Category: reason

ICE Scam Leads to Student Deportations 

More than 250 foreign students have been arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in a sting operation against “pay-to-stay visa mills”—fake universities that handle transcripts and paperwork so that foreign students can maintain their visa status without actually attending college.

But sources connected to the students say the operation, which involved ICE setting up its own fake university, lured in a number of students who had done nothing wrong. Some of those students were even tricked into quitting legitimate schools in favor of the feds’ fake university. Meanwhile, real visa mills—the operation’s supposed target—remain unaffected.

The latest chapter in the story began in 2015, when ICE decided to crack down on visa mills. The agency created the University of Northern New Jersey, a fake college that held no classes and offered no instruction. If students paid recruiters between $3,000 and $12,000, they could “enroll” and show that they were taking the course load needed to satisfy the requirements of their F-1 student visas and, more importantly, to obtain Curricular Practical Training (CPT) status.

Usually, F-1 recipients are limited to 20 hours of weekly on-campus employment. But CPT status allows those who have completed one year of academic work to take jobs off campus if the work is integral to their area of study. For instance, nursing students who need practical training to complete the requirements for their degrees can work in a hospital and get paid for it.

The New York Times reported in 2016 that some University of Northern New Jersey students genuinely didn’t know what they were getting into. Many students had obtained jobs but didn’t win an H-1B visa in the annual lottery, which gets twice as many applicants as there are visas handed out each year. So the CPT became a stopgap way of obtaining work status until they could try again for an H-1B.

The sensible policy response would have been for Congress to raise or scrap the annual H-1B cap so that foreign students with job offers are assured of work authorization. This would instantly throw all the visa mills out of business. But given the enthusiasm for enforcement, ICE decided to play detective via elaborate stings.

The 2015 New Jersey sting resulted in over 1,000 students losing their visas and being thrown out of the country. But according to Rahul Reddy, a Texas attorney who specializes in employment-based immigration law, the primary targets were professional recruiters acting as middlemen between students and fraudulent universities.

ICE’s latest sting, which started just as the University of Northern New Jersey one was wrapping up, is different. This time, Reddy insists, the agency went to elaborate lengths to target students themselves.

In 2016, ICE created the University of Farmington, which was physically located on Northwestern Highway in Southeast Michigan—a major commercial thoroughfare with doctor’s offices, real estate companies, restaurants, and more. Its website billed the now-disbanded university as a STEM school offering various graduate degrees and claimed it had a history dating back to the 1950s. Notably, it also claimed that the school was Students and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) approved, referring to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) list of all the schools that immigration authorities recognize. Separately, ICE enlisted an accreditation agency to list the school on its website, according to the Detroit Free Press‘ Niraj Warikoo, who also found that the university was incorporated by Michigan’s Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.

All this meant that a foreign student who looked at the university website would have had no reason to suspect that it was an illicit visa mill. ICE even coordinated with DHS to ensure that the enrolled students would show up on the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), a federal database that lists all foreign students in good standing with immigration authorities. For foreign students looking for an American education, SEVIS is the ultimate seal of official approval.

With all this architecture in place, ICE agents impersonating university officials started recruiting students by offering them cheaper courses and quicker processing of their CPT status, says Jay Talluri, president of the Telugu Association of North America, an Indo-American group. Undercover ICE officials also offered a hefty commission to students, mostly from India, who recruited their friends. In all, it managed to enroll 600 people.

Accepting the commission was clearly illegal, since the terms of the F-1 visa bar foreign students from working off-campus for pay, especially in areas unrelated to their studies. But ICE didn’t spare those on the other end of those recruitment efforts, either. It terminated the SEVIS authorization of everyone enrolled in the University of Farmington on the evening of January 29, 2019. Early the next morning, it started making house arrests.

By December, 250 people had been snagged. (The rest of the student body has likely fled the country.) About 80 percent of the 250 arrestees were granted “voluntary” departure and banned from the United States for many years. Another 10 percent are being deported. The rest are contesting their removal orders.

ICE claimed in its indictment that “each of the foreign citizens who ‘enrolled’ and made ‘tuition’ payments to the University” knew that the program was “not approved by the DHS” and was “illegal.” This is simply not true. The university was listed as accredited on state and federal sites. Moreover, the DHS gave enrollees SEVIS authorization, which should not have been possible if it weren’t an authorized school.

Indeed, Warikoo notes that some of the students jumped to the University of Farmington from schools that had lost accreditation for any number of reasons. They likely thought switching would allow them to fulfill their visa requirements. (It’s hard to say for sure, because none of the students are talking to the press.) Others actually tried to transfer out of the University of Farmington when they realized that it was not holding classes and they were making no progress toward their diplomas. But ICE has not spared them either.

Even more troubling is that ICE actually lured some students from legitimate universities with promises of cheaper courses. Foreign students are particularly vulnerable to such pitches, because their options to work and pay for their education are severely restricted by visa rules. Hence, many rely on families back home for support and are always on the lookout for ways to reduce the burden on their loved ones. ICE collected millions of dollars in fees from these students, Warikoo reported, and won’t say whether it has any intention of reimbursing them. (ICE did not respond to requests for comment for this story.)

The fundamental question is what the government hoped to accomplish with this elaborate scheme. Even from a pure enforcement standpoint, wouldn’t it make more sense to go after existing visa mills rather than launching new fake institutions? Instead of turning students into recruiters by throwing temptation in their way, ICE could have gone after professional recruiters. Nothing the agency has done so far has put a single illegitimate university out of business.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2xxXHib
via IFTTT

ICE Scam Leads to Student Deportations 

More than 250 foreign students have been arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in a sting operation against “pay-to-stay visa mills”—fake universities that handle transcripts and paperwork so that foreign students can maintain their visa status without actually attending college.

But sources connected to the students say the operation, which involved ICE setting up its own fake university, lured in a number of students who had done nothing wrong. Some of those students were even tricked into quitting legitimate schools in favor of the feds’ fake university. Meanwhile, real visa mills—the operation’s supposed target—remain unaffected.

The latest chapter in the story began in 2015, when ICE decided to crack down on visa mills. The agency created the University of Northern New Jersey, a fake college that held no classes and offered no instruction. If students paid recruiters between $3,000 and $12,000, they could “enroll” and show that they were taking the course load needed to satisfy the requirements of their F-1 student visas and, more importantly, to obtain Curricular Practical Training (CPT) status.

Usually, F-1 recipients are limited to 20 hours of weekly on-campus employment. But CPT status allows those who have completed one year of academic work to take jobs off campus if the work is integral to their area of study. For instance, nursing students who need practical training to complete the requirements for their degrees can work in a hospital and get paid for it.

The New York Times reported in 2016 that some University of Northern New Jersey students genuinely didn’t know what they were getting into. Many students had obtained jobs but didn’t win an H-1B visa in the annual lottery, which gets twice as many applicants as there are visas handed out each year. So the CPT became a stopgap way of obtaining work status until they could try again for an H-1B.

The sensible policy response would have been for Congress to raise or scrap the annual H-1B cap so that foreign students with job offers are assured of work authorization. This would instantly throw all the visa mills out of business. But given the enthusiasm for enforcement, ICE decided to play detective via elaborate stings.

The 2015 New Jersey sting resulted in over 1,000 students losing their visas and being thrown out of the country. But according to Rahul Reddy, a Texas attorney who specializes in employment-based immigration law, the primary targets were professional recruiters acting as middlemen between students and fraudulent universities.

ICE’s latest sting, which started just as the University of Northern New Jersey one was wrapping up, is different. This time, Reddy insists, the agency went to elaborate lengths to target students themselves.

In 2016, ICE created the University of Farmington, which was physically located on Northwestern Highway in Southeast Michigan—a major commercial thoroughfare with doctor’s offices, real estate companies, restaurants, and more. Its website billed the now-disbanded university as a STEM school offering various graduate degrees and claimed it had a history dating back to the 1950s. Notably, it also claimed that the school was Students and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) approved, referring to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) list of all the schools that immigration authorities recognize. Separately, ICE enlisted an accreditation agency to list the school on its website, according to the Detroit Free Press‘ Niraj Warikoo, who also found that the university was incorporated by Michigan’s Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.

All this meant that a foreign student who looked at the university website would have had no reason to suspect that it was an illicit visa mill. ICE even coordinated with DHS to ensure that the enrolled students would show up on the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), a federal database that lists all foreign students in good standing with immigration authorities. For foreign students looking for an American education, SEVIS is the ultimate seal of official approval.

With all this architecture in place, ICE agents impersonating university officials started recruiting students by offering them cheaper courses and quicker processing of their CPT status, says Jay Talluri, president of the Telugu Association of North America, an Indo-American group. Undercover ICE officials also offered a hefty commission to students, mostly from India, who recruited their friends. In all, it managed to enroll 600 people.

Accepting the commission was clearly illegal, since the terms of the F-1 visa bar foreign students from working off-campus for pay, especially in areas unrelated to their studies. But ICE didn’t spare those on the other end of those recruitment efforts, either. It terminated the SEVIS authorization of everyone enrolled in the University of Farmington on the evening of January 29, 2019. Early the next morning, it started making house arrests.

By December, 250 people had been snagged. (The rest of the student body has likely fled the country.) About 80 percent of the 250 arrestees were granted “voluntary” departure and banned from the United States for many years. Another 10 percent are being deported. The rest are contesting their removal orders.

ICE claimed in its indictment that “each of the foreign citizens who ‘enrolled’ and made ‘tuition’ payments to the University” knew that the program was “not approved by the DHS” and was “illegal.” This is simply not true. The university was listed as accredited on state and federal sites. Moreover, the DHS gave enrollees SEVIS authorization, which should not have been possible if it weren’t an authorized school.

Indeed, Warikoo notes that some of the students jumped to the University of Farmington from schools that had lost accreditation for any number of reasons. They likely thought switching would allow them to fulfill their visa requirements. (It’s hard to say for sure, because none of the students are talking to the press.) Others actually tried to transfer out of the University of Farmington when they realized that it was not holding classes and they were making no progress toward their diplomas. But ICE has not spared them either.

Even more troubling is that ICE actually lured some students from legitimate universities with promises of cheaper courses. Foreign students are particularly vulnerable to such pitches, because their options to work and pay for their education are severely restricted by visa rules. Hence, many rely on families back home for support and are always on the lookout for ways to reduce the burden on their loved ones. ICE collected millions of dollars in fees from these students, Warikoo reported, and won’t say whether it has any intention of reimbursing them. (ICE did not respond to requests for comment for this story.)

The fundamental question is what the government hoped to accomplish with this elaborate scheme. Even from a pure enforcement standpoint, wouldn’t it make more sense to go after existing visa mills rather than launching new fake institutions? Instead of turning students into recruiters by throwing temptation in their way, ICE could have gone after professional recruiters. Nothing the agency has done so far has put a single illegitimate university out of business.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2xxXHib
via IFTTT

Brickbat: Expensive Lesson

San Francisco officials have agreed to pay $369,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by a journalist whose home and office were illegally searched by police. Cops were trying the find the confidential source who leaked the results of an investigation into the death of the city’s former public defender to Bryan Carmody. California’s shield law protects journalists from such searches.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2xwPDye
via IFTTT

Brickbat: Expensive Lesson

San Francisco officials have agreed to pay $369,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by a journalist whose home and office were illegally searched by police. Cops were trying the find the confidential source who leaked the results of an investigation into the death of the city’s former public defender to Bryan Carmody. California’s shield law protects journalists from such searches.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2xwPDye
via IFTTT

Coronavirus Economics

As the saying goes, “Nothing is certain but death and taxes.” I would add, “and anti-price gouging legislation in times of crisis.” Yet price increases in the face of sudden shortages are an important impetus to restore supply and demand market conditions that are closer to normal.

As many of us have experienced in the past few weeks, buying toilet paper, hand sanitizer, and face masks has become more difficult and more expensive. The reason, of course, is that unusually large numbers of people are rushing to buy these and other products that might prevent the spread of the new coronavirus. It’s normal for people to stock up on supplies during crises. The immediate results are empty store shelves, soon followed by higher prices.

When this happens, politicians around the globe demand an end to the price hikes. The goal is to improve consumer access to the products now in higher demand.

In New Jersey, for instance, at least 10 retailers have received warnings from the government to stop their so-called price gouging. Similarly, the French government announced that it won’t tolerate such price increases and will soon decree a price ceiling on face masks and hand sanitizers. In a move guaranteed to worsen and lengthen the shortages, French officials are even going so far as to appropriate stocks of masks. Just this week, the Department of Justice threatened to act against “bad actors” who raise prices during this time of panic. The list goes on and on.

While well-intentioned, such heavy-handed intervention is a mistake on many levels.

First, the rise in prices conveys nothing more than the unusually intense surge in demand for these products. Consumers value these products more now than they did just a few weeks ago, which is reflected by the higher prices.

But here’s another reality: If prices are kept artificially low, there’s little incentive for shoppers not to buy as much as they can. Of course, only those shoppers lucky enough to get to the stores first can do so. Their hoarding then leaves nothing for shoppers in line behind them.

The fact is there’s no better means of slowing the rising demand—and, especially, reducing excessive hoarding—than allowing the very price hikes that governments are trying to prevent.

But price hikes have another important advantage: They create the necessary incentives for entrepreneurs to shift resources toward activities that increase the supply of these goods.

The higher prices encourage higher levels of production for goods like masks and hand sanitizers, which then increases supply. Even some companies that couldn’t afford to produce these goods in the past will be prompted by high prices to now do so. The Japanese electronics giant Sharp started to use its TV factories to make surgical masks when the domestic supply went dry. Manufacturer FoxConn did the same in China to protect its employees who assemble iPhones.

Government officials (and pundits) never seem to learn (or remember) that in times of crisis, naturally rising prices are necessary to guarantee that goods, services, and inputs are used to maximum social advantage. When governments prevent price hikes, they unwittingly create shortages of vital supplies. Unfortunately, such government intervention makes it harder for people to recover from disasters or, today, to protect themselves from the coronavirus.

Think about it. Without price fluctuations to provide a signal to manufacturers, how will they know by how much or how quickly they need to increase production? If prices are kept artificially low, factory owners have no way to know for sure that actual demand (and not just hoarding) has risen enough to justify a change in their production schedules. Second, if governments keep prices from adjusting upward, the additional demand for masks might not result in enough revenue to cover the extra costs of producing and shipping more masks.

The bottom line is that by keeping prices artificially low, governments around the world encourage artificially high demand, from hoarders, for example. Necessary increases to the supply chain will also be discouraged, which results in unnecessary shortages, long lines of desperate customers, empty shelves, and black markets in dark alleys.

Aren’t we better off when products are actually on the shelves and available for purchase, even if only at higher prices? When no such products are to be found, except by the politically and socially connected, ordinary citizens lose out.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2wR7RtK
via IFTTT

Coronavirus Economics

As the saying goes, “Nothing is certain but death and taxes.” I would add, “and anti-price gouging legislation in times of crisis.” Yet price increases in the face of sudden shortages are an important impetus to restore supply and demand market conditions that are closer to normal.

As many of us have experienced in the past few weeks, buying toilet paper, hand sanitizer, and face masks has become more difficult and more expensive. The reason, of course, is that unusually large numbers of people are rushing to buy these and other products that might prevent the spread of the new coronavirus. It’s normal for people to stock up on supplies during crises. The immediate results are empty store shelves, soon followed by higher prices.

When this happens, politicians around the globe demand an end to the price hikes. The goal is to improve consumer access to the products now in higher demand.

In New Jersey, for instance, at least 10 retailers have received warnings from the government to stop their so-called price gouging. Similarly, the French government announced that it won’t tolerate such price increases and will soon decree a price ceiling on face masks and hand sanitizers. In a move guaranteed to worsen and lengthen the shortages, French officials are even going so far as to appropriate stocks of masks. Just this week, the Department of Justice threatened to act against “bad actors” who raise prices during this time of panic. The list goes on and on.

While well-intentioned, such heavy-handed intervention is a mistake on many levels.

First, the rise in prices conveys nothing more than the unusually intense surge in demand for these products. Consumers value these products more now than they did just a few weeks ago, which is reflected by the higher prices.

But here’s another reality: If prices are kept artificially low, there’s little incentive for shoppers not to buy as much as they can. Of course, only those shoppers lucky enough to get to the stores first can do so. Their hoarding then leaves nothing for shoppers in line behind them.

The fact is there’s no better means of slowing the rising demand—and, especially, reducing excessive hoarding—than allowing the very price hikes that governments are trying to prevent.

But price hikes have another important advantage: They create the necessary incentives for entrepreneurs to shift resources toward activities that increase the supply of these goods.

The higher prices encourage higher levels of production for goods like masks and hand sanitizers, which then increases supply. Even some companies that couldn’t afford to produce these goods in the past will be prompted by high prices to now do so. The Japanese electronics giant Sharp started to use its TV factories to make surgical masks when the domestic supply went dry. Manufacturer FoxConn did the same in China to protect its employees who assemble iPhones.

Government officials (and pundits) never seem to learn (or remember) that in times of crisis, naturally rising prices are necessary to guarantee that goods, services, and inputs are used to maximum social advantage. When governments prevent price hikes, they unwittingly create shortages of vital supplies. Unfortunately, such government intervention makes it harder for people to recover from disasters or, today, to protect themselves from the coronavirus.

Think about it. Without price fluctuations to provide a signal to manufacturers, how will they know by how much or how quickly they need to increase production? If prices are kept artificially low, factory owners have no way to know for sure that actual demand (and not just hoarding) has risen enough to justify a change in their production schedules. Second, if governments keep prices from adjusting upward, the additional demand for masks might not result in enough revenue to cover the extra costs of producing and shipping more masks.

The bottom line is that by keeping prices artificially low, governments around the world encourage artificially high demand, from hoarders, for example. Necessary increases to the supply chain will also be discouraged, which results in unnecessary shortages, long lines of desperate customers, empty shelves, and black markets in dark alleys.

Aren’t we better off when products are actually on the shelves and available for purchase, even if only at higher prices? When no such products are to be found, except by the politically and socially connected, ordinary citizens lose out.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2wR7RtK
via IFTTT

Zoom/Skype/Etc. Oral Arguments in Appellate Cases?

Do any of you know whether any courts are trying to do this because of coronavirus, or have been trying to do it more broadly? I would think it should be nearly trivial to do, with no extra hardware expense or technical development: Just have the judges and the parties sign on to a Zoom session (or some such video system), and record the video for prompt posting on the court’s web site, which many courts already do. (The publicly available video recording would, I think, satisfy any requirement of public access to the arguments.)

This would be good for public health these days, especially since it will cut down required airplane travel for lawyers, judges, and law clerks. (In many courts, especially federal circuit courts, many judges’ chambers are far from where the arguments take place.) And of course it will save judges’ and lawyers’ time, and thus money for clients.

Perhaps this isn’t good for trials, where physical presence may be an important part of cross-examination, arguing to the jury, and the like; but it should be just fine for appellate argument, and for legal argument in trial courts as well. Might this outbreak be a good opportunity for experimenting with this? Or are there some barriers, other than tradition (to be sure, always an important matter with the judiciary), that I’m missing?

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2TFXn9A
via IFTTT

Zoom/Skype/Etc. Oral Arguments in Appellate Cases?

Do any of you know whether any courts are trying to do this because of coronavirus, or have been trying to do it more broadly? I would think it should be nearly trivial to do, with no extra hardware expense or technical development: Just have the judges and the parties sign on to a Zoom session (or some such video system), and record the video for prompt posting on the court’s web site, which many courts already do. (The publicly available video recording would, I think, satisfy any requirement of public access to the arguments.)

This would be good for public health these days, especially since it will cut down required airplane travel for lawyers, judges, and law clerks. (In many courts, especially federal circuit courts, many judges’ chambers are far from where the arguments take place.) And of course it will save judges’ and lawyers’ time, and thus money for clients.

Perhaps this isn’t good for trials, where physical presence may be an important part of cross-examination, arguing to the jury, and the like; but it should be just fine for appellate argument, and for legal argument in trial courts as well. Might this outbreak be a good opportunity for experimenting with this? Or are there some barriers, other than tradition (to be sure, always an important matter with the judiciary), that I’m missing?

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2TFXn9A
via IFTTT

To Slow Coronavirus, Trump Bans Travel from Continental Europe for 30 Days

President Trump announced a 30-day ban on travel from continental Europe Wednesday as part of the U.S. government’s coronavirus pandemic response.

Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump said that the federal government would halt all travel from Europe beginning on Friday. Americans, visitors from the U.K., and passengers who had undergone special screening would still be allowed to enter the country.

“These restrictions will be adjusted subject to conditions on the ground,” said Trump. “There will be exemptions for Americans who have undergone appropriate screenings, and these prohibitions will not only apply to the tremendous amount of trade and cargo, but other things as we get approval.”

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf clarified that Trump’s order would only apply to foreign citizens.

The president’s remarks suggested that trade with Europe might halt as well, although his meaning was not entirely clear. The White House later clarified that the ban would not impact trade and goods, according to Bloomberg News.

Trump also faulted Europe for failing to limit travel from China, and bragged that he had not made the same mistake (though of course, the coronavirus still eventually made its way from China to U.S. shores).

“I will never hesitate to take any necessary steps to protect the lives, health, and safety of American people,” said Trump.

This extreme measure on the part of the president is a sign that his administration is no longer treating the coronavirus pandemic like a hoax cooked up by the mainstream media to hurt his re-election odds. But it’s worth wondering whether a European travel ban—imposed unilaterally by the executive branch—is actually a prudent measure at this point, given that there is already a coronavirus outbreak within U.S. borders. And the U.K., from which travel is not restricted, has hundreds of cases as well.

In other coronavirus news, actor Tom Hanks and his wife Rita Wilson have reportedly contracted the disease, and the NBA has suspended its season indefinitely. Government officials and organizers are canceling conferences, parades, concerts, and other mass gatherings of people. Practicing social distancing—avoiding large crowds—remains the best method for all people to help slow the spread of the disease and flatten the curve.

Update: Additional information about the travel ban’s impact on trade and goods was added to this article.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38FXYwb
via IFTTT

To Slow Coronavirus, Trump Bans Travel from Continental Europe for 30 Days

President Trump announced a 30-day ban on travel from continental Europe Wednesday as part of the U.S. government’s coronavirus pandemic response.

Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump said that the federal government would halt all travel from Europe beginning on Friday. Americans, visitors from the U.K., and passengers who had undergone special screening would still be allowed to enter the country.

“These restrictions will be adjusted subject to conditions on the ground,” said Trump. “There will be exemptions for Americans who have undergone appropriate screenings, and these prohibitions will not only apply to the tremendous amount of trade and cargo, but other things as we get approval.”

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf clarified that Trump’s order would only apply to foreign citizens.

The president’s remarks suggested that trade with Europe might halt as well, although his meaning was not entirely clear.

Trump also faulted Europe for failing to limit travel from China, and bragged that he had not made the same mistake (though of course, the coronavirus still eventually made its way from China to U.S. shores).

“I will never hesitate to take any necessary steps to protect the lives, health, and safety of American people,” said Trump.

This extreme measure on the part of the president is a sign that his administration is no longer treating the coronavirus pandemic like a hoax cooked up by the mainstream media to hurt his re-election odds. But it’s worth wondering whether a European travel ban—imposed unilaterally by the executive branch—is actually a prudent measure at this point, given that there is already a coronavirus outbreak within U.S. borders. And the U.K., from which travel is not restricted, has hundreds of cases as well.

In other coronavirus news, actor Tom Hanks and his wife Rita Wilson have reportedly contracted the disease, and the NBA has suspended its season indefinitely. Government officials and organizers are canceling conferences, parades, concerts, and other mass gatherings of people. Practicing social distancing—avoiding large crowds—remains the best method for all people to help slow the spread of the disease and flatten the curve.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38FXYwb
via IFTTT