Episode 96: The Depths of Law: A Conversation with Attorney Yanky Perelmuter

Mr. Yankee Perlmutter, I'm very happy to greet you again now, um, in our virtual studio. How have you been? It's been a long time since we've recorded, uh, our last episode with you.

Victor, I've been well. Thank you for having me. I'm happy to be back in your studio and speaking with you.

Well, I look forward to our in-person recordings. I'm hoping that is going to happen soon, sometimes in the future. How have you been since our last recording? What's new? What's new in your business? How's family?

Family's well. Business has been exciting. As an immigration lawyer, there's a lot— a lot has been happening. There has been a lot of excitement. Could you share a little bit about it? All kinds of directions.

Anything you could share with us?

So the general immigration processing has gone all over the place depending on what you're trying to do. There's all kinds of different pathways that have been blocked. Or procedures that have been implemented that are taking a long time. So, uh, in our, in our case, and, you know, in employment-based immigration, we're trying to help companies and investors, and the, the time frames now to get through a PERM are, are 3 years. I mean, we used to say 18 months and it felt like a long time. Now it's, now it's 3 years. The, the waiting times for things have just exploded. It's the government. Seems the government has become less efficient, but, um, it's more— there's a lot more background checks going on, a lot more, a lot more vetting, a lot more work by the government. So that's a big part of it.

In your work with the government in particular, um, have you felt any improvement since, uh, the, uh, the DOJ started their efficiency campaign?

Oh, that's a tough question.

Well, I mean, it's a kind of yes or no question, you know.

So the answer is pretty much no. But they haven't— yeah.

Well, we're still— we are hoping for the best. As long as people would start appreciating their work and, you know, do what they're supposed to do, I hope that the situation will improve. Um, I, uh, I've shared with you an interview of one immigration lawyer, and in his interview, I think it was ABC, uh, 7 or 10 in LA, um, he was strongly speaking about these, um, controversial thoughts and things happening in immigration law. And he says directly that immigration law is a law, it's not something negotiable. Um, and we see issues with the border, undocumented immigrants, illegal immigrants voting. How do you as an immigration lawyer professional see all this happening?

So I appreciate the clip you shared with me about where he, to quote the— I think he says, Some people seem to think that immigration laws are negotiable. So in America, the United States, as a lawyer, forget about immigration, just as a lawyer, every law is negotiable.

Mm-hmm.

There's gray in everywhere. Any criminal, they have their— they have due process, they have their day in court. What does it mean to be— what does it mean to commit a crime? All these things. So it's non-negotiable. Like, the law— the rules are the rules. We have laws, but we also have due process, and we also have the things that, that make our country great, in that we have a very robust, free, and independent judiciary, and the legal system works. I— that, that's the one part about that, that interview I didn't like. Mm-hmm. Is because it really— the law is very, very gray. It's not black and white. And so we want to try to interpret the law as a very— we want to use the law to say these people are, are not following the law. But, but some people are following the law this way, some people are following the law that way. You know, laws are up for interpretation. All the time. Now, after a due process, if someone's found to be in violation of law, they should be deported or removed. In immigration, you know, in this setting, they should be deported, they should be removed, and they are. Now, what's happening at the border Is is is tricky. It's a tricky question to discuss because we we can't have we don't we can't have our borders be porous. People can't just be walking into our country. At the same time, we need to treat people with compassion, and we we we have to be you know we we There's no there's there's no reason for us to be cruel, and so we're seeing that the government is acting with a little cruelty here to individuals that are desperate or or or have been have been in the have been have been in the U.S. for a while and trying to stay here. And there's a there's there's a lot of cruelty going on, but at the same time, not everyone's going to be able to stay. It's a very hard balance. It's a very difficult thing to balance. I think the the the liberal world, the Western world, is now is is is currently dabbling. Not dabbling, that is, is trying to find that balance in a new way.

Mm-hmm.

I think in Europe, it's— I mean, we, we see Great Britain is having, you know, Brexit had a lot to do with immigration. Germany, the far-right political parties are picking up a lot of, a lot of the, you know, 25% of the popular— of the, of the vote now is the far right in Germany. And a lot of that has to do with the immigration policy because it disrespects the native population. And people feel that and people don't like it. And rightfully so. We can't have unhinged immigration policy.

I can't agree more with you. It feels like Europe is in a lot difficult, more difficult situation than we are. Maybe that's because of the size of our country versus Germany or Ireland. It's just a little island, right? And you can feel the mass pouring in. You mentioned a very interesting quote that the law is not black and white. It's about the interpretation. Why is that so? Because it brings us— it's the laws as I see them. It's like a rule for me to live in this society in this country, right? And if they're not, um, exact, it, it just confuses me or other citizens, right? Why is it this way?

So, so there are— not everything is gray. There, there are black and white. You know, a murderer is a murderer in the law. I mean, and when you prove it, they're a murderer. You, you know, I'm a citizen. You're a citizen. I mean, it's pretty clear-cut our status here in the U.S. There's not a it's not it's not gray. But an individual that's here for an extended period of time, maybe entered without inspection, was the victim of a crime, maybe. There's all kinds of maybe they they might have a a qualified U.S. citizen relative that. Gives them cancellation of removal or withholding of removal. Maybe they're from a country that they shouldn't be returned to. What and even even in this country, even if you're a criminal, you have the right to due process. We have the fourth, fifth, and sixth, seventh amendments meant to protect anyone in this country. And all of all the Supreme Court justices from Scalia on the left, on the far right. To everyone on the left, everyone agrees that if you're a person in the United States, because the Constitution uses the word person, doesn't use the word citizen, if you're a person in the United States, you are accorded those rights, the, the rights of the Constitution. And so what's gray is some— in an immigration context, because there's gray. And I mean, if you look at financial, you know, in financial stuff, You want— a bank will accidentally take $20,000 of your dollars and they'll get a slap on the wrist. Accidentally take— a guy will walk into a bank and steal $20,000, he's a burglar now. They both did the same thing, they both stole $20,000. So in a black and white world, they should have the same outcome, but that's not how it works. In immigration, it's similar. What we have today going on is this mass deportation project. And if someone is not supposed to be here, they should be deported. That's just the way of the world. But we don't pick people up off the street in broad daylight in unmarked vans. And, you know, we don't bang on people's doors not showing warrants or IDs. That's not the American way, and that's what we're seeing happening. So the gray area is, are these people that they're grabbing— they, they, they might have had a deport— they might have a removal order, but was that removal order stayed by the judge? Did they have an administratively closed case? There's all kinds of procedural details that are not being followed.

Mm-hmm.

And that's— it's, it's eroding our due process. It's not happening to me. not happening to you, but if it's happening to anybody in the United States, we all need to worry. Yeah. Any American citizen or national or resident has to be concerned because if due process is eliminated for one group of people, that means that then it's eliminated for anyone because we could all be labeled that. So, I mean, there was a memo came out recently that says ICE has the authority To enter any property. ICE is the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They enforce immigration. That is just a— that the Justice Department has no right to send out a memo like that. There is no reasonable reason for that kind of— of— they don't have that authority under the Constitution.

Mm-hmm.

But if they say that they could enter any, that means they could go to your house. If they say There's an immigrant, there's immigrants in Victor's house, or any— anybody, they, they— all they have to do is say it and the due process is gone. They have to worry about the Second Amendment because a lot of houses they're going to go into, people are gonna not gonna like it. But—

Well, you know, California is, uh, quite, uh, anti-gun and stuff, um, So probably that's not going to be an issue. Probably where you are or Texas, that will be more of an issue.

I grew up in California. I grew up in Southern California. And as a— when I turned 18, 19, there is a gun range real close to my house. We used to shoot a lot. But

how, how is it now?

I don't know. I, I think the range is still there. It's there.

Oh, okay. Well, um, next time you visit, let's go and, uh,

Yeah,

we should. And should. Yeah, that would be fun. Um, I, I honestly don't, don't mind if ICE wants to check on me. I have everything legal. I have all the papers. Um, I'll even feed them a lunch, uh, because I, in, in the majority, and, um, I think we should probably share a little bit more appreciation with the enforcement agencies like police, uh, sheriffs, because To me, as a young citizen, right? You've witnessed my process of becoming one. I feel like these people who are supposed to serve for something good are receiving too much negativity from society and media.

Yeah.

And when you get that, why would you treat other people nicely, right? It's just, to me, common sense. It doesn't have to be this way, obviously, but I get it. Like, when I go to the court and I see a bunch of pretty, uh, um, a bunch of lawyers with low intelligence, uh, I, I don't blame the judge to shut me down, you know, when he shuts me down, because he's been— he's having a lot, you know, to deal with.

Yeah.

So, um,

no, I agree with you absolutely. The, the law enforcement on the front line, the ICE officers and the I mean, they, they have a hard— one of the hardest jobs in the, in the country. I mean, no one has a job that hard. And I've, I've had to interact with, with the ICE officers, and I've been in situations where, you know, it's a— it's— you don't like them, but they're doing their job. I mean, they're not— they don't make the rules. Yeah. They're just the— they have to— they have a job to do. I've been in court with one of my clients who was taken by ICE from court. So we had a court date, and ICE came and took him.

Mm-hmm.

And it's upsetting. But I sat down with— they were— the ICE officers were very professional. I sat down with them. They showed me exactly why. We went through all the possibilities of my client not being detained. We we negotiated on where he's going to be taken and when we could get a bond, and and they were very professional about it. But they're they're just doing their job. I've also I've had I've had ICE like I've had to sit in on ICE enforcement interrogations or or interviews with with people that they're they're doing broader broader human rights violation, broader human trafficking, and so I'll have clients who get caught up in these things and they'll. And they'll— and my clients will ask me to sit in with them. And ICE is— ICE is— it's just human beings, just people.

Yeah.

Just— just— they're just guys, men and women who are doing it, doing their job. And— and I don't think they— they— they could be— there are situations where they could be nicer. And— and I think you're right. It— but there's— but once again, they're human beings. So some human beings take that power and they act in a very, a very difficult way. Everyone's run into that cop or that law enforcement officer that's just— he's so happy with his power and he's going to use it. But for the vast majority of enforcement officials are just people. They're not playing political games. That's that's at the you know that's the Washington level.

Yeah. Would you mind sharing a little bit without names or unnecessary details your experience at the interrogation?

Yeah. So it's not as exciting as you think.

Yeah, because I was imagining a Hollywood film. Yeah.

Yeah. No, not not even close. So. I guess I could, I could give you a little background on, on it. So there's a lot of human trafficking on international students.

Really? Wow.

So yes, so what happens is the international students apply for jobs, apply to come to the U.S., they enroll in these universities, they get funded by people back in their home country. That funding is a loan, right? And the extortion is against their family back in their home country. And then when they're here, they're forced to complete a certain amount of work at different— you know, they might be working at— you might run into these people in gas stations. They're working at the gas station, or they're working in, in, uh, and, and, and they, they are They're forced to basically work for free, and there's it's all kind there's all kinds of fraud involved in names. And so I ended up an employer of mine. It's I don't know how this person got one of the students who got ice was ice. Is investigates these things, right? So it's actually the— it's actually Homeland Security Investigations. So it's HSI who does— who's— who, who we, who we had to deal with. And so they picked up somebody because the employee sold liquor to someone under 21. Turns out the employee is a student, and it seems that That student was in this situation, and they were afraid of getting deported. So a some a friend of a friend hired me. I HSI asked them to come down for for an interview, right? So they arrested her. Were they? So they arrested her, and then they let her go, and they asked her to come back. So. And so we— you go to an innocuous-looking office building that doesn't look like— it looks like any office building, like behind you right now. And go up to the 5th floor, and you go, you go into a, a, and then all of a sudden the, the, the facade changes and you're in like a, a, uh, interrogation room. It's not an interrogation room, but it's like a conference room that's been like— you're sitting at a, at a wide table with very strong lights, and then investigators come in. So that— and then they brought, they brought 4 investigators in to question this girl, and they go through the entire questioning process about, about the, the issues. And As much as I tried to get her to cooperate, as my client, you know, I need to give her the best— to the best— the best opportunity for her. And but I can't, you know,

she,

she did not want to cooperate, which was very interesting. Indeed. And then it became very movie-like in the sense that, you know, good cop, bad cop. One guy started yelling at her, the other guy Like, it was, it was a very, like, bizarre situation. But they didn't— they would— they didn't want— she wasn't the target. They didn't want to arrest her. They didn't want her to go to jail. They're looking for the guy who recruited her, who recruited that guy. They're trying to work up the chain.

Mm-hmm.

And it's amazing what the government knows. Like, you, you— it's— you would— it's shocking. The information they had about people's families overseas from third world countries that you would never think that how could they possibly know these things about anybody? Like, it's one thing to know about you and me. They had they they listened to our phone calls, but these people live in places that don't have running water. Oh, and the government knew everything about them.

Mm-hmm.

It's shocking. It was it was they. The the our international reach is is pretty remarkable.

Well, I I keep feeling proud.

Not that exciting. I told you.

Well, it's it is, and I I do feel proud for our agencies in our country. I just hope that everything goes used. It gets used in our favor and not against our own country.

Right, and and the and the and and to step back a little bit about that. What was so— they, they genuinely, like, the officers, the Homeland Security investigative officers, generally, from my perspective, genuinely wanted to help this person. They wanted to help my client. I think they, I think they really, like, from as human beings, wanted to help my client. And but my client would not, did not want, did not, wasn't going to do it.

So what was the final result of the situation? The client didn't want to cooperate. You have a bad cop, good cop situation. You're observing, kind of having fun, hopefully. What was the final result?

I kept stopping them. I kept—

okay,

I kept pulling because I was there. I was able to pull my client out and say, all right, I need to talk to my client outside. And so I kept trying, and I made us— because I wanted to, halfway through I wanted her to feel comfortable. I left the building. I made her come with me to the car because I don't know what they're listening to. You know, you got to be, you know, and, and even though we have attorney-client privilege, you never know. I want her to feel comfortable. And I begged, and I told her, like, we could, we can line up all these benefits for you and your family if you, if you, if, if this is something you could, you could speak to. And she, she didn't, she didn't want to. I tried to give her the best— from a legal perspective, the best outcome for her would have been a— would have been a— would have been cooperating and all that. But she didn't see it that way. And I mean, that's everyone. Everyone has their own perspective.

Well, at least I, uh, I hope you had some fun.

I did, and I get to tell this fun story. Exactly. At the end, they at the end they just said the officer said here's our information call us if you if you wanna if you wanna talk and and I'm sure she's been removed I'm sure she's left the country at this point

oh okay

I I because if she hasn't she's probably being deported right now

mm-hmm Well, probably it's better to leave on your own than to get deported. Yeah. My other question, which I wanted to discuss with you, to hear your opinion, your knowledge as well. It's been also in the news about the Ukrainian program, the U4U, and also for a program, the TPS program, for those who fled that area of the world because of the war. What's the situation, if you know any details?

Right, so, so U4U and TPS for Ukrainians. So right now, a lot of people on U4U are applying for re-parole, and all those, all those cases are suddenly— have, have, have been stopped. They're not processing any re-parole, um, applications. So they say. And, you know, we have a, we have a, we have a good amount of Ukrainian clients, and they're all pretty much in the same boat. Um, TPS, same thing. Right now, you've— right now, TPS is good through October 2026, I think. Hmm. And so we don't know if it's going to be— it's really— there's really not a lot of There's really not a lot of certainty. It's a lot of speculation on what's going to happen. So we could look at when we're dealing— when we're looking at like TPS and parole for one country, we can see what's happened to other countries. And so we know that the Cuban, Haitian, Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, uh, parole, that was all canceled.

Mm-hmm.

And TPS for Venezuela was canceled. And so we could probably, even though those the courts are holding it up, but we could expect that the same should have will happen to every country that's currently almost every country that that that's that has TPS or does have some sort of some humanitarian protection. So. Right now, Ukraine specifically has— there has not been any movement against their programs, but they're not, they're not re-paroling people. And TPS is limited to those that entered before 20— before the June 2023, I think.

So

there's a lot of people here that came after that date that were paroled on the U4U that aren't eligible for TPS. But are, but, but so, so you have these 2 groups of people, TPS and U-4U. My, my suggestion has been to all of the above is to file for asylum as soon as you get, as before 1 year expires. File for asylum. So what we're doing is, so in our, in our, in our office, the, the issue is with employers that employ these people. Right. Because you come on— if you come on U-4U, on U-4U, you come legally with the parole document, you've been vetted, you come here and you have work authorization, you get a job. But now your work authorization is going to expire in April 2026, probably. And so— Or, or, or sooner. And USCIS isn't processing new applications. So you're gonna end up without work authorization. The employers, now their issue is, I need— this guy is one of the best workers I've ever had, or, you know, they'll say, and they need this Ukrainian worker, but they can't work. And what do we do? And so the first step is, so the asylum helps them because of the backlog. They could obtain work authorization based on their pending asylum, but at the same time, the employers are sponsoring the employees. for green cards through the PERM process. But the PERM— so, so what we're recommending employers is— but the PERM process takes about 3 years now.

Okay.

So it— so, and, and the person doesn't have status while it's pending. So the asylum is sort of a gap, uh, holdover gap, or, uh, a placeholder for lawful, lawful presence while it's pending. But then the third part is Excuse me. The third part is that the the last part is that they need to leave the country to obtain their actual green card. They have to consular process. They're not able to adjust status.

Okay.

So they can't get their green card here. So it's it's a tricky time for for everybody.

Well, that's very interesting. What do you think of the five million gold cards? They set up

the $5 million gold card.

Uh-huh.

I mean, I go there, they'll sell a lot of them. There's a lot of people with $5 million that would like to come to the US, but we already have a buy your green card process, the EB-5. So I'm not sure why we have— what the gold card is. We have 5, we're just changing the rate from $1 million to $5 million.

Well, we keep the $1 million as well, but we're just adding a new one. Yeah, it feels cooler.

Yeah, I don't know what the— it's definitely, if anything, Donald Trump knows how to do marketing. That is, uh,

yeah, he is great at marketing and PR.

He's a genius. And so that's a $5 million, uh, gold card. That's, that's just, just a marketing ploy.

Well, in EB-5, if my, uh, knowledge, uh, is correct, you need to invest in a business, you need to have running business, you have to, you have to have employees. It's not just you. You sent $1 million into your American account and you're getting it.

No, you have to invest the— you have to invest $1 million and create 10 US jobs.

Exactly.

But with the— but with the— they're gonna have to have some sort of— the, the gold card's gonna have to have some sort of similar— like, there's gonna have to be some rules. It's not like move $5 million to the US, get your gold card, and then move it out. They're not gonna let that— I, I hope, I hope they're gonna have to— the $5 million is gonna have to do something,

right?

Or maybe, or maybe they're just take— maybe they're just selling it. Maybe the new— the— I think actually the new thing, the $5 million one, is you basically pay the government $5 million. You know, you don't invest, you pay to the U.S. Treasury $5 million and you get a green card. So I think that's the difference. Right? So, but the million-dollar one with the regional center program, with the pooled investment, it's basically the same thing. You give a million dollars to, to a pooled investment. You're not owning it. You're not running a business or owning a business. You're not creating any jobs. You're not managing your business. You're, you're basically putting a million dollars into a business of pooled investors. They're building whatever they do. A lot, a lot of it's in real estate. They do these big massive projects with pooled EB-5 investment, and you get your money back in 5 years, and you get a green— and you have a green card. It's pretty similar, except they get their money back in the million-dollar one. The $5 million one is just going into the U.S. Treasury, which, I mean, why not?

Yeah, we gotta rebuild our roads and our, um, uh— I know that you are, um, quite actively involved in, um, in the immigration side, which supports employers in the medical field. And I think that, well, if my, again, knowledge is correct, I read that we are getting a lot of medical personnel from, let's say, Philippines or other countries.

Mm-hmm.

How is this segment right now due to all this overflow on the other sides?

So it's a good, it's a, it's a good question. So that part of immigration doesn't get impacted by this very much. There is a lot of scrutiny on the companies doing the, doing the sponsoring. There's a lot of scrutiny on the, on the employee, but, but the, but really That part of immigration has— there's been issues with it since COVID More, more, more of the issues have, have been backlog on visa availability over the last few years. And so, which they say stems from COVID even though COVID was 5 years ago, but we're still blaming it for things. I don't know. But, um, so there is a backlog of visa availability in the healthcare In, in, in the employment-based, any— anyone trying to get a green card through employment is running into issues.

Um, it's good that you mentioned about the backlog, and also, um, you mentioned about different immigration or non-immigration, uh, working visas, right? Um, are there any changes in how people are obtaining them, the rules, right, the, the requirements? And also, like, a side question to this one, um, are there any investigations? Because I have learned about quite a few, um, H-1B scam situations with the Indian workers in Silicon Valley.

Yeah, so H-1Bs, I mean, it's one of the most— it's one of the most, uh, the H-1B program in general is under a lot of scrutiny all the time. Um, you know, they raised the fees, they changed the lottery system a few years ago, and so there— it's a more, it's a more streamlined version. Um, I'm sure there's a lot of fraud, and I'm sure there's not a lot of fraud, but like anything, there's, there is fraud in that program. Um, there are investigations, there are companies being Shut down. There are companies being fined. There are companies being there are executives being arrested. Criminal charges against people for for violating committing fraud in the immigration process. Yeah, that happens all the time. If if you're familiar with you could contact Homeland Security Investigations would. might be interested in knowing about the fraud.

Uh, and you mentioned that the conditions or the requirements, they've, they've, they've been changed, uh, a few years ago for H-1B. What about other work visas in your, uh, in your practice?

So, so the, the requirements haven't so much as— just haven't changed that much. I mean, a big problem is that— oh geez— the government is having, the government is having issues Mm-hmm. The government, or the, the current immigration scheme that we're dealing with in the US, is the INA, the Immigration and Nationality Act, that was first enacted in 1950, in the 1950s, then updated in like the '60s, and then, and then bits and pieces added and taken away. But the overall, the scheme of things have not been changed in 70 years. 65, 70 years. And that's the bigger issue, is that we're dealing with a globe— we're dealing with a totally different kind of economy than we were 50 years

ago

or 75 years ago. And so the rules stay stagnant. The H-1B rules, they add some minor things here and there. The L-1 rules, the different types of temporary work visas. And we're always at, you know, companies have to pivot. If you're, if you're a farmer and you're doing H-2As, you have to just be ready that now this year the requirement's going to include some sort of income amount, or who knows, you know, they'll come up with something. Um, but generally the, the rules don't necessarily change that much for the different visas. The procedure changes. So the agencies that handle the— that handle the— the agencies that, that are giving immigration benefits, so it's USCIS, it's Department of Labor, it's the State Department with the visas, they're— they, they have a lot of leeway on, on how they manage these programs. Mm-hmm. So the way this— the way administrative law works, and this is an administrative laws. Congress passes a law, the Immigration and Nationality Act. These are gonna be the rules for immigration in the United States. Then the a— and they, and they give the agencies authority to manage those responsibilities.

Mm-hmm.

So, and, and the agencies come up with the practical, how do we practically accomplish this? Right?

Yeah.

So, and then they come up with how to make sure So we're seeing what we see is how to make sure that the law is being followed. So what we see is that the changes come in just making the procedure more difficult, making this procedure more. So for example, let's say let's say you're a person of extraordinary ability, and for those that don't know, a person of extraordinary ability, we have a we have a very. Nice system here where people that are at the top of the top of their field can get green cards based on their achievements in their field.

Yeah.

So they require— and part of that is either you can win one international prize like a Nobel Prize, or, or you could win a lesser award, and then you have to show you have 3— you, you show 3 out of these 10 things, right? So one of those, one of those 10 Is you could show that the person has— that the— that you have a substantial income based on your talent, right? So now the agency can redefine what substantial income means.

Mm-hmm.

Or they could say, what is a lesser award, right? So you're still the same regulation, but like an award that we sent in last year from, let's say, the, the, the English, uh, Artist Association Award for best, for best color, for best air color for an artist, right? Watercolor painting for an artist from, from London, right? That used to be sufficient evidence in the past. We might see that that's not sufficient evidence now, that they might argue that That is actually not an award that meets the requirements.

Okay.

That's what you see happens with a lot of— with the rules and regulations in administrative law with a change of policy at the executive. So with the new policies, that's what you— so in the H-1B sense, we see, you know, does a job qualify for H-1B? So like a computer programmer, There's a lot. That's the biggest H-1B job.

Mm-hmm.

You know, so does, does that qual— like, so you can see some people have associate's degrees and maybe they never got— maybe in the past a certificate of computer science would be enough to meet the requirement. Now you need to have a bachelor's, a bachelor's degree in computer science. It's like details like that. It's the devil's in the details.

Exactly. Well, I say the magic is in details. That's very interesting to keep an eye on all of these changes. And I mean, probably it adds you a lot of headache to deal with these constant changing changes in a way.

No, you don't know what's going to happen any given day. Every day we find out something new.

Well, that's exciting. Well, yeah, obviously it adds a lot of Frustration. Mr. Yanke, I wanted to discuss another, um, sort of a controversial topic, or I would say more of a topic which was used a lot in the media for, um, their own—

Don't get me started.

I would love to. Um, the topic— and the topic is, uh, when in a few states, not all of them, uh, they were allowing, uh, non-citizens to vote. First of all, if I wanted to ask if that is the truth or that is just speculation.

Yeah.

And if that is the truth, uh, how is that happening and why?

So yeah, I mean, it is a controversial topic. It's one of those topics that are used to bait certain debates. Um, but there, there have been municipalities that have allowed voting in local elections. So what that means is they're not— there's, there's, there's like 5 tiers of elections in this country.

Mm-hmm.

You have the federal elections, president, Congress, Senate. You have local state elections, governor, state senator. You have your county elections, which is, you know, county issues, property tax, You keep going down, you have city elections, and you can go even further down to local— local municipalities have their own elections sometimes, or on a ballot will be questions about local elections. So for example, we're allocating— like, we want to— they're electing a city representative for Fairfield Township in Ohio.

Okay.

Right? It's a small town in Ohio. This definitely didn't happen in Ohio. I think it was in— I think it was in New York, or they were letting local people vote locally.

Okay.

And so they, they made a rule in their township that you don't have to be a US citizen to vote, and they're allowed— towns are allowed to do that. Now the problem is, are they letting those people Enter the polls, and are they giving them an entire, an entire ballot? I don't know. I don't, I don't think. I mean, I don't know. I, I don't think so. I think they had separate ballots for people that, that couldn't prove their, their citizenship. But in the election, in elections in general, there's just a there's there's always a number. There's always a pieces of fraud. They take it very seriously. I mean, and once again, my expertise is in immigration law. Right. And so I see it from an immigration context. I have green card holders call me regularly— not regularly, it usually happens right after an election or before an election or nearby— where they've voted when they weren't supposed to. And that is a big problem. And then what happens is that the political parties— and this is, this is across the board, this is Democrat, Republican, they all— this is not one party, they all do this. Anyone who gets a driver's license gets, uh, will get a notice from the political parties saying that, go register to vote.

Mm-hmm.

Because they want you to— like, let's say you're a Republican, the Republicans want you to register as Republican, they want you to vote Republican. Or the Democrats want you to register as Democrat and vote Democrat, and so they'll they'll send these notices to people's houses. If you're a green card holder, you're new to the country, you just got your green card, you just received an official looking voter registration packet from the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. They they think that they're they they rightfully or they're not rightfully they shouldn't. They they they don't know better, but they vote. They go and they register to vote, and then they go vote.

But shouldn't they be in in the process of registration? Shouldn't they be stopped? Is that little?

I I don't know how that happens.

Yeah,

I don't know how it happens. I don't know why the election why. And then when you vote, if you're not citizen voting, you've now. Claim to be a U.S. citizen, but you're not. It's a false claim to U.S. citizenship, and you're barred from ever becoming a U.S. citizen. It's a big problem for them.

That's very interesting. Okay.

Yeah. So it's a big, big problem for them. But so that's the that's the that's one of the big issues we see with voting. But the voting the the the the Voting where they're allowing people that are not U.S. citizens, undocumented immigrants, anybody. They some municipalities have made. I don't know why. I mean, it's probably because the local municipalities they become so over. They're so they might be sixty seventy percent undocumented people that those people deserve a voice in what happens locally. I guess. That's the rationale. Is it, is it good? Everyone— what's right or wrong is everyone's opinion. I don't know.

Well, but if we play by the law, right, is it gray, uh, or it's black and white in terms of the vote and the citizenship?

So it's a good question. I don't know where Because, because the Constitution, right? So, so we're a republic. So the US Constitution only is federal law, and the 9th Amendment leaves everything else to the states.

Mm-hmm.

And so if it's not a federal issue, so, so voting is And, and if, if the state government allows it and the, and the local government enacts it, then, then there's no— that, you know, it's, it's still great. It's gray again. Like, we could probably make an argument both ways. It's my job is to make an argument both ways. It's what lawyers do.

Yeah.

And then we sort of figure out which one, which one wins. But that's— but it's, it's— if, if you want, states' rights is very important in, in American culture to a lot of people.

Mm-hmm.

And so to those people, they might— they— but there's, there's— you'll find there's a lot of, there's a lot of— with these ideologies such as states' rights There's a lot of back— there's a lot of back and forth, right? What, you know, this— some state does something you don't like, then you don't like states' rights anymore. Or you want open borders until, until, until something bad happens to you. It's like all these policies. Now, from a legal perspective, should a municipality be allowed to let locals who are not citizens vote? I don't— I, I don't see I mean, I could see why that could be. I could see why it would be. It would— the issue would be, like I said, are they handing them a ballot that has other election— other elections on it that they're not allowed to vote in? If they're doing that, I bet that seems illegal to me.

But why do, uh, why do you think Um, well, like myself or quite a few people in, let's say, my circle, uh, we, we have this belief that the vote, it should be only for a citizen, whether it's local, municipal, state, federal. Uh, but now that you're mentioning these little loopholes, let's call them this way, um, why do we have this belief But at the same time, the reality in, in the books, uh, is a little bit different.

And because that's— see, so, so, I mean, because the, the, uh, the— there's a lot of laws, right? And like I'm— like I was saying, the local municipalities can make their own rules if this— if the county and then the state and If every layer allows it. But the federal government can't— can't block that rule.

Even if it's against the federal—

The federal government can't force states to, to, to make election rules. The federal government could force states like, like, you have to be a US citizen to vote in federal elections.

Okay,

so then no state can allow a non-US citizen to vote in a federal election. So, but that— so that's black, like, that's pretty black and white. You can't allow a non-citizen to vote in a federal election. But a state election, if a state courthouse— if a state— if a state legislature and the governor agree that they want to let non-citizens vote in state elections, the state's more than welcome to do that. It's not a federal issue. The federal government can't enforce— that's not a— that's a state issue. There's no— the federal government has no right to, to like interfere in that, in, in the state, in the state's elections.

Well, if the state allows that, which to me is just doesn't make any common sense, but, um, No state

allows it. No state allows it.

I think we've, we've had issues in California like that when people—

Only some, only a few municipalities, some small cities have we seen actual like legal voting for non— for, for, for non-citizens.

Well, I've been getting information, um, and we were talking about the presidential elections, uh, about non- documented, um, or, um, non-citizens voting, uh, for the president, uh, in California, uh, and also in New Mexico. Uh, I haven't researched any other states, uh, yet, um, but that's what I've, I've gathered so far. And that was quite interesting to me. Why is that happening? How is that normal? Um, that's why I'm discussing with

you. They find— but all these things are sort of checked. I mean, the, the best, the best The best information surrounding voter fraud and voter— and just the way the voting fraud is investigated is following the 2020 election, because there were never more lawsuits filed surrounding voter fraud than after the 2020 election when Donald Trump lost the election and there was this massive claim of voter fraud.

Mm-hmm.

And they sued in 7, 8 different states. And in not one of those states were they able to prove voter fraud in court.

Mm-hmm.

So they, they say there's a lot of it, but the reality is that when it came to, when it came to actually putting your money where your mouth is, basically like, okay, show us the fraud, they weren't able to do

it.

So it's a very, it's a very interesting topic, voter fraud. It's one of those topics that, that get— and, and, and that's why the legal system is here, because it's a robust process that requires transparency from everybody.

Mm-hmm.

When you're in court, the rules of procedure, the rules of evidence, there's no, there's no games like the media. We're in the news, we're online. It's it's just fact. All court is only dealing with facts.

It

doesn't matter what you say. If you can't back it up by a fact, it's not real. It's hearsay. And so that's why the court system is is the way it is. It's it's it's a little it's a little crazy. People try. I mean, you've experienced the court system. You know how. ridiculous it is getting through courts, but it's designed that way to get to the truth.

Well, I see it, um, as we are a capitalist country, I see it, uh, as, um, more possibilities for business, uh, for lawyers. That's why the system is designed this way. And I, I don't mind it, um, as long as we have lawyers who are actually doing the job like yourself, because I've spoke with a few and I don't know why they decided to get a license if they're not really practicing, but it's a separate topic. Yeah. Another thing which I wanted to discuss with you, and we're getting back to talent visas or immigration or non-immigration visas, we've witnessed a little bit of, again, another controversial situation with transgender athletes in female sports. And also with Hollywood, there were transgender actors, actresses, whatever. I don't know how to explain correctly. So a born man becoming a lady actress, but competing for the Oscar among the ladies, right? So for the Best Actress award. Um, and, uh, first, feel free to express your opinion on that. That'll be very interesting. And secondly, when you have clients applying for either O-1 or EB-1 in sports, or do we have any requirements related to this, uh, um, situation?

So, so I'll— yeah, so that's an excellent question, actually. I have not, I have not come across A transgender talent visa, an EB-1A or an O-1 national. I haven't. I haven't had any clients like that, so I don't. I haven't heard any stories about it either. I wonder. I'm sure somebody's experienced. I'm sure someone's tried it. I wonder how that's gone. I mean, the federal government policy is I think the genders. I think gender is defined at birth, and you can't. I think that's from a federal government standpoint. Now, the Oscars, they should let— they should do whatever they want because they're Hollywood and they're nuts. And I don't really— it doesn't bother me if the men are women or whatever. The athlete thing though, I just don't— I just don't understand how it's even a debate. I mean, you have men who are who, even if they transition to being women, there's a reason we have separate men and women's sports, and that's biological. There's no, like, there's the muscle development on a man is very different than that of a woman. The movement of a man is diff— like, even if you, even if you change your gender, those, those biological things are still going to be there. Those— it's just unfair. I, I, I, I, I don't get the— I don't understand Why it's even a debate to let to let boys play girls' sports. We have the debate in my kids' school district. They're not letting the girls. They're not letting people. Fortunately, they're not letting. I'd be if if my daughter was playing sport. My daughter plays soccer. She's fifteen. She plays soccer. Okay.

If are you planning to buy the team?

No, high school. There's no team. That's the only way she'll make it professional. If I buy a team, maybe she'll make it

exactly. That's what I meant.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, she's not gonna play professionally. But but if if another team had a had a boy saying that they're a girl playing. I'd be afraid for my daughter to play. She could get— she could get hurt. If you have— if you have— if you have a— if you have a, a transgender girl on another team, just— they're not physically— it's a different physical makeup,

right?

No matter what you say about, like, the emotional— whether or not people should be— just in sports, it's dangerous.

Mm-hmm.

It's just a dangerous— it just, it doesn't make any sense to me that that whole— that the, the policy is there.

Right, right. But from, um, your legal and, and the, the, the process, right, from this perspective, if let's say you, in theory, you have a client from another country and that client is an athlete, uh, a transgender athlete, like we had a champion in boxing, uh, in Olympics in France, right? And this athlete is Olympic champion, but he's a transitioned, right? If you gather the documents and you apply for either O-1 or EB-1 for this athlete, would the athlete qualify? Because it's he's not a or or she or he whatever. It's not a citizen. It's a foreign national, and this athlete is holding the title. But the way the title was won. Is this controversial? Would we get the approval or, or not? What, what's your theory? I

mean, I think that's such an interesting question. So, so let's stick with the boxing analogy. So we have a, we have a, we have a boxer, let's say from France. They are a male at birth and they've transitioned to female. Then they become the French national women's boxer. They win the title as a French national. And so, you know, as a lawyer, I work with the evidence that I'm— that I could present, right? If France is recognizing that individual as the women's title holder, boxing title holder, then I'm going to recognize that person as the French boxing title holder.

Okay,

I'm not because I mean that's not my decision on who's the boxing title holder,

right?

So would I? I would submit that petition. Now the question is, I think I would argue that the U.S. government has to recognize that also, just from a practical matter of our of a treaty with just as as as our you know. They recognize the US boxing champion is a woman. Whoever the female boxing champion of the US is recognized around the world. The French national boxing champion woman is recognized. I mean, if France— is that what happened in France? Does France have a, have, have a national champion who's a—

It, it was, uh, I think Algerian, uh, athlete and Taiwanese.

Oh, I mean, that was controversial that they don't— they don't— we don't know if she's actually We don't— we're not sure.

Well, my question is not about making sure whether they are or not, but if in theory, if there is such a case.

In theory, in theory, I mean, in theory, I would say that they should get the— they should be eligible for the EB-1A. Um, I would definitely feel comfortable filing that petition because, you know, because every petition is, is, is, is just a petition, right, for any— anybody, any— anyone with talent.

Right. But when you have the competition as a requirement, right, the world champion or Olympic, um, and the person born one way but competes in the other division, um, how is that working with the documents?

Just because the— So, so the document is provided by the state of France. Back to our France boxing, like, the person isn't creating that document out of nothing.

Mm-hmm.

That's being generated. They're not, they're not committing any fraud from a document perspective.

Mm-hmm.

I mean, did they, did they lie about their gender? I mean, if they committed fraud in obtaining that, then, but if it's openly known and the rules of France are that they're going to allow that kind of thing, I mean, that person's going to kill somebody. But if like, if they're going, you know, if they're going to allow that and that person gets the title, and that person has the belt, we're going to present it to the US government as official— as an official award, right?

So again, in, in theory, uh, if, if it happens like this, whether it's France or it's Olympic Games which happened, right?

Yeah, but we might see an interesting change. We might see some interesting petitions in the future.

Yeah, but in the US, uh, if my memory serves me well, uh, our president announced that, uh, men are not allowed in women's sports. So basically, if I understand it correctly, legally in the US, in the US, the requirement is different. If you can fight girls in France, you can do it.

The immigration question is not about the rules of boxing, right? The, the immigration services don't look into the rules of the sport. Like, let's say it's hockey, right? We have an international hockey phenom who's getting a green card as being one of the top hockey players. Mm-hmm. It doesn't matter what the rules of hockey are. It's just that the, the International Hockey Organization or the National Hockey Organization recognizes that this is a person of extraordinary ability in that field.

Mm-hmm.

So if we're doing, you know, if, if, if let's say we're just men's boxing, right? Just you're having it, you have the, the international The national, the French national boxing champion, heavyweight champion, right? If he comes with a certificate that says he is the heavyweight champion of France, the vetting process doesn't include what is. All you have to, all you really have to prove is that the organization who gives it, so let's say it's the French National Boxing Association, they have to be a legitimate organization. And so, but after the government's not looking at the rules of, you know, who's allowed to fight, what the weight limits are, what the glove weights are, you know, in boxing there's all kinds of rules.

Yeah.

Their rules might— their glove— the glove weight rules in France might be different than the US, right? So they're not— that, that's not part of the, part of the vetting process, but that Part of the analysis doesn't include the rules of the sport. It's just that they won that award from a that it's a national award.

Well, that's very interesting. I was just you know analyzing that in my mind.

Victor.

Yeah, yeah. Well, you know, I got really interested about becoming a lawyer myself. So

I keep saying that you should be a lawyer.

Once you said I shouldn't.

Well, I'll tell you something. I'll tell you what I tell everyone. The best part about being a lawyer is telling people you're a lawyer. There's like a certain risk after that. It's the worst job. No one, no one likes lawyers.

Well, it depends how good and respected is the lawyer, I would say. But, uh, you definitely have a point. Um, my last question, and again it entails some spiciness to it. We have this situation which we've already talked about with ICE students, and we have another side of this whole thing, the hatred between those who are supporting Palestine, Israel, also ICE deporting those who are pro-Palestine and doing some wild stuff. What's happening in this domain? Because you definitely have more information, and, you know, I don't trust the mainstream media.

Yeah, so I mean, this is a topic that's near and dear to me, as Israel is an important topic of mine in my life. But I'm also conflicted on this. I mean, it's a disgrace what the universities have allowed to happen on their campuses. I mean, it's a massive— what's happening on the university campuses is just It's a shame and it's embarrassing. And the leadership at these places, I don't know how they, how they come out in the morning and like how they show their face because they can't manage their organizations properly. And they're not in there and they have harbored these, this, this violent type of protest based on, on really nothing. At the same time, I don't like to see freedom of speech impeded. We have the First Amendment, and while I definitely don't agree with the speech because it's a slippery slope, and, and, and one of the famous— one of the most famous free speech cases is an ACLU case Where this is probably in the '60s, where neo-Nazis were marching through Skokie, Illinois. And Skokie, Illinois had a large population of Holocaust survivors, and the Nazis were going to march through, through Skokie. And they— and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and One of the defenders, one of the, the prosec— one of the, the Supreme Court— one, one of the Supreme Court members at the time, and I can't remember his name.

That's okay.

He, he was one of the prosecutors, prosecutors at the Nuremberg Trials. So there's 9 Supreme Court justices, 8 of them voted for to allow the march. Free speech.

Mm-hmm.

In his dissent, this one justice who had been 20 years earlier before this, or 15, 20, had been a, had been a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, or the trials of the Nazis in Germany. He's— he said that they shouldn't be allowed to march. And so Free speech is a difficult topic. It's a difficult, it's a difficult thing to, to, to discuss, and, and the free speech debate will go on forever. Personally, I think we shouldn't infringe public free speech. Now, the free speech debate in this country in general, and I, and I'm turning your question on into it, some— I'm answering it with totally different

Well, you're a lawyer, that's what you do.

But that's— that's— to answer your question about the students being arrested and deported on campus, I think it's wrong. I don't— I don't like those students. I don't like what they say. But I also— the federal government should not be— should not be taking people off the street like that. We should combat ideas with ideas. I like the idea of defunding Harvard University because they're not protecting their students. That's a, I mean, so that's a, that's a valid way of the government dealing with universities that don't want to take responsibility for, for, for what their students are doing or don't want to, because those, because the university should have kicked these students out. Because you're entitled to say whatever you want. That's free speech. But you're not entitled for everyone to have to listen to you.

Right.

And the universities are giving these people a platform. If this— if the universities wouldn't give these people a platform, they would have no— no, they'd be screaming into the void. They wouldn't have a— they wouldn't have a— have a Columbia Square if Columbia didn't allow them to do this. They wouldn't have, they wouldn't have anywhere to do it, and it would just be done. And, and what issues—

what would be the argument for the university not to allow them? Because you can argue back that you are limiting free speech.

So the university can— for the university has to allow them to speak, right? They have to allow them to have free speech. Do they have to allow them to, to intimidate other students? As they're— do they, do they have to allow them to overtake a square, right? What they've done is they have— they make these encampments, right? And then they block off a part of the campus so other students aren't allowed there. That— students don't have a right to just take over part of a campus. It's not like— that's not free speech. You're impeding everyone else's speech.

Mm-hmm.

So, so the universities are not— are But they, but they, but they allow it. And so, so they have to allow, they have to, you have to, you can't impede on people's speech on the, at universities or anywhere else. But you also are infringing on the rest of the campus's rights on the, on the remainder of the students, the Jewish students who are being intimidated and yelled at. Their rights are, So the university is ignoring their right to safely learn and participate in the, in the educational process, in the university process, like everyone else. I mean, that's a— that— I mean, that's a civil rights violation if I've ever heard of one. I'm not a civil rights lawyer, but it's— see, but the universities don't. And that's, that's the scary part, is, is that because it's happening to Jews Then it's okay. But if if if they were not letting black people into the into these squares, if they were impeding the education of other minorities, this university you would never the universities would never allow it.

Mm-hmm.

But so that's my answer about the about the university. So I don't think that it's an immigration issue. I don't I don't like that they are deporting these people. Based on their what they say, I don't like it. I don't want that to. There are there are other better ways to deal with it, and and the reason I don't like it is because if they're doing it to this person, it's only a matter of time till they're doing it to me.

Well, you're not pro Hamas, right? So

yeah, but I'm pro the next the next president doesn't like people that are pro Israel. And so then we're deporting pro-Israel people, right?

But they can't deport a citizen.

Yeah, I mean, they— it's only a matter of time. It's all— it all— this is how— this is how they end up with— this is how it ends up in that realm. Once we break the rules, there are no rules. So the First Amendment allows freedom of speech. If we're not allowing freedom of speech for one person because we don't like what they're saying, then that rule doesn't exist anymore, and we're all in trouble. So we have to—we have to respect the freedom of speech, but we have there's other there's other better ways to deal with it. That's my—that's my take on that one. That's—that's in general is it—is it tricky? I get back to my rant on on.

Well, that's a very interesting take, very in-depth, and indeed it's, it's a very tricky topic. It's, you know, it's when the right comes together with a responsibility, and sometimes people just abuse the right and have no responsibility.

Right. Yeah, so there are limits to free speech. And so that's what I was gonna say earlier, is free speech is such an— is a very interesting topic because we hear a lot about free speech and From on companies, Twitter, free speech on Twitter. You don't have a you don't have a right to free speech on Twitter. No, no one has a right to. You don't have a right to free speech anywhere. That's that's private. You only have a free speech in public in public places. And so, and and Twitter is a privately held company. The website's owned by somebody. Elon Musk now owns it, right? Elon Musk owns Twitter. He could say and do whatever he wants on Twitter. Previously, the previous owners can say and do whatever they want. Facebook or Instagram or all the owners of the company dictate what's allowed to and not allowed to be said there. So that's not really a freedom of— that's a big part of the freedom of speech debate has landed in that, in that domain of, of, of like where—

yeah,

of social media. That there's— you have no right to freedom of speech on any social media platform. Those are private, those are private platforms. Mm-hmm. You— the owners get to decide what goes on there. The, the, uh, freedom of speech comes into play where the government is allowing one speech versus another, or they're impeding someone's right to speech and assembly, meaning, meaning, uh, protest. So that's, that's a big part of the debate that people, people are very stuck on the social media part of the debate when that's really— it's really a, a, it's a red herring. It's got no— it's a logical fallacy because those— there's no freedom of speech in any of those, in any of those domains.

But if the company is a U.S. company, shouldn't they comply with the, the laws? Hence

The freedom of speech laws are only— the Constitution is only limiting the government. It doesn't limit— like, um, what's a good example of it? Like, I mean, that— I mean, that's why the internet is such a unique, a unique problem, because it is privately held.

Well, they are also publicly traded, so public

space. It's quasi-public space. But like, let's say you own a piece of land in the middle of— you own a property in New York.

Mm-hmm.

And there's freedom of assembly, right? Freedom of speech includes freedom of assembly, freedom to get together and march and protest government action. If you have private property, people can't just come protest on your property.

Mm-hmm.

Because it's private property. So the, the, the, the restrict— the law, the freedom of speech laws are not impeding. It's not— it's the government. It's a government impeding. It's that the government is not allowed to— it's protecting ourselves from the tyranny of government,

right?

That's what the— that's what the Bill of Rights does, is we're being protected from a tyrannical government. And so private companies don't have that obligation until we pass some laws. We have a non-functioning government is the problem.

It's

very hard for laws to get passed in the US, especially on controversial topics. The internet needs to have a, have a changed regulation scheme because it is a public space. Right. There is a, there is a public space. And as a parent, I'm constantly navigating this with my children. about what spaces they're allowed to be in and what spaces they're not. And like, and like, you want them on— I don't want my kids on TikTok. I don't want my kids on, on different things, but I do want them on reading the news. I do want them, I do want them knowing how to navigate the, the internet. The internet's— it's a part— you have to use the internet today.

Right.

But, but we can't— the, the— this is where we've, we've, we've failed as a, as a society. In that we, we've no longer are we having discourse that we could come up with some sort of reasonable way to regulate this. So, I mean, in the past we did it to TV. We forced it. TV used to have to, like any political show that was on TV, there had to be an equal amount of political time given to another, to another. And those rules all went out the window. I mean, maybe it's time to bring that back. I, I don't know.

That's, that's a good idea. That's a good, good point because multiple, many medias, they are owned either by one party or by another.

Yeah, I mean, I'm pretty liberal and so I get my news, my, my algorithm on the internet is so skewed. No matter what website I go to, I go to Google, Instagram, Facebook, Reddit, you name it, they're always showing me liberal stuff. If I want to see a conservative viewpoint, I need to, I need to actively seek it out. I need to actively go to like foxnews.com.

Okay.

Right? So every now and again I do that to see that, to remind myself that I'm right. And, and so, and so, and so, but that everyone's seeing the same thing. We're all in an echo chamber.

Mm-hmm.

And so we have to— there has to be some sort of— and it takes government intervention. The marketplace is not going to solve this problem. The marketplace of ideas and the marketplace is a— is a— the last thing I'll say about this, the last thing I'll say is we have a big debate on what government's role should be in general.

Mm-hmm.

And this is, this is something I heard recently and it explains things very well. We— the government could have never created Google or the iPhone.

Mm-hmm.

They could have never come up with the innovation and the, and the, the methodology and the design of these products that are just remarkable. They're— I mean, no government could have come up with the iPhone. It takes a team of experts and, and creativity at a level that a government can't possibly imagine.

Right.

That's the magic of the marketplace. None of these, none of these companies, Google, Apple, no matter what, could have created the internet though. It took the government to create the internet, and that is the backbone of all of these products. None, no one, no government, no business entity would have been able to make that kind of investment To— so we have the internet and we have the applications that are run on the internet,

right?

It's a government— it's a government-private partnership.

Mm-hmm.

And that is the magic of the internet. It's the magic of American society in general, of the American economy, is the government-business partnership. The government builds an infrastructure, builds massive roads and everything, And over the last 40 years, we've seen a deterioration of the government-business partnership in that we've tried to pull the government away from being innovative. The government research and the government— we don't— we're not— we're not those big ideas. Putting someone on the moon— there would be no SpaceX shooting rockets if JFK didn't say we're gonna put someone on the moon. Because the technology behind it, it's just, it's way too expensive for any individual to deal, to be able to, no matter how, no matter how rich you are or no matter how. So, so we have to get back to that infrastructure building, that put our money in the right places, and that, that, uh, I could talk about this for days, I guess.

Well, that's fantastic. Uh, we can have multiple episodes on that. Uh, it's, it's, um, it's very interesting for me to learn and, uh, Um, well, I guess thanks to you, I also get more rooted in, in the American society, so I can understand better how these details work and, you know, the culture and everything. So thank you for that, and thank you for this, uh, incredible episode.

Thank you for having me, Victor. Thank you so much for having me.