between now and then, it's me and you this morning. And one of the topics of interest today, at least that I found interesting, is the end of dual citizenship in America. I don't actually have the numbers in front of me. Probably if I were better at my job, I'd look that up. But anyway, Bernie Moreno, our own Bernie Moreno, has proposed the Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025, and it literally has ignited one of the most explosive civil liberties debates in a long time. So dual citizenship is fully legal right now, but the bill threatens to force millions of Americans into a one-year ultimatum. So you'd have to make up your mind. And that is to abandon your U.S. passport and lose your citizenship automatically. You choose one team or the other, no more dual citizens in the United States. And we'll get now how that works in just a second here. But first on the show is Agostina. Vergara Seed on the show. She writes at the Hill and RCPs, also a young voice and senior contributor. Agostina, good morning. How are you? Good morning, Scott. Thank you so much for having me. Yeah, I got you. So let's just jump on. Let me run down the list and kind of the people aren't following this. You may not be following this entirely. So here's the way to do. Correct me if I'm wrong, if I miss anything here too. It'd be unlawful to hold U.S. citizenship and any foreign citizenship at the same time. And it'd take effect 180 days after enactment. So for future citizens, basically what happened is anybody who voluntarily acquires foreign citizenship after the effective date automatically loses their U.S. citizenship. And you'd obtain a new foreign passport would also lose your U.S. citizenship. If you're a current dual citizen, there's a one-year deadline. So within one year of enactment, you have to choose A, renounce your foreign citizenship. to the State Department or B, renounce your U.S. citizenship to Department of Homeland Security. And if you don't choose, then you, by default, would give up your U.S. citizenship. So anyone who is born with a dual nationality, naturalized U.S. citizens who retained original citizenship, Americans abroad, who required foreign nationality through marriage or dissent or naturalization, that's what's in play here. Did I miss anything important? Are those all the facets of this? Yeah, that's essentially what the bill is trying to do, yes. Could you tell us why? I mean, I get immigration. I understand that...

I understand that there's a concern about who's in our country. We need to know who that is. And I suppose that there's a concern that someone who holds citizenship from China or Russia could be working in sensitive U.S. positions would be an example. I think that's a valid worry, but why aren't we addressing it in that fashion as opposed to just a blanket us or them philosophy? Yeah, so it's a good question. Why? why this is allegedly needed or and why now. I read the bill and the bill does not have any really substantial explanation of why this is needed. So the bill frames dual citizenship as a potential source of alleged conflicts of interest or divided loyalties. But the bill never defines what that means. Those are essentially just passwords that really if without any sort of explanation really don't mean much. So. I think that really this is a solution with search for a problem. I don't think that dual citizenship or multiple citizenship in America is a problem that needs Congress to step in and fix. Really dual citizenship does not represent a threat of any kind. And people who call dual citizenship by myself and one such person. I do not have any sort of, do not represent a threat or anything to America. What you just said, that, okay, maybe there might be, you know, sensitive positions that require that someone be native born, like, for example, our constitution mandates that a person who is naturalized cannot become president of the United States. Or, you know, that requires really, you know, that person has only one citizenship, then, okay, that's great. Let's address those positions specifically. But there's really no reason to try to impose only one citizenship on the rest of Americans. Yeah, and if you're worried about, you know, spying, and that's what this is, maybe that would prevent that some. I think you're still going to wind up getting, you know, sources and the like. I mean, look at how many people have committed to reason who are naturally born U.S. citizens. Don't hold those citizens. They are U.S. citizens. They were born here. Their families here who have committed these types of crimes in the past. So that doesn't seem to be a good indicator if it's a national security issue. Yes, absolutely. There's really no, this is not a threat. And like when I judge bills and laws, like I think they should pass one big test, which is does this bill or this law, do they protect individual rights? Like, is there a need to pass this bill in order to protect individual rights as a constitution mandate? If the answer is no, then we have a problem. And I really don't think that this bill is protecting anyone's. individual rights because there's really no threat from holding multiple citizenship. Right. The 14th Amendment is pretty clear. Anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen. We'd have to change it. If someone's born in America, say, to, I don't know, Canadian parents, does Canada automatically confer citizenship at birth? And how can Congress force that person to choose without violating birthright citizenship? That's going to be a tricky one to navigate.

Yes, I think the bill poses many challenges in its implementation, and I do think that it's unconstitutional because of the 14th Amendment. Because what it asked, like you mentioned earlier, what it asked Americans to do is if they hold another citizenship, even if they are native born and they have American citizenship because of the 14th Amendment, like you mentioned, it's forcing them to choose. And if they don't choose... then their American citizenship is taken away. And that is not constitutional. You cannot take citizenship away from a native born American unless they commit treason, which not choosing a citizenship is not an act of treason. I think for instance of, like you said, like people who have, who are Native born Americans and who have dual citizenship because of their parents who might be from another country. I always think of this example, there's a, You know, Amorazan Brown, the white receiver from the Detroit Lions, he has dual citizenship. He's American and he's German because his mother is German. So we are asking Amoraphne Brown and millions of other Americans who were native born to choose nationality for really no reason because it does not pose any sort of threat. They do not pose any sort of threat to America and are not violating anyone's individual rights. I wonder how this is going to work, Agostina, with, there's countries like, for example, Ireland, Italy, in Israel in particular, that actively encourage Americans to claim citizenship because of their ancestry because of Jewish law. This would essentially then force those Americans to reject those ties. We know that the ties and the support that this administration gives Israel. That's not a good look. Or do they just say, well, unless you're from Israel, it's a different story, which they could very well, and it just waters down the intent, whatever intent that is of this particular proposal. Yes, that's one of the many reasons why I think this is really not going to work, including because, look, for example, I became an American this year, in July of this year. And I could talk half an hour about what that means to me and why it's literally the honor of my life to be an American. But if I had to choose between my two nationalities, I can't because I am originally from Argentina. And Argentina does not renounce the citizenship because I was born there. So that would mean that if this bill were to pass, that would mean that I would have to give up being an American because. My country of birth, which I didn't choose, does not allow me to renounce my citizenship. And how is that fair? Like I worked for decades to become an American and I'm a proud American and I took a note of allegiance to this country. Why would someone want to take that away from me? And I have literally no choice. And there are other countries that also don't allow the renunciation of the citizenship. I think Costa Rica is one such country. And those people like me would have absolutely no option. And there's people who have ties to other countries, Israel or whatever other country. And there is no reason to make them choose. There's plenty of reasons why people would hold multiple citizenship because they were born there, because of cultural ties, because of tax reasons sometimes. Because they are American and their spouse and they live abroad with their spouse and they.

for several reasons, prefer to have that citizenship as well. And there's really no reason to make them choose. Augustina Vergara Seed on the show, Cheritza the Hill, RCP is a young voice of senior contributor and talking about Senator Bernie Moreno's exclusive citizen-shenep, a citizenship act of 2025, that essentially would divide Americans in a sense that if you hold dual citizenship here, you'd have to renounce one. Of those. You're either with us or against us, I guess, is the mindset here. But you're talking, I mean, millions and millions of people like yourself that hold dual citizenship. And it's probably difficult enough for you. But you recently became a citizen of the country. Why? Why the hell would you want to come here? Why wouldn't I? So, look, I could say so much about this. But essentially... I've been in love with America and America's promise and what America represents since I basically first became aware of the existence of America when I was a little kid. And growing up, I realized that America is special. America is different from any other country. America is different from the country where I was born. And the values, growing up, I started studying American history and American political philosophy. And I realized what an incredible achievement the American founding was. Historically, philosophically, it truly is unique in human history. And that is not just an abstract idea. That is something that we see reflecting the freedoms that we enjoy every day. America is literally, and I don't want, and I say this with knowing the full meaning of it, America is literally the best, most moral country in the world in its founding principles. And I wanted to be part of that. I wanted to live here and enjoy the freedoms that our amazing founding values allows us to have. And truly, I am so, so proud to be an American. And it's honestly an honor. And I would think that that sediment you just so articulately describes a lot of people who hold dual citizenship. And I'm sure someone's listening right now in the case you just made for becoming in America, which is a difficult thing. It takes a tremendous amount of effort. We're just boring to do it. You had to work to get here. I don't know how we could tell someone like you know. Yeah, I know that, you know, maybe not everybody has studied in detail the political philosophy in the United States, but, you know, in an inclusive manner, they do, I know so many people who are either immigrants to America or that are naturalized citizens. And they do love this country so much, and they do value the freedoms that we have. And this is their country that they actually chose. Immigrating to America, as I'm sure that many people at this point know, it's not easy to do. It's really, really hard to do it. It's really hard to do it legally, which is the only path to becoming a citizen. And we go through all that trouble because we really, really value this country. This country is worth it.

So, yeah, it's really unfair, I think, to impose this very onerous requirement on people like me who truly love this country. Yeah. And the other thing, too, is the practical implementation. I mean, okay, it gives you, if this is enacted and passed, it gives people like yourself to all citizens one year to pick the United States or the country you also hold citizenship in. But, I mean, how do you even do this administratively? It's not like we have a comprehensive database of people who, you know, holds foreign citizenship and the light. We know you have a, you know, you've old status here, but I mean, how would you even go through the notification process? It seems impossible. Yes, including because there is no registry of who holds dual citizenship or multiple citizenship in America. So how are we going to to know? And yeah, it would be a bureaucratic nightmare to do that. And it would be so expensive. It will require so many resources, taxpayer money, in order to just exclude people. who for whatever reason can't make a choice like myself or just for whatever reason do not want to make a choice, but they are just as American as anybody else. Yeah, and you're talking about a sizable amount of – the other element here, too, is it, okay, let's say maybe you want to – Agostina, you go, okay, I'll be in America. I'm going to renounce my Argentinian citizenship. You renounce that, but – What if the foreign country simply refuses to process that or just it's like, okay, well, fine. You want to announce it's going to cost you, I don't know, $200,000 to do that or it just takes a lot longer than a year for them to process all that stuff with this. So you can lose your U.S. citizenship. There are no fault here alone. I'm sure that's a pretty big due process violation, I would think. Would you agree? Yes, absolutely. I agree with that because the status of the other citizenship has nothing to do with whatever the U.S. government decides to do. And like in the case of, like I said, like myself, I literally cannot legally renounce my citizenship because Argentina does not allow it. I will never stop it in Argentinian even if I try because it is illegal. I literally cannot legally renounce a citizenship. So what do we do there? Should I be strict of my citizenship because of... you know, the Argentine law and I never chose to be born there. That's, that's not right. And yeah, like you said, it can take a long time to, you know, renounce some other country citizenship. And it might be really expensive. And there might be, you know, they might require you to go there. Like there's so many things that can happen that do not, it's not a straightforward process. And that one year deadline is really just not going to work. Yeah, I went down thinking, because you're talking about millions of people here, too, and trying to have them process that would be extremely difficult, I think, in a lot of these cases. So how much of this, then, Agoste, do you think this is actually, is this just political posturing? Is this just bluster? And, I mean, Bernie Moreno proposes this, but does he actually think it has a chance of passing, or does it to offer, I guess, the core a gesture of saying, hey, I'm getting tough on immigrants here in the United States. It doesn't seem like.

You know, there's a big movement to get this past, but all along, all the details we just laid out and probably countless more make it feel like it's an impossibility. Is this just posturing? I think there's... There has to be some of that because, like I said, I read the bill. The bill is four pages. And that's not a lot. And I don't think, honestly, when I read the bill, I was expecting to find a, you know, a long explanation of why we need this. I was expecting to find a longer explanation of how this is actually going to work. The bill lacks in details. And that makes me think that there is not a lot of effort put into actually trying to make this to persuade. you know, the Congress to pass this bill. So I know there's obviously, there's going to be, if this bill is debated, there's going to be like a whole debate and they're going to explain what it's about. But like, I don't see it as a genuine effort to solve a problem because there is no such problem, like I said. I think this also comes at a time where. Immigration is a hot topic, obviously. There is, you know, so a lot of nationalism and rejection of anything foreign, including people. And it comes also at a time where our current administration has been also weaponizing in, not a citizenship as well. You know, they have threatened some people, including Elon Musk himself from, you know, taking away their citizenship. So. It's, I think, a way of playing into this nationalism that is in a vogue in Fortune America right now. And I really think, I think this is really lawful. Because even if it doesn't pass, which it will not pass, I can guarantee you that. This is scaring a lot of people. I have gotten in so many messages from people saying, hey. Like, what am I going to have to know my USA? Like, what's going on? I don't know what to do. It's really scaring people. And some of the media also, you know, does not, do not help because they frame it in a way as these things were a fact, but this is just a bill. But yeah, it's carrying a lot of people. And I don't, I think it's actually introducing this debate right now. It's actually a disservice. I can agree with my. Politics is worse, in my opinion. It's just more posturing with no intent of actually getting passed. But it's a gesture to whom I don't know. But I think the country is better at people like yourself, you know, provided your your paying taxes, you're working, you're educated, you're contributing. That's what we need. I got to go. I appreciate the time, Agostina Vergara Seed. from the Hill and RCP and Young Voices. Thanks again. Thank you so much, go. Appreciate it. Let me get a news update. And, of course, we've got weather. We'll get the latest timelines out for you here. Sloanee 700, W&W. I'll go. Sloanee 700 WLW. Ready to go. Snow on the way. Again, that winter weather advisory kicks in at 7 o'clock tonight and then 2 to 4 plus overnight. And then it ends at 10 o'clock tomorrow.

And then we get a break Friday night. And then Saturday we get more snow. So it's just going to come and come and come. Here we go. Here we go. We're going. And if you're going to the game on Sunday, you better dress and a layer. I didn't know what layers would be accurate. You need a cocoon if you're going to be out in that stuff. Anyway, we got football on Sunday. And I'm also speaking of football. Absolutely. Got the popcorn out. What's going on in Michigan with Sharon Moore their head coach fired late yesterday. So in the morning, he's game planning for a bowl game, the Adam Kerr Bowl. And then he finds out he's fired late in the afternoon. And at around 4 o'clock, he picks up a, he goes to, I guess, an assistant coach's, I think it's an assistant coach's home. and holds a knife to him. Later, Moore is arrested by police. He's in custody. So at 443 is when Michigan announced that he is no longer the head coach because there's some interdisciplinary things going. And he's a history of getting jammed up in situations, spy gaping on one of them, but also allegedly involved with a subordinate. Now, he's married and has three daughters. Also, if you follow us, look at social media, guys like liking all these Instagram, which is fine, but also only fans models, which is, you know, amateur porn, basically. And this wasn't a flag until after they lose to Ohio, get throttled by Ohio State. And now you're out of the bowl games. Of course, you have the signing period, everything else. Like now it's like, well, we concluded our investigation and found those guys dirty. But I will say, and if you're an Ohio State Buckeye fan, you're probably still smiling from the big win over Michigan. Maybe not so much from what happened with Indiana, but nonetheless, you're still smiling to some degree about that. This probably puts a little more bounce on your step. No one was killed, no one was hurt. It was like one of those cases. This isn't like what happened with Penn State with paterna, right? this is just someone who can't control himself apparently how he rose a level and they had to know about a lot of the stuff as it was going on too because he's had more than one scandal uh associated with his name so you know just watching this whole thing develop it's going to be you know get the popcorn out get the popcorn out for sure uh something else speaking of getting the popcorn out This case fascinates me, and this is certainly more tragic. So he had this 35-year-old man from California who died aboard the Royal Caribbean Navigator of the seas last December, last year. Now it's come out that he was served at least 33 alcoholic drinks in a matter of hours while showing obvious signs of intoxication. And so while intoxicated, he got lost trying to find his cabin and became agitated. There's video of him trying to kick the door into, I don't know, one of the bursts. Security actually had to tackle him and subdue him because he's a big dude with their full body weight. He had to use multiple cans of pepper spray on him. And he subsequently died in the care of Royal Caribbean staff. Well, of course, Royal Caribbean is now at the end of a very, very impressive lawsuit by the family and the estate.

because they deliberately market all-you-can-drink beverage packages. And they said they have bars in every nook and cranny to encourage drinking. This is why you can't have nice stuff, because some 35-year-old A-hole drinks so much damn alcohol that he's out of control on vacuizzi-all-you-can-drink package. And this is the fault of Royal Caribbean. So in the future, I'm sure there'll be guidelines in place. to make sure you can't have a good time on vacation. I don't think I've ever put 33 drinks down in anyone sitting. That is a world record right there. And you don't wake up and do that, by the way. Otherwise, you'd be dead. I'm sure this guy has been doing that for some time in the buildup here to his death, his tragic passing. Still, though, you know, I get it that there's a liability issue on the part of the server. They should know better. But, like, I don't know. You're on vacation. There's vacation drunk, right? There's vacation. You want to go and, hey, I've got, I bought the package, LFG, let's go drink some drinks. But by the time you're 35 years old, you know, around that, that's when you stay, you know, by the time you're 30 even, not even out of your 30, you realize like, okay. This is my maximum capacity for alcohol. The tank is full. You know where the throw-up line is. Now you may dabble in that at some point, you know, in your 30s and go, I'm a little too much. But by then, you kind of know what your limits of alcohol intake are. And you know, it's like, it's so miserable being sick from drinking that much that you don't want to go through it again. By 35, you should know better. I also point out that a lot of these laws when it comes to being overserved tend to deal more with drunk driving. Right? Because, you know, your drink, you drive, you get in a car, you drive. Do you really have that problem in the high seas? I mean, you drink so much that you can't possibly find your room on a cruise ship, which, you know, my first cruise was last year. And it was pretty remarkable, actually. I liked it. I was never a big fan of it because, well, guys like this and, you know, floating petri dishes and everything else. I'm like, yeah, I'm good. But, yeah, I did one. It was a virgin cruise. It was really, really good. It was impressive. for my brother's birthday. So it was his decision. I blame him. But it was a good time. And open bar the whole thing. But, you know, it's like, hey, I'm pretty drunk. I think I'm going to go lay down or I'm like, maybe I'll have some water right now, get some food, and then go 90-night and then do it all over again tomorrow. But for most people, that's what? You get a guy like this. It's just going to screw it up for that for everyone else. So what are? You're going to get rid of the unlimited drink packages now because of this guy? Of course you are. It's like, it's just, you know. You get one guy that can't handle his business and it's everyone else's problem. Look, I get the fact, okay, could you serve this guy and have him drink a no coma? I suppose you could, but I don't know. This one, for me, it feels like the liability is 100% on the guy who drank. It's like there weren't spike in his cocktails. You know how much alcohol. At 30, you can see you make a case if, you know, the kid's underage or, hey, you're only 21, something along those lines. But that time you're 35, like, look at that going, you know, you're a grown-ass man. You ought to know better. You have to know what your limits are, but you're going to drink that much on a cruise ship because you bought the package and you're going to show them whose boss probably doesn't see anything with a buffet, but the buffet doesn't usually kill people. Although maybe, I don't know, in the future, if you're a big fan of buffets and all you can eat scenarios and let's say you do a lot of it, I don't know. Is there a precedent set here by this case that you could then go back and go, hey, listen, you know all those years that I was in our first name basis with the servers and the busboys at the buffet?

Well, I have congestive heart failure now as a result of eating as much as I possibly could. So, you know, that's not my fault now. That's the buffet's fault. Whoever's making the foot. I mean, or that just one step away from a lawsuit like that, in my opinion. I don't know. I like to be empathetic with people and especially in tragedies like this. I've got to be honest with this one's impossible for me. Like at a bar when you go out, it's drinking and driving. I get that. There's responsibility on part of the server to make sure you're not overserved because you can get behind the wheel and kill someone. In this case, you overserve someone. You're just going to kill yourself. So maybe some Darwin going on there as well. I get a news update in here momentarily on 700 WLW when we return our buddy Sanjay Shaver Kermani, a physician, ER doctors, as a matter of fact. but also an expert in food and health, and that's where all those three worlds come together. We'll talk about stuff with him coming up next in our weekly fitness and health segment on the show. I promise we always make it. Another pushy, here's what you need to eat avocados. You need to be more like Tom Brady. Screw that, I say. I'll be more like the guy who died on that ship. Going down with a ship and a bottle in my hand. Scott Sloan on the home of the best Bengals coverage, 700, W.O.W. Cincinnati. There you are. Listening to the Eddie and Rocky Show when all of a sudden two co-workers start slugging it out over the last bag of funions in the snack machine, forcing you to miss part of our show. Eddie here with a solution. Listen to the podcast of the Eddie and Rocky Show and the IHeart Radio app to hear what you missed. And have the snack guy put some more damn funnions in that machine. We're going to be so late for the concert. We should be there by now. Just need to make a little detour and stop for gas real quick. I know it's cheap place down the road. Are you serious? We're going to miss the show because you're driving out of the way for cheaper gas. Just use Upside. What's upside? Upside is great. It's a free app that gets you cash back when you buy gas. Wait, you mean I can get money back just for buying gas? Really? Yep, and it really works. I've actually made around 200 bucks this year already. Now pull over so you can download upside before we miss the concert. Pulling over, you had me at $200. Download the free Upside app now to earn cash back when you buy gas. Use promo code ring to get an extra 25 cents per gallon on your first fill-up. You can cash out any time, right to your bank, or as a gift card. Download Upside and use promo code ring for a 25 cents per gallon bonus on your first tank. That's code ring for a 25 cents per gallon bonus. Use promo code ring. Offers vary by user and location at participating merchants. Go to Upside.com for terms and conditions.

700 WLW, the immigration fights that were needy to. Lots of fights, including immigration. Get illegals out, keep the legales in, but who out of that long line gets in who stays? Maybe a better question of who is rather than maybe how many, and should the U.S. admit them through reform and immigration system. Who should get in at this point? Also adding to this today, we have Bernie Moreno, our own Bernie Moreno from Ohio, his proposal to end dual citizenship. You've got to pick one or the other you can't have both. So the Manhattan Institute, their think tank, and they studied a 10 and 30-year impacts of dozens of our nation's immigration policies over the years and categorized immigrants on tax revenue, federal spending, GDP population. Who gives us a benefit in who takes away with the answers? Daniel D. Martino of the Manhattan Institute, where he's a fellow. Daniel, welcome the show. How are you? Very good. Thank you for having me. Yeah. So you find that if you're younger and you're educated, you have an advanced degree, those people generate large fiscal surpluses. They expand the economy. If you're low skilled, you tend to get more in benefits and they contribute in taxes. That is the bottom line. And there are some other things we're going to get into here. But essentially, that's the core of this thing. That's really not surprising, is it? It is not because we have a progressive tax system and we have a welfare system that gives benefits to people based on how little they make, right? So if you bring in a lot of poor people or elderly people that will receive entitlement, then those people will be a net cost to the federal government. That's a no-brainer. So why does the college degree make such a vast difference? I mean, we're talking millions of dollars in that one person's financial impact. And, of course, the alleged, what's driving that gap? Yeah, a lot of people tell me, you know, a college degree is and all you need. And like, of course, these are all averages. This doesn't mean that there aren't immigrants for high school dropouts that do better, right? There are many college dropouts that created big companies. But that doesn't mean that that's the most common case, right? And you also have to understand that for immigrants, college degrees mean much more than for Native-born Americans. A college degree in a foreign country is a much rarer thing to have than in America. And so when you bring in people discriminating by education instead of anything else, you can assure yourself that that person comes from a much more elite background. But at the same time, you know, we have countless people who have college degrees that complain they can't find a job in their chosen field and they have a degree and go, okay, great, I can't service the loan that I took out to get that degree and I'm doing something I don't want to do and I never see myself getting ahead. And yet immigrants come to this country and succeed and contribute to the GDP. Is it about degree choice? Are we talking about specific degrees here, not just a degree? Well, it's true that immigrants do specialize, like the immigrants that are sponsored to come in fields that are even more highly paid. So like medicine, stem areas.

And also they just have an even higher education and go to different universities, right? So, you know, people talk about like people who graduate from the U.S. universities, Americans who get a STEM degree, but it's an undergrad degree. You know, that counts biology. That counts like a regular engineering degree. And if you're competing against people who have a master's degree or a PhD, I mean, obviously you can't get the job that you want. And then you also have the... The other fact, which is... immigrants start businesses, so they expand the economy that way. The average immigrant does not look like the average person in that country. And then there's a lot of people who tell me, well, they know, but we want to keep those jobs for Americans, right? Like, we don't want them to replace the native board college graduates who are seeking opportunities. And that's just not how the labor market works. When you have more people in the labor market, you don't have the same number of jobs. There are relative wage effects, that is true, but because immigrants also innovate at the highly educated level, you know, people like Elon Musk who came on H-1B visas or people like Jensen Huang, they end up also increasing productivity and wages for people who are college educated. Dan, you found that the 50-year-old immigrant looks great for the budget in year 10. So they immigrate by the time they're sick. Okay, things are great to productive. But by year 30, it's terrible. Child immigrant, the exact opposite. It tends to be a net gain for this country. So in that regard, shouldn't we be encouraging things like Doc? And can you walk through us why that flip happens? Yeah, so. I did this estimates on a 10 and 30-year basis before I had done them last year on a lifetime basis. And the reason I switched to 10 and 30 years is because Congress, when they pass legislation, the Congressional Budget Office only cares about the 10-year budget window and then secondarily about the 30-year budget window. So when they're deciding to pass legislation, they need this estimate like I made it. And so that's a problem, though, because you're right. A 50-year-old immigrant on average will look good over the next 10 years because it's going to be from the age of 50 to age of 60. And an immigrant who's 10 years old, a child that comes with a family, he's going to look bad because he's not going to work from age 10 to 20. So that shifts over the third year window because then the older immigrant is going to call it social security and Medicare and the young immigrant is going to start working. So people need to keep that in mind and understand these are averages. And if you want to benefit the budget in the long run, you need younger people and you need more educated people. Gotcha. Daniel D. Martino, Manhattan Institute, breaking a study here of 10 and 30-year impacts of immigration. And bottom line is that education drives fiscal impact. But age matters a lot, too, that young immigrants look costly in the short term, but benefits in the long term. Middle-aged immigrants show the opposite because they get the retirement benefits.

benefits and that that's the flip that's going on here let me pivot to the h1b visa debate that has become pretty controversial right with wanting to charge money and charging literally a small fortune to get that h1b some say it's essential others say we should eliminate this thing what is your data show Well, the H-1B, regardless of what people think, based on the characteristics of the people who come on H-1Bs, they are the ones that pay the most taxes and receive the least government benefits of any visa categories. And so if you are conservative, you're like myself and think, you know, what kind of immigrant do you want to come to America? Do you want an immigrant who does not depend on the government, who speaks English, who has a job, who does not commit crimes, and who, you know, adopts American customs? And if that's the case, then immigrants to come on each one visa are a really deal immigrant. That doesn't mean that... It's a perfect system, right? It's a lottery. So you don't want to distribute the spots on a lottery, but instead based on perhaps something more meritorious. But even then, the system is better than any other visa program that we have. And on that, I see a lot of communities are changing because of H-1B workers, and they bring a tremendous amount of money to the show. Now, the other side of this, and someone casual listening, you got this guy from Manhattan, Daniel D. Martino. who wants educated people with advanced degrees because they bring a small fortune, a massive fortune, not even small fortune, to the country could help balance the deficit and do all these wonderful things. They don't drain the system and they're paying the taxes and that's helping older people and that's all well and good. But does this simply mean that we don't need anyone who's not educated in America? We don't need that immigrant labor. We don't need people at the low end of the Trump. Well, America has a program called the H2A and the H2BDs are programs. The H2A is seasonal agricultural labor. Now, even though those are on, you know, people who generally don't have a high school diploma, they're working in farms for low wages. The reality is that we didn't have them, the farms would shut down. It would be too expensive to farm in America. We would just import the food from other countries. But we cannot import everything. Like we cannot import a haircut because you have to do it in person. But we can import every agricultural product. So the advantage is that, yes, you keep that industry here, you create jobs for Americans in agriculture as well. And then the second, it's seasonal. So these immigrants never stay. They leave after a season or two. And so they never collect government benefits. That is okay to have. What you cannot have is allowing people who make very little money to immigrate permanently to the United States. Because if they do...

The math is that they will simply grow or that. They will. I get the agricultural element because that's a national security issue. We can't farm out all of our food. We could be starved to death, right? And quite honestly, it would be a waste because of, we're the world's breadbasket here in the United States of America. There's a lot of corn, soybean, et cetera, et cetera. But I remember I got there's jobs that aren't in the farm fields whatsoever that are Americans going to fill that void. I mean, working in a, I don't know, a meat processing plant, for example, or something along those lines, or it's physical labor, building houses. work doing roof jobs and construction and drywall and landscaping. Those are necessary jobs. It's seemingly, and I know a little bit about this, immigrant labor, if you completely got rid of that, it ceased to exist. I get that they live here, but they, and a lot of them go and start their own business, too. There's got to be a carve-out for that, right? Because let's face it, there are jobs out there we don't want our kids to take. Well. So the thing is that wages would change, even in agriculture, it would change if you didn't have immigrant workers. The wages would increase. The problem is that for the agricultural industry, you would just end the industry, right? We would just import the food. But that's not the case. And the same thing, for example, tech. If we didn't have highly educated workers, what the tech industry does is that they open an office in Canada, and then they do everything from there because everything's remote. So you would rather have those resources here. But the issue with other things like construction is that you would still have construction. It would just be at a higher price. That even then, most of the cost of housing has nothing to do with construction and everything to do with like materials. So, you know, the tariffs are harming or zoning laws, which we can change. So we don't really need. or it wouldn't really be beneficial to have a lot of immigrants low paid coming for construction because they would receive just a lot of welfare. Alternatively, you could still have a guest worker program that is seasonal, ensuring that people go back and never stay permanently and collect entitlements. Daniel Di Martino, the Manhattan Institute on immigration this morning on 700 WLW. So we talked about younger educated immigrants with advanced degrees, huge boon of the economy. We need more of them. Employment-based high-skilled visa holders, net benefit there as well. What about extended family? Yeah, the extended relatives, which are most of the immigrants coming to America, they come with very little English proficiency, you know, medium to low levels of education, and they end up receiving more government benefits than taxes they pay. This is why, you know, my proposal to how we should change the immigration system is simply we take in all these extended relative visas.

And we just give them out based on whether immigrants have a good English, whether they have a good education, whether they're young, whether they have a job offer in the United States. And then that's how the labor market can fill the gap, you know, without picking winners and losers. And then the employment-based business that we already have, we just rank them to the highest paid instead. Without care of the profession, you know, it's not about education, it's about who pays the most. If you are sponsoring a carpenter who's like incredible and he's getting paid 150K, then bringing that carpenter, right? That's the market showing its signal through the price. Yeah, that makes sense. When the family comes along, it's different. But how many immigrants will that dissuade from coming to the United States if they can't bring their wife, their kids, significant others, maybe your mom or your dad? I'm not saying anything about wife and children. I'm just saying eliminate the sibling category, the adult children category, who together they bring in 130,000 people. You might say, well, now, people want to bring in their siblings or their adults. children, the relatives that they can't anymore anyway, because the system, the family system already existing is so backlogged that it takes 20 years. It's the same as it didn't exist. We need to get rid of it and give it based on merit instead. In fact, you see it more fair. Because if you're an immigrant living in, say, the Philippines and you don't have a relative in the U.S., then you're out of law. You can't come in no matter how educated you get, no matter how great you are. Under a system based on your characteristics, you are not dependent on the law of having a relative in America to come to America. And on with that, you mentioned the backlog, the tremendous backlog, which encourages illegal immigration here. I mean, if you have to wait 20 years, 15, 20 years for your case to appear and possibly again at that point, why wouldn't you, if you're coming from such an impoverished and most dangerous part of the world, I'd take my chances and slip across the border if by them. It's a matter between life and death. Who's got 15, 20 years to wait for you're allowed to come to the United States of America? This would cut that down, I would think. Yes, I think I would reduce the incentive, but at the same time, we have learned that if the president wants to, they can secure the border and President Trump has. So that's also not necessarily as important clearly. Yeah, we've got a government that can't function. I mean, we're not functioning right now as we speak. As you know, Daniel, what's the political feasibility of this thing? You have to do some tremendous coalition building just to have someone hear this whole thing between family visa cuts and legalization with fees and deportations and all that stuff. It's a messy proposition in reality. Politics doesn't work that way.

So absolutely. But I'll say President Trump with the funding that he got from the one big beautiful bill for deportations and how that's ramping up, and hopefully, you know, soon we will know about the legality of the DACA program from the Supreme Court. I think those two factors combine, the fact that we already got done with the tax cuts on the spending debates. And instead now, it's probably going to go to another topic. then that topic might be immigration. I think Trump has built leverage with the funding he got for the deportations. And if the Democrats were smart, they would come to the negotiating table, right? Because you need 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything. Yeah. That's not budget related. So if the Democrats say, you know, we negotiate, we can legalize some people. Yes, it's true. We'll reduce family immigration and we will bring in more high school immigrants. But if they don't negotiate, then maybe a million more people get deported. So we will know how much they really care about that very soon. Dana D. Martini, you analyzed this. You looked at 10 and 30-year impacts of literally dozens of immigration policy U.S. has had and categorizing the immigrants on tax revenue and population, GDP, federal spending and all that. If this were to come to fruition and we did it the way you suggest here, what are we looking at as far as a savings relative to the national debt? Yeah, so under my plan, which would just shift immigrant visas towards more highly educated categories without changing the immigrant flow very much, actually reducing a little bit. And then legalizing the people who are here legally as long as they pay without a pathway to citizenship, but allowing them to work and stay, as long as they pay $5,000 a year for 10 years of 50K to reduce the debt. And they obviously are not criminals, all that. That would reduce. the national debt from its current trajectory by $20 trillion over 30 years. It will reduce her, essentially over the long run, it would even stabilize our debt to GDP ratio. That is important because it means we don't to cut social security or raise taxes if we pursue radical immigration reform right now. Yeah. And the other element here, too, of course, is unauthorized, illegal immigrants, but you're saying charge them $5,000 a year for X number of years, and that would reduce the debt and their burden on the system. But how realistic is that to actually execute? The people who don't pay it, then they are the fine targets for deportation because it means that they're not willing to pay it, and there's fewer of them, so they're much easier to deport. Very interesting. And that literally would take hurts out. Of course, you know, then we're back to the political question because Democrats would scream about fairness and these people don't have much already and they can't afford $5,000 and it's a shakedown. But, you know, at the end of the day, we're all paying for this. Yeah. The America is not supposed to be the welfare state of the world. Right, right. If you cannot sustain yourself and pay this after you broke the law, it seems like a really reasonable penalty that would benefit the nation. Seems like five grand to make this go away. Isn't that big an ass. I'll be honest with you. Daniel D. Martineau at the Manhattan Institute. Thanks so much for the time. Really interesting.

Thank you. Appreciate the time. Got to pivot. Get to news. We have bad weather moving in. Give you the timeline and all the details in just seconds here on 700 WLW. Scott's load back on 700W Thursday morning, got the weekend dead ahead, ready to shovel some snow starting tonight and early tomorrow morning. And on that is our resident ER physician and expert when it comes to health and food and everything else. It's Sanjay Schaeferkramani. Welcome. Good to see you. I'm glad we're doing this today. Not tomorrow. You wouldn't be here, would you? No, I'd probably make it through, but I would be here two hours from now and late. Yeah, you're good. Yeah, happy to be here today. Good to have you. the topic you want again i think this is interesting new data out there about how short bursts of physical activity are better for you in the long run because normally this time of year and i'm sure we'll get into this you know what to look for in a gym membership and what you should be doing and uh everyone has that seemingly 72 hours at the very least usually of going, okay, I got the new track suit, I got a phone holster, I got towels, I got matching shoes, I got a yoga mat, LFG, let's go. And then by day three, you're like, the hell of this, it hurts too much. I'm out of here. That's exactly. There's actually a quitting day, I think. If I remember correctly, it's like January 19th every year where the most number of people drop off their new habits. And it's just... predictable because of that reason like you you get really excited and then it just my overrunner always was no matter it's like it's you know whatever the sport is whatever the exercise is like it was always mouth of the king day like MLK day that's like right around there's the break even point like if you hang around after that you're probably going to be here for a while yeah but you just see so many people out the first couple weeks just That's it. It's hard, man. It sucks. It is hard because, you know, one, it's changed, too. It's a, it's a great time of the year because it's the new start, new beginnings. And they've actually done studies on that as far as like, beginning of a week, beginning of a month, that's when you want to start a new habit, beginning of a year as well. It just feels like a new birth for you. But it is hard because it's change ultimately, and our bodies and our minds don't like change. So, you know, setting that up for success is the most important part. And it takes, by the way, how long to develop for something to become a habit from a pattern to become a habit? Yeah, it depends who you read. It's 30 days, 90 days. I mean, it all varies, but at least a month, if not three, to really make it a true habit is what I've seen. Damn, I'm damned you're going on 50 years. Trying to get stopped since I've been.

Little kid, I've been trying to get it to change. There's always tomorrow, Scott. All right. So you hear about, you know, the guidelines for exercise, right? It's always been like, it was 150 minutes a week. But that all depends on your age, too, and a whole bunch of other factors. So it's never good just to take that one thing. Yeah, so 150 is like the golden number that everyone quotes, but it's kind of all over the place. And I'm sure that'll change in a year or two. And, you know, like every other recommendation changes in health and wellness and everything. So, but, I mean. long and short is it is important and and not just a little bit here and there um but that's really where it's kind of this study and and these studies come from as far as a little bit of activity all right let's talk about that this is about short bursts of activity which means what so uh short bursts can be anywhere between 30 seconds and you know two to four minutes um so little bit at a time a few times a day um and that's where the studies are coming from um that's where you know the thinking about it. I went on a hike last weekend. It was like 45 degrees, which was lovely. And I could do three and a half miles and it was totally comfortable. But this weekend, you know what's coming. I mean, I think I just saw negative one for a low. Yeah, it's going to be cold. Yeah. It's bitterly cold. You're not doing anything outside. You're not doing anything outside. So getting 7,000 steps, you know, it's not 10,000 anymore. You can do 7,000. Oh, okay. 7,000 steps like, that's like 3.5 miles. And so no one's, not many people are going to be able to even do that, even consider it. Right. And so what's the alternate? I think when I think about... the 7,000 steps gold, it seems intimidating. Three and a half miles walking a day is a lot. So I think my brain subconsciously says, well, I can't do three and a half. I won't do any at all. And that's where this whole bursts of exercise comes from. Gotcha. So it depends. It's like, well, if you get, you know, your even 60 minutes of exercise, let's say, in a work week, you should, you could break that up in, you know, 10 minutes here, five minutes here, eight minutes there. There's some validity to that? Is that the studies? There's some validity. And so the long and short is if you can get your lifting exercise and these little short bursts done, that is the optimal. Okay. If you get nothing done, obviously that's the complete other end of the spectrum. And in between is, you know, are these short bursts okay or is just the lifts okay? Which one's better for you? And that's kind of in debate. But the way I see it is if you're lifting... three times a day, doing some sort of strength training on the other days, as long as you're staying active, and that's the real question of what does that look like? And that's what we'll talk about too. If you can do that, that's the optimal thing. Get 150 minutes maybe in at the gym, if you can. But if you can or if you can't, do these movement things that can even help. And it's a little bit that does a lot of difference. Yeah. So like what, for example, would that be? Is it just like everyday life walking up the stairs instead of the elevator, that kind of stuff? It can be. So you can do steps alone. What they're saying, again, this is like 30 seconds to two minutes. So it's not a huge amount of time. It's not a tremendous amount of effort, either. A lot of people can do this. So you really want to get your heart rate up to like 80% of your maximal. So you're talking about maybe like 130 to 150 beats per minute. And you're going to be actually healthier for it. So what does that look like? 30 seconds to two minutes of...

push-ups and you don't have to go all the way to the ground i know a lot of people have trouble with push-ups but you can just lean up against a wall and push yourself back and put your knees down or whatever or put your knees down um or you know lean up from there from a diagonal 10 to 20 of those and you're golden um if you do a chair a wall sit for example so just like act like there's a seat below you but there's not and lean your back up against the wall Hold that. I mean, that every second feels like a minute when you do that. But if you do, you know, 15 to 20 seconds of that, that's also good. Again, a few times a day and it adds up. And then, you know, another thing you could do is just air squats. So, you know, acting like there's a chair below you, you know, squatting down, standing up and doing that 15, 20 times in a row or two sets of 10 real quick. That'll get the job done as far as these studies go. You don't need a gym and a trainer and everything else. You can just do this as you see fit. for this stuff. So they've given it a cute name, which is exercise snacking, which I fully approve of, because I like snacking. And this is just the healthier version of it, I guess. But it's also known as Vilpa, which is... Let me see if I can get it right. Vigorous, intermittent lifestyle, physical activity. Good Lord. Yeah. So we'll just call it exercise snacking as far as not. Is it sort of like the low-level hit training? Basically high intensity. That's exactly a perfect way to put this guy. It's like low-level hit, but the studies are actually pretty remarkable as far as the benefits of it. Long and short is they did a study, and it wasn't a small study, but it was in the UK, 22,000 people. And what they found was... over an eight-year time span, basically a 50% reduction in mortality. And so, you know, half of people that did this, or if you did this work, versus people that were completely sedentary, didn't move at all, 50% chance less of dying. So half, you cut your rate by half. And that also goes for major cardiac events. So like heart attack, strokes. And that all goes together because of the benefits you see from this kind of really quick stuff. Again, just a few minutes a day makes a huge difference, especially if you're completely sedentary usually. If you have a desk job nine to five, you're too tired at the end of the day and you don't do much, this is who it benefits the most, but it benefits everybody. And I think there's a lot of conflicting knowledge. Again, Sanjay Shiv Kramani on the show. He's a resident emergency room doctor, but also we talk health and fitness on the show on Thursday mornings at this time. um in this regard you look at it going all right is it is it getting the heart rate up because you know if you're doing resistance training which you know lifting whatever you're generally not getting your heart rate up all that much does that all count the same so it works a little bit differently and so um you know it's muscles versus the rest of your body so lifting will work the muscles but you know your heart as well but the way i like to think of it is strength training helps uh you live better uh and then

cardio training helps you live longer um that's an overly simplistic way to put it and you know there's a lot of of uh overlap but together they're best but if you can choose one you know you can you can do that um the the long and short is is that this is important it's important to move around in addition to your strength training uh we always talk about movement is medicine um but it's actually come across in the papers and so The way they think this works and the current thought is threefold. So what are the three main things that cause heart attacks? High blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes. Right. And so doing this kind of activity, short bursts at a time helps all three. Gotcha. Well, so does the medicine that we have for that. So do I need to do any of this or just take more meds? That is a personal decision. I personally, like if I don't have to take medicine, I'd love to not take medicine. They have their time and their place, but if we can do stuff that can save us both money and putting medications into our body that we may not need, the better as far as I'm concerned. Yeah. Tarvisatins and M&Ms go well or all together. Just make some minutes. Yeah, just don't confuse it too. That's fine. Yeah, is this kind of like, the term is called functional training, which is. Maybe not a new thing, but basically, you know, some of the moves that guys make in a gym, you look, okay, am I really going to need to, you know, flex my earlobes, for example? When, in fact, you know, I just don't want to hurt myself putting this box on top of a high shelf and then be out of commission for a few. You know what I'm talking about. Yeah, exactly. It's very much a why thing. Like, why am I doing this? Why am I doing this? Which is important to us at our gym as far as making sure you're doing the things that help you, you know, create a life that you love. And so. What are the things that you'd love to do 30 years from now? It's hard for our brains to think about that. We like to think about the here and now, if not the yesterday. But thinking about where we want to be, whether it be for our kids, our grandkids, or our family, when we grow up, you know, what kind of lifestyle do you want to live? Right now, you know, it was just three days ago. I was stretching my arms above my head. And all of a sudden, I tweaked my back. Like, I literally just existing. I hurt myself. unfortunate but i think that actually kind of plays into that sedentary stuff i've been not so mobile in the last couple weeks and i you know it happens to everybody it happens to me yeah yeah fairly i think and and still even then we can hurt ourselves so it's best to keep it mobile um again even if it's just a little a little amount per day why is why does it hurts the older you get the longer it takes to recover yeah it's the same thing right it's like for example a couple weeks ago i put um My wife had knee surgery, so I'm like, well, I'll put the chair height toilets and I bought some nice one-piece toilets. And I'm like, and okay, this is, you know, for the old age and put them in our house. And I put, installed three. And my back was killing me for a week. I couldn't turn my head. I'm like, what the hell? I do this all the time. And all of a sudden now, just like the way to picking those up and doing it myself is, you know, you recover usually pretty quickly. And now you can't do that at all. Yeah, our bodies are really forgiving when we're 20 and 30, both when it comes to eating and exercise. And once we hit, you know, the 30s, that things just take longer to recover. It's just the way the cells work is the way all the parts work. Exactly. It's all working differently. I mean, we didn't have to live this long back in the day. Like when we were cavemen, you know, our purpose was to live to probably 25 and 30. And then, you know, now that we're living.

triple that, things will break down. You're an old man at 30. You're an old man. It's probably dead by 30 is like old age back in the back in the day. Yeah. Fortunately, I'm only 23. I wish. Right. Which is like when you see a toddler. throw a hissy fit and roll and contort their body on the ground and put their head behind their kneecap. You're like, oh, my God, you're going to tear your ACL. No, you're not. No, they're made of rubber. Yeah, you're made of rubber at that point. Fascinating. All right, so get your exercise in. Again, you can do it in short bursts throughout the day. It's probably the best way to do it, like, eating, right? If you have small meals throughout the day, this is exercise snacking. Small amounts, you know, you don't have to overdo it, so you don't have to go to, like, a pain level. And then the last part is the really cool part about... this stuff, the vilpa or exercise snacking is they found that there was an 80% adherence for people that did this as opposed to any other training regiment, right? Like you just said it with New Year's stuff. Yeah. It all falls off. I think there's only like 15% adherence to New Year's resolutions, 80% because it's doable. I would recommend, though, if you're going to do something, tie it into something you're already doing. If you're, like you mentioned, the stairs, go up the stairs a little faster, get that heart rate up. If you're, you know, going to the fridge for a snack, for example, that's the time. Maybe say, I'll do 20 counter push-ups right now. You know, just get those in. Okay. Every couple hours, if you're at work or at the end of a meeting, just do 10 quick air squats. If you've... Every hour meetings. Go in a bathroom. An office would probably be better than the middle of... Or just get the whole office to join. Make it a group activity. They've also found that. Like a Japanese workplace or something. We do their calisthenics in the morning. He's Sanjay Shavikramanis, our ear doctor, also, a health fitness. We talk all on Thursday, Murray. Appreciate you, buddy. Thanks again. We've got to get news in the next 700 W.O. Do you want to be in a... This is Scott Sloan Show on 700 WLW. Was Rodney Hinton legally insane? At the time he took his car and deliberately and intentionally plowed it into Deputy Larry Henderson in front of UC, killing him instantly. In reaction, of course, to his son, Ryan, getting shot and justifiably so by Cincinnati police, brandishing the firearm. Horrible story, and probably one of the stories, no doubt, of the decade. And it's just a terrible thing. But yesterday in court, Rodney Hinton had a sort of a competence hearing. You had a hearing yesterday. And they had an expert testify. for the defense here, court-appointed psychiatrist with 30-use experience saying that he meets Ohio law requirements to take the death penalty off of consideration because he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, bipolar disorder, rather, two years ago and prescribed antipsychotic medication. Is that enough for him to escape what we consider the ultimate justice, and that is the death penalty in Ohio for deliberately murdering Larry Henderson? On the show, once again, is attorney Jason Philibon, former...

County prosecutor now in private practice and defense. Jason, welcome back. How you doing? Good morning, doing well. Thank you. Yeah, it's a topic. We're going to talk about a lot because we hear about NGRI, as you call it, in the profession, not guilty for a reason of insanity. And yesterday's hearing was just that. It was kind of preliminary, right? So take us through what happened yesterday. And you hear this information, oh, my God, you had an expert testify that he has a mental issue and he may go to prison the rest of his life, but he won't faith the death penalty. That was just a very small sample of the experts that are going to testify, correct? Yeah. Essentially, your question is about two weeks long when they train the death penalty attorneys to get ready for a death penalty case. three stages of case and we're in stage one where the judge is trying to decide what's allowed the plea or is he going to trial, things of that nature. So her first question in that first prong is, is he competent to stand trial? In other words, does he know what's going on essentially? The second question is, is the defense able to present a plea? not guilty by reason of insanity. Is there enough information out there that will allow the defense to ask, you know, tell that to the jury? And the third question she's going to be answering before the trial starts is, is the state eligible to apply the death penalty? And so to get to your first question, is he competent? I think that she's going to find him competent, you know, just... You know, the allegation is he kind of lost his mind that day, but the overall allegation hasn't been. He doesn't know what's going on. So I think at the end of the day, she's going to find him competent. But then that leads to the second question is, is the not guilty by reason or the sanity and to be allowed to be presented in front of the jury? And there are four mental illnesses in Ohio can remove the death penalty eligibility statute. So it's schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, delusional disorder, and. bipolar disorder. So that is definitely a bona fide illness that would exempt him from the death penalty. However, he had a court-appointed psychiatrist saying he met the requirements, as we pointed out. How much weight does the judge typically give to someone? And I'm assuming that that person is neutral because it's court-appointed, correct? Yeah, so essentially they do a court-appointed psychologist to give an analysis, and then if one party doesn't like it, they go get their own expert, and then typically the other party will then go get another expert, and that's what you had in this case. Now, what we didn't see was the second prong of that question, because that's going to be sort of a hearing that's set up for January.

But is he eligible to face the death penalty under Ohio's new law that says if you have one of those four mental health issues, you may not be eligible for the death penalty. There's a second prong there. And that says, is the illness significantly impairing their ability to conform to the law or essentially know the wrongfulness of their conduct? So in other words, if you have bipolar disorder, that doesn't necessarily say you can't be put to death for a crime. You have to have bipolar disorder and it has to be significant and it has to impair and so on. So I think all she did yesterday and she specifically said that, all I'm talking about is prong one. Yes, I think he meets the criteria for bipolar disorder. She did not get into the... problem too yet, which I think is going to be a January hearing. Yeah, yeah. And you look at that and go, okay, well, how much is that documented medical history matter versus the question of whether he was in acute psychiatric crisis at the moment he decided to kill Deputy Henderson? Yeah, and I think I personally think that should be an issue left up to the jury. And I think that's what you're going to see here. But so these preliminary hearings are basically her, the judge saying, I'm going to allow the jury to hear and see this. And I'm going to allow the jury to decide that that's all she's deciding right now. Then we get to a trial and then they determine whether he's guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. If he's not guilty by reason of insanity, case is over. But if he found guilty, then they get to the death penalty phase. And at that point, he's going to argue he's not eligible and the defense is going to argue that he has enough mitigating factors that it shouldn't be facing the death penalty. And so I think the biggest question she's going to have to answer between now and the trial is, is she going to allow the jury to hear the death penalty argument and will she allow the jury to consider that? I think that's going to be the biggest. question mark between now and the trial. How much more evidence will Judge Lubers hear to make their mind up on that? She's going to hear the psychologist from the state, and then she's going to probably hear the third psychologist that's the defense personally hired as well. So she's going to hear from all three. But this sort of gets me to the example of NFL football. You've seen you watch games on Sunday. There's a fumble. Someone runs it back to the end zone, and here it is the referee blew the whistle dead. So they've been basically saying let it play out. And then if you're wrong about the fumble, instant replay can correct it. But if you blow the whistle dead too early, then you can't fix that. And so I think what ultimately she'll do is she'll probably let the jury decide everything. Because if she's wrong about that, if she's wrong and it should have never went to the jury, the court of appeals can fix it through instant replay. But if she cuts it off now, the death penalty is off the table forever. You can't bring that back later.

I'm guessing she's going to err on the side of unless there's something, you know, across the board everyone agrees on, I'm going to allow the court to or the jury to hear the death penalty argument. Our legal expert, Jason Philibam on the show, talking about Roddy Hinton, the father of Ryan Hinton, who struck and killed intentionally, it appears Deputy Larry Henderson. I mean, there's no doubt about it, that this is the guy and he did what he did, but now claiming that he has a... significant defense not guilty by reason of insanity is a plea he changed it to yesterday a court appointed psychiatrists so someone allegedly neutral sits down and analyzes him and says yes he suffers from bipolar disorder and that is a one of the four ways you can get out of the death penalty, not a life sentence, but the death penalty. But again, as Jason pointed out, it's a two-pronged test here. Does he have a serious mental illness at the time of the fence? Past mental state is what that's called, and the answer, of course, would be yes. The second phase of that, though, and this is the difficult hurdle for the defense, is his competent to stand trial, meaning does he understand the proceedings against him? Can he assist his counsel in defense? And that's the threshold question right there. Okay, we established that he suffers from the disorder. Do we have different experts coming and or is it up to the judge to discuss or talk to the defendant in this case to determine whether or not he understands what's happening right now? Because one could make cases it seem like he appears that he does. Yeah, and right now there's a gag order essentially where the judge is not going to let these reports out until they're in open court. And so what you heard the doctor say yesterday, I think she specifically said, I am only focused on the first prong. Does he meet the diet, not the criteria? And yes, he does. She did not talk about the second prong yet, which is does it significantly impair his ability to understand the difference between right and wrong. Now, again, that's a paraphrasing. That's what she has to show. And I'm thinking that's the January hearing, I think they're coming back the first week of January, you're going to hear all the experts talk about that. So I think the judge is going to decide that he's competent. I don't think there's really any strong evidence that he's not competent to stand trial. I think the judge based on this. expert is going to allow the jury to consider not guilty by reason of insanity. And I think that's fair. You know, let the jury decide that. But I also think what's going to be telling, and we don't know the answer yet, is do all three of the experts agree that he has, you know, bipolar disorder? Because I'm guessing they do. That's just a guess. But they probably all disagree on whether or not that is a serious or significant impairment for him. You know, there's people diagnosed with bipolar disorder every day, but that's not a significant impairment. And I think that's what the main hearing is going to be in January is, does it rise to the level that it's so significant? He didn't know what was going on.

Yeah, you have the NGRI defense, but have you ever been around? I know you've read people this before, but have you ever been around somebody that literally suffered from this disorder, but at the same time also did not understand or could contribute to their own defense that legally, literally they were insane and therefore they couldn't be held to capital murder. Have you ever been around someone like that? I was just wondering how that presents itself in a court of law. Are they speaking in tongues or just simply not understanding what's going on? They just don't understand. I mean, I've had a few defendants over a course of the time that's been found not competent to stand trial. That just means they don't understand who's who. They don't understand the difference between the judges and the prosecutors and the defense counsel. They don't understand essentially laws. They just don't get it. Imagine like trying to explain this to a three or four year old. That's the best way to describe it. They might be able to talk to, but they have no idea. what a court is and what you know trial is and things of that nature and so essentially what the order would be there is they send you to a mental hospital to restore your competency basically they try to educate you they try to help you they try to give you counseling medication can they get you back to the point where you understand and if there's a period of time where they can restore you then you go back to the court and and get a trial but if after a certain period of time six months a year whatever the statute is that's when they say well you're you're just not confident to stay in trial case is over so i've seen that before and i think the best way to describe is you know try talking to a four-year-old about about uh court and and that's what it's like to someone that has a severe mental illness Yeah, Jason Philibum on that. That's fascinating that you probably know pretty much right away. Is it impossible to fake your way through that? That's what experts are good at. They will catch someone that tries to fake them because they ask you 100 questions in so many different ways. That's what these tests are designed. And it's not just one psychologist has come up with it. It's been 30 years in the making. So, you know, they will hopefully catch the person that tries to do it. Now, I'm sure if you have. you know, Hollywood actor doing their thing, maybe they might be able to pull someone. But the average person out there on the street trying to get out of a trial is not going to fool a psychologist. Yeah, yeah, you'd have to be pretty well studied or go into a different character entirely for that to happen. That's a possibility. It may have happened in the past, but Kaiser Sose is the last person I think I've seen. Right. I'm able to pull that one on Kevin Spacey's character. Exactly what I was thinking, too. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, that's Hollywood, though. That's not real life. The Kaiser Associate defense here. If you pull that one off, you deserve to get out of your sentence. I don't think that's going to happen for this guy. How much is the fact that everything he did was premeditated? The fact that Rodney Hinton drove around for a period of time before selecting Deputy Henderson to murder, that has to contribute to this as well, doesn't it? Absolutely, and that's what the state's going to argue. If you premeditate, if you plan, if you basically go around and set up your crime, then it did not significantly impair your ability to function. And so there's an argument by the premeditation aspect that you weren't insane. Now I think what the defense is going to argue is he drove around.

And he was thinking about it. And then he just had a sudden burst of, I can't take this anymore. And so I think that's what they're going to try to argue. But that, you know, I was told back in law school when it comes to NGRI, you run, you're done. That was the phrase that came out in a case a long time ago, which the moment you start planning or the moment you run, you kind of show that you know what's right and wrong. Right. Because you planned it or you run away from it. I think that's what's going to probably be the big decision maker in the case is the fact that this was premeditated allegedly. Grief and emotional distress and extreme emotional reaction for that matter to your son's death does not indicate serious mental illness or the fact that you can't comprehend right from wrong. Right. If you were watching the video at the moment and then attack the officer in the room, that would be a much different situation than getting in a car and driving around and looking for your right candidate. I mean, that's what the state's going to argue. But that will try to throw everything they can, I guess, at the judge and jury, if that's the case, to decide whether or not he, this mental illness that he suffers from bipolar disorder, which is a, you know, I mean, it's fairly common diagnosis for sure, but did it impact his decisions he made that day? And also, more importantly, does he know right from wrong? And just running seems to indicate that he does. It should be fairly open and shut, I would think, right? Just based on that. Yeah, I would think that, you know, from the standpoint, I mean, again, I always tell people you don't know what's going on so you see the full evidence at the trial, but, you know, based on what we've read so far, I would think the jury would have a little easier decision on the guilt versus not guilty by reason and sanity. I think this case is all going to hinge on, though, whether the judge allows the death penalty if she does, what will the jury think? Because there's a lot of argument for the defense to argue. There's enough mitigation here. that he shouldn't be put to death for this. And you have such an extreme hostile act of taking out a law enforcement officer that wasn't even involved and compare that to someone that had this mental health issue. And that's going to be the struggle the jury has to decide is, should I put that person to death? The crime is so horrendous. The preliminary answer is yes, but then is his mental health issues so mitigating that we put him in prison for life instead of that. That's going to be the thing that I think is going to be the hardest decision. The jury is going to have to wrestle with. Right. Yeah, and on that note, whether he was taking his Medicaid, if he was off his meds, let's say he didn't decide not take his medication that day. Does that help the defense or does it not matter simply because, you know, if you're on it now, you know right from wrong and you're. care is being managed right now if you're does that impact this at all

It's going to be one of the things that both sides argue. It's like, I was drunk. I didn't mean to kill the person when I crashed into him. And the answer to that is, but you intentionally drank alcohol and then got into a car. And so the same argument is going to be made. He intentionally did not take his medicine. I mean, if it's a situation where you've got such a severe issue, you've got to take medicine and you forgot that morning, that's one thing. But if you go off for a period of time, that's an intentional decision. that the state's going to argue, and, of course, the defense is going to argue the counterargument, but that's, again, something that the jury's going to have to wrestle with. All right. He is a defense attorney, Jason Philebaum in private practice, Yonison-Fillbaum law firm, former prosecutor. Interesting, not guilty reason and sanity is the plea from Ronnie Hitton, and we'll find out in January if the judge agrees. Jason, all the best. Thanks for the insight. Appreciate you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Yeah, take care. We've got to get a news update in here momentarily on the big one, 700 WOW. And when we return, chop it up with my wife a little bit. She's on the men from the knee surgery because that's what we Sloans do. We just have surgery all the time. That's me. Sloan here 700 WLW. The bells? Do you hear the bells? It could only mean one thing. It's real estate time with Michelle Sloan. Remax time agent and proud proprietor of Sloansellshomes.com. Heed her words or face her wrath. On 700 WLW. What's going on? Can you hear it? Can you hear that squeaky sound, Clark? I'm serious. There's something in the wall. Oh, my God. It's fluttering. It's squeaking. It's fluttering. And we need to get home right now. You got another mushrooms again, didn't you? No, but there's something like a dog, like a pig getting a truffle. You found, she found the mushrooms. She's high a. F at 1130 this morning. Awesome. No, no, no, no, no, no. There is something. Of course, okay, so I can hear it, right? There's some scratching in the walls. Yeah. I'm sure it's probably a little mouse or something. It's going to snow outside. He wants to come in. But I think it's in the walls. Every time I get close, it's quiet and it doesn't move. But then I heard a fluttering like it might be a bird. A flutter. A bandit are the best guard dog that ever was. Right. It's just sleeping in the corner and could absolutely care that we are being invaded by a mouse. Well, it is that, it is that time of year. Oh, my gosh. Okay, yeah, we got it. We have a creature, and it's driving me nuts. I'm working from home today because it's cold outside, and I don't like it. Where is it? Is it in a bedroom? Is it where? No, no, no. So I went to take Bandit out for a walk, and I, it's somewhere between the dining room, the laundry room, and the garage. Okay. And I'm thinking maybe.

Something got stuck in the dryer vent, but you have a new, like, lid on that, right? Yeah, a new lid. Yes. You have a new lid? Yes, no. I don't know, but the animals are coming in. Yeah, just the one? I don't know, but bad it doesn't seem to give a crap. Well, that's got to be a brave mouse because I thought it was near the bedroom. I thought, you know, with the snoring in there that. Ha, ha, whatever. Blah, blah. Her drug-induced coma, she's now. Are you sure? I'm not buying it. I just think it's the narcotics left over from your knee surgery. I think you're just high. I have been narcotics free for almost a week. Right. You think I'm actually going to get home in the first order business. I'm looking to find a mouse in a wall somewhere? Yes. Yeah, he'll figure it out. Because I'm going to torment you until they get you. Although I have a buddy, I have a buddy that he had mouse and a half, mice and how whatever. He's like, okay, they're finding some poop over and like, okay, we got some mouse got in somewhere. Called Exterminate comes over. It goes to the attic and literally finds an entire colony to the point where $16,000 later. Yeah. Yeah, I've heard, I've actually in my business, you know, which is actually real estate. During home inspections, we've seen birds' mess, literally the size of a car, a VW Beetle that is some nesting and growing in there. We've seen raccoons, and they can make an awful, thank you, meth. You know, birds, mice, for sure. And, yeah. So we have a problem, sir. Okay. I'm going to put that at the bottom of the list of things I have to do today. The mouse will be fine. You'll be fine. We'll get through this. No, he won't be fine. Not if he crawls those little stuff in through an outlet or something. And then he's in here. And then it's still sleeping. And I'm like screaming. You should see my, oh, I saved it. I never took a picture of it, too. At my workshop. A mouse was crawling through it. What you said, I think he was trying to get in the outlet. He's like, because I have the lid the covers off because I still have work to do in there. And the mouse literally is electrocuted to the outlet. It's cool as hell. Oh, no, that's pretty bad. He got it fast. He got it quick. Okay, well, as long as it was, it was like a trap. The mouse tried to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. The judge would not hear it, and he was immediately executed. You know what, though? So I'm a, I'm, I'm just living there in life, right? And I'm not anti-mouse. I will get the traps that actually won't kill them. They get trapped inside. And then you have to like. deliver them at least a mile away or somehow they find their way back into your house. You know, that's a great... So I'll take them to a park or something and release them. I'm a catch and release. You really are too. You'll drive two miles away to release the mouse back in the wild that promptly gets eaten by something else. Well, that's fine. That's nature. But as long as I didn't kill it. Although I think whatever's in my walls right now, there's in the walls of my brain right now.

Get the little trap, see how it works. Well, on the other side of the wall, a good place for them. That's what the walls are there for. Maybe. I mean, if I thought maybe they were in, it was in the garage. And I'm fine with that because, like, you know, that can happen. Well, we'll figure it out. It's fine. We're getting three to five to 20 inches of snow tomorrow. We got to prepare for that. We got to prepare for that. We really do. I know. Well, segue from mice to real estate. But it's largely the same thing. Everybody's got a couple of months. It's that time of year. You're going to have some mice. And, you know, it takes us a whole the size of a dime for one to get through. There's no way you're going to be able to, you know. patch every hole in your house for that. Maybe you can find an area where, you know, there was an old plumbing or HVAC system and they didn't, you know, fill the hole properly or something like that. And, you know, you can spot those for sure. Or maybe there's caulking or something that's given away in a corner. Right. A little tiny spots. Like, that's tough because those things can literally scale a skyscraper. Nonetheless, I know you wanted to, I think it's good news here, the Hamilton County real estate transfer tax increase. It was going to cost people more money in Hamilton County. That's been scuttled, right? It is. I mean, so, right, we do have some real news, some nuggets of news to share with you today. There has been some action in the Hamilton County real estate transfer tax increase that was in the budget. It has been next. So a group of the Realtor Alliance of Greater Cincinnati, landlord, lenders, investors, the entire real estate community really came out against this, saying it's going to be harmful to homeowners, buyers, builders, small landlords, everybody, because the cost of this transfer tax was going to be the highest in the area. I mean, they were trying to increase it. And it's one of those. If I would say there's a hidden fee when you sell your home, it's the transfer tax. It's $4 per thousand of the house that you sell. So, you know, it can add up pretty quickly and you have no idea as a seller that you are having to pay this transfer tax. Unless you have a good real estate agent who's going to sell you in advance, there's not a darn thing I can do about it. You know, I just tell you, I just give you the information and know that that's going to come out in the end of your proceeds, which is not good. And there is also some round of applause to Commissioner Alicia Reese. because she has been the steadfast voice of reason on this one. Yes, she has. Yeah. Yeah, she's done an awesome job.

So that was that nugget. So for now, Hamilton County is going to stay. Still one of the higher ones. Right, right. Hamilton and Claremont County are $4 per thousand in a transfer tax. Warren County and Butler County are $3 per thousand when you sell your house. So if you're planning to sell your house, talk to your real estate agent about that. It's not just your regular property taxes that you have to pay at closing. Yeah. You have to pay the transfer tax as well. All right. So, yeah, so the $3 per $100,000 per hundred, right? For $100, $3 per 100. So if it's a $200,000 home, it's $200 times $3 or $4,000, whatever that is. Gotcha. Yeah, a couple hundred bucks. But again, it all adds up. It does add up. There's all those fees to get it. It's like a CVS receipt when you're buying a house, for God's sakes. It's just one thing after another, after another after. All right, that's good news right there. All right. From mice to what else? We have the Fed yesterday cut rates for the third time in 2025. Interestingly, so it's like a group of, I don't know, people at the Fed that vote on this, whether or not to cut the rates, increase the rates, do whatever. So it's on a nationwide level, right? And not everybody's in agreement that just keeping, cutting the rates is going to be the best thing for our economy. And so it was a split vote. And it sort of reveals there's a little bit of a chink in the armor there that there's a possibility that, you know, just lowering the fed rate. is not going to help our economy overall. We have so many other factors, inflation and unemployment and your mortgage rates and your rates on your credit cards as well. So, you know, all of this is taken into consideration. It's not the, it's not an equal thing. And this is the one, again, this is sort of one of those things that people don't talk enough about. When the Fed cuts the rate, it doesn't mean automatically... that your mortgage rate is going to be lowered. It's just, that's not the way it works. Or it doesn't mean that any future mortgage rates are going to automatically be lowered. As a matter of fact, over the course of the last week, mortgage rates have inched up just a little bit. So right now they're around six and a quarter, which is still, in my opinion, it's still pretty good. Anything under seven, anything under six and a half is what I would consider to be.

Fair. Is it the 3% of days old, days gone by? No, it's not. But we're never going to see 3% mortgage rate again. Stop it. It's not coming back. But these are good times. These are good times. It is decent. I mean, it's good. Now, knowing that if the mortgage rates go down, buyers have a little bit more buying power, which is a good thing as well. But. And right now we are seeing more inventory. We're seeing more homes currently on the market. So we have an inventory of about three months worth of inventory based on the number of sales. So that means if you're a buyer, and I know this is salesy, but if you are a buyer, now is a great time to start to look because rates are moderate and there are homes to, they're homes to look at. Think about getting back into the market before spring, before the rest of the world gets back in the market, because I think that that's a good tip. I'm going to start to see a surge here. Okay, good, good, good, good. My wife, Michelle, from sloansellshomes.com, open house show. I get the podcast for the Iheart radio app, of course, on YouTube as well, and remax time in Mainville. I will throw this out there, too, because we're expecting bitterly cold temperatures. The temperature will not get out of the single digits. for the game on Sunday. If so, it'll be very, very close, like maybe 11 degrees. It's going to be absolutely frigid. And when we've seen that kind of cold, you see a lot of problems pop up. I just want to put the shout out here. If you have not done so already, today would be the day before it starts to snow and get colder, is to make sure you take those hoses, if you have not yet from the side of your house, outdoor hoses, and you have to take them off. Even though, you have a frost-free faucet, you still could have a problem. That's going to be hard, though, right now. Why? They're frozen, babe. That's not that cold out yet. It's still what? Oh, I don't know. I mean, we're below freezing, obviously, too, but yeah, you could still, you can get those off. Very important because if you haven't already, yeah, I'm not saying you should probably have done this in the fall, but just make sure you're all caught up on that kind of stuff too. And, you know, if you don't have the heat in your house and maybe on the wet wall, and that is where the plumbing comes into the sink, like in the kitchen, for example. Usually that's a trouble spot because on the wet wall isn't outside. If you have an older home, you don't have enough insulation in there. Make sure you open those sink cabinets up. In this kind of weather, even, and you know you're, you live there long enough. Keep the faucet dripping. A little bit of flow will help as well, just a slight drip. You may go, I'm going to run my water bill up, but it's a lot cheaper than having a plumber come out to fix those. Oh, gosh. I mean, it's just a tiny little drip. Just as slow as it could be. Keep it. And having those cabinet doors open on the outside walls really does make a huge difference. I'm also going to suggest if you have any elderly. People that live near you, next to you, your next door neighbors or family members or whatever, go check on them this weekend. Because it is, it's going to be cold. And if they're heating their home by their oven or whatever, stop it. No.

Don't do that. It's dangerous. Well, it's all right. Just be ready to go because we're going to get that weather moving in. That's how it's going to be. It's going to get cold and we're going to have a lot of snow. So the other thing, too, I did see some rock. I was out yesterday getting some stuff at the big box home retailers. I was at Lowe's actually. And they still had a little bit of salt left. So you're in good shape if you haven't got ears yet. That's good. And again, today's the day, right? Yep. To get your butt out there. If you need a shovel, get on it. If you need some salt and there's all different kinds of salt, how much time do we have? I actually have a little bit of a lip. Well, I don't use it. What kind of salt do you prefer there? You like a. I like kosher. Cochers. She out there sprinkler a box of Morton's kosher on the driveway. I'm kidding. That is actually the worst thing that you can do because you're going to create pits and it's not safe for your plants or your pets. I mean, it's the cheapest and, you know, if it's light-free, but you get a deep freeze like this, you need calcium chloride or magnesium chloride are the ones that work below 10 degrees. Right. And you want to look at the label a little bit. Again, if there's just not a lot of choices, there's probably not a lot. Get what you can. It's better than nothing because it's going to help. I mean, if you get that heavy, it could be a light snow, I think, too. But if you get that icing event, you want to lay that down. It makes it easier to get that stuff off your driveway and walkways if you pre-treat it. like the roadway. So there you go. My wife, Michelle Sloan, this and more, via the podcast on the Iheart radio app at sloom sells homes.com open house show from your next time in Mainville. All the best, love you, got to go, got to go. You have a great day. Okay, come get my this mouse bird, whatever it is. Not even anywhere in the list today. That is not on my to-do list. Come on. Come on. Make friends with it. Make friends with it. The dog needs a friend. Well, he's... He doesn't care. He does not care. A nice pet mouse would be fine for him. It's something that, guess what? Less things, I don't have to throw the ball as much anymore. If he has a pet mouse as his best friend. It's like a Disney movie, Michelle. Lean into that stuff, would you? Willie's on the way next. Home of the Best Bengals coverage, 700. WWSinsnet.