SCOTUS strikes down citizenship law – CNNPolitics.com

Surprising it took this long for a case to test the discrimination:

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a federal law that treats children born overseas to unmarried parents differently for purposes of citizenship depending upon whether the biological father or mother is a US citizen.

Under the law, US citizen fathers have to spend at least five years in the states before the child could become a citizen, while the mother only had to spend one year.
The plaintiff in the case, Luis Ramon Morales-Santana, was born in 1962 in the Dominican Republic to unmarried parents. His mother was a citizen of the Dominican Republic and his father was a US citizen who had not spent more than five years in the United States after his 14th birthday.
Morales-Santana was admitted to the US as a lawful permanent resident in 1975. After years of living in the US he was put in removal proceedings after convictions for various felonies. He claimed he was a US citizen because of his father’s citizenship. But the Board of Immigration Appeals denied the claim because the father had not satisfied the physical presence requirements.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who dedicated her career to the issue of gender discrimination before taking the bench, wrote the decision.
The section of the 1952 Nationality Act, she wrote, could not “withstand inspection under a Constitution that requires the government to respect the equal dignity and stature of its male and female citizens.”
But while the law “violates the equal-protection principles,” the court also said it is “not equipped” to grant the relief that Morales-Santana seeks — striking down the law and grant him citizenship. Congress would have to make that determination, Ginsburg wrote.
Under the Immigration and Nationality act of 1952 as originally written, a child born outside of the United States to an unwed citizen father and a non-citizen mother has citizenship at birth only if the father was present in the United States for a period totaling at least 10 years, with at least five of those years occurring after the age of 14. But the statute has since been amendedto decrease the time requirement for those born since November 14, 1986, to 5 years in the United States, at least two of which were after age of 14. A child born abroad to an unwed citizen mother has citizenship if the mother lived in the United States for at least one year at some point prior to the child’s birth.

Source: SCOTUS strikes down citizenship law – CNNPolitics.com

The casual indifference of Dachau’s selfie-taking Holocaust tourists: Mark Milke

We did not have the same experience as Milke at Dachau during a fall visit.

However, his points are valid, as selfies and other photos are about the person visiting, not about the place and history, whether it be a concentration camp, great works of art at the Louvre or other galleries etc:

So how to explain this unfortunate phenomenon? I’d like to hope it was only the day I visited: it was sunny that morning which can produce a parallel optimism; perhaps overcast or rainy weather would better provoke a somber mood in those walking around the first Nazi death camp. Or maybe it’s the camp’s proximity to Dachau, the town. Neatly arranged townhouses overlook the bunker, with only a fence and a few metres separating them. Normality long ago returned to Germany, including Dachau, and perhaps it is difficult to sustain a sense of unique horror when everyday life continues around the 84-year-old camp, and when so many of those with direct memories of the horrors are no longer with us.

Whatever the explanation, the casual indifference at Holocaust sites is something others have also begun to notice. Last year, Ukrainian filmmaker Sergei Loznitsa set up cameras at Dachau and also at Sachenhausen (near Berlin) and let them roll. He recorded selfie after selfie, along with all the other self-obsessed behaviour all too common in what he labeled “Holocaust tourism.”

One Guardian columnist, reviewing Loznitsa’s documentary, Austerlitz, suggested selfies be banned at concentration camps, though not photography. That’s a sensible proposal, though I found myself unable to even take my camera out of my backpack; to snap a photograph seemed too casual.

Another approach to confronting self-absorbed selfie tourism: shame. Earlier this year Israeli artist Shahak Shapira superimposed cut-outs people had taken at the Berlin Holocaust memorial (including people engaged in yoga and rap poses) over ghastly Holocaust images of starved camp prisoners and corpses in trains. It helped show the disrespect that Holocaust tourism communicates to the dead and to those who were fortunate enough to survive.

It would be too easy though, to blame the young and engage in generational stereotypes. To complain of the ignorance of youth is to engage in circular reasoning—why should young people be expected to know that which they have not been taught? Or that which has not been emphasized? Fact is, if some children or young adults lack historical knowledge and awareness of why such sites should be treated as akin to holy shrines, with the greatest of reverence and respect, the blame falls elsewhere: on adults who by a lack of instruction, presence or example, fail to signal the importance of sober, even somber, remembrance.

Thus, examples matter: As I exited Dachau, walking along a path from the main gate back to the visitor centre, a forty-something fellow trotted by in the opposite direction. He walked casually, licking a fudgesicle, or popsicle or some similar frozen creation. His gait and casual cluelessness said it all: he was approaching just another “attraction” of sorts, as if he were about to enter Disneyland and not Dachau.

Source: The casual indifference of Dachau’s selfie-taking Holocaust tourists – Macleans.ca

Australia: Queen’s honours list awards diversity, multiculturalism and Indigenous service | SBS News

Another illustration of the differences between Australia and Canada: this article highlights in a positive sense that 1.6 percent of the Australian honours list (equivalent to the Order of Canada) are from visible minorities or Indigenous peoples (or have made major contributions to these communities).

By way of comparison, in Canada 2013-16 Order recipients were 4.7 percent visible minority, 3.3 percent Indigenous peoples (The Order of Canada and diversity):

The list of almost 900 Australians included a dozen honoured for their contribution to Indigenous Australia and fourteen honoured for their contribution to multiculturalism and diversity.

Source: Queen’s honours list awards diversity, multiculturalism and Indigenous service | SBS News

‘It is a battle for hearts and minds’: Trudeau’s $35 million gamble to counter radicalization

No easy solutions but these approaches are part of the toolkit. Small change compared to security expenditures:

A growing number of experts are advocating for a more holistic approach to countering violent extremism — one that attempts to address community grievances and feelings of social exclusion, he said.

Still, some say the terrorist propaganda and violent narratives on the Internet and social media sites — often infused with glorious references to past and valiant warriors — cannot be ignored and efforts must be made to squarely refute  their often misleading claims.

“It is a battle for hearts and minds,” Shaikh said.

Some of this is already happening in Canada. In 2015, Public Safety Canada threw its support behind a video project, Extreme Dialogue, that highlighted the stories of individuals who had walked away from extreme Islamist groups or far-right groups, as well as family members impacted by extremism.

Last year, Montreal’s Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence created a comic book that used humour to try to address some of the underlying causes of radicalization.

But do these counter-narrative campaigns ring hollow for their intended audiences? And how do you gauge success? By clicks and web visits?

Phil Gurski, a former CSIS strategic analyst, said trying to deconstruct and counter every piece of propaganda ends up being a never-ending game of “whack-a-mole.” He suggested putting more emphasis on alternative narratives, for example, emphasizing Muslim empowerment and success stories.

But that still leaves the question of how to deal with individuals who are more deeply entrenched in their radicalization, such as foreign fighters who have returned to Canada. About 180 Canadians are known to have participated in terrorist activities overseas — mostly in Turkey, Iraq and Syria — and about 60 have returned.

If police fear someone may commit a terrorism offence, but don’t have enough evidence to charge them, they have sometimes gone to court to apply for peace bonds, which temporarily restrict an individual’s movements. But as the case of Aaron Driver showed, these bonds cannot always be relied upon to prevent violence.

Driver had been the subject of a peace bond that restricted access to his computer and cellphone and barred him from possessing firearms or explosives. Yet, last August, the Islamic State sympathizer was able to shoot a martyrdom video and get into a taxi with a homemade bomb before being shot and killed by police in Strathroy, Ont.

For those not quite as far down the path of radicalization, police in Toronto last year announced they had been experimenting with an early intervention model, not dissimilar to the one in Britain. Individuals deemed at-risk for violence are steered to “hubs” of community representatives who assess whether they might benefit from spiritual guidance, family counselling or mental-health support. Calgary police have a similar program in place.

Yet this approach creates other conundrums: Should such voluntary programs be mandatory? And should the goal be “de-radicalization” — the suppression of extreme ideology? Or is it more realistic to settle for “disengagement” — allowing a person to continue to harbour radical ideas so long as they do not resort to or support violence?

“The dangers to democracy are obvious here and not at all easy to reconcile,” Littlewood said. And, “success in one year may be undone two or three years later,” he added.

Whoever takes the helm of Canada’s new counter-radicalization office is in for a “mind-boggling” ride to try to create a coherent national framework for best practices, Gurski said.

“I don’t know if we’ll ever know what works,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it.”

Les questions de diversité divisent les péquistes

The PQ coming to terms with diversity, and its preference for a softer “encouragement” approach than one with more fixed objectives and processes:

Les 400 délégués du Parti québécois ont refusé dimanche d’appuyer les propositions phares destinées à attirer plus de Québécois d’adoption et de jeunes contenues dans le rapport « Faire partie de la solution » de Paul St-Pierre Plamondon.

Après que l’exécutif national eut rejeté les appels de l’ex-candidat à la chefferie du PQ à réserver des postes dans les exécutifs de circonscription à des personnes issues de la diversité, les délégués d’un conseil national spécial ont voté dimanche contre une proposition édulcorée proposant de « favoris [er] la présence d’au moins une personne de la diversité » dans cette instance.

Selon un militant de Saint-Henri–Saint-Anne, le PQ a raté une occasion en or d’« envoyer un bon message d’ouverture », et ce, moins d’un mois après avoir été taxé par des membres de Québec solidaire de « porter en lui » la « bête » du racisme.

Les délégués avaient été convoqués à Drummondville afin d’entériner la feuille de route d’accession vers l’indépendance avalisée par tous les membres des Organisations unies pour l’indépendance (OUI Québec). Mais, entre-temps, Québec solidaire a renié sa signature au bas de l’entente de principe. Le PQ s’adapte à cette « nouvelle conjoncture politique », a souligné le président sortant du PQ, Raymond Archambault.

Dans ce premier Conseil national « post-convergence », la déléguée de l’exécutif péquiste de la circonscription de Vachon, Marie Imatta Pierre-Lys, a appelé ses confrères et consoeurs à battre la proposition de M. St-Pierre Plamondon, puis à déployer toute leur énergie à rédiger un « beau programme qui va inclure tout le monde » en vue des élections générales de 2018. « Avant tout, je me considère comme une Québécoise. Que je sois noire ou femme, mes intérêts sont comme [ceux] de toutes les autres personnes. Si je me présente à un poste de conseillère, [il ne faut]pas que je sois favorisée parce que je suis noire, mais par d’autres qualités que j’ai », a-t-elle déclaré lors du débat.

L’émissaire de l’exécutif de Berthier, Patrick Gaétan Parent, a aussi voté contre la proposition de l’exécutif national, estimant que le concept de « diversité » prête à différentes interprétations : il n’est pas seulement ethnoculturel. « La diversité, c’est beaucoup plus que ça. C’est pas juste d’être noir. Ça, ça se voit vite quand on est noir », a-t-il illustré, suscitant des rires amusés… et des rires gênés.

Le résultat du vote, à main levée, était flou. « Proposition rejetée », a pourtant lancé le président d’assemblée sous le regard ébahi de M. St-Pierre Plamondon. « Je pensais qu’il [le vote] avait passé », a-t-il dit dans un impromptu de presse dimanche soir. Il a attribué le rejet de sa proposition principalement à l’intervention de Mme Pierre-Lys. « Ç’a beaucoup influencé le débat. C’est une bonne nouvelle dans la mesure où quelqu’un issu de la diversité au sein du PQ nous dit : il n’y a aucun problème au Parti québécois sur le plan de la diversité », a-t-il affirmé à moins de 15 mois des prochaines élections générales.

Il ne se satisfait pas pour autant du refus opposé à cette proposition centrale de son rapport « Faire partie de la solution » par les délégués. D’ailleurs, l’avocat promet de revenir à la charge avec une proposition similaire au congrès national du PQ en septembre prochain. « Malgré les succès individuels que certains ont pu avoir […], on a de l’ambition, on veut plus de diversité. Donc, je continue à penser qu’il faut mettre des mesures pour favoriser des places à des Québécois d’adoption ou des Québécois issus de la diversité. »

Quotas ou pas, la volonté du PQ de recruter en grand nombre des Québécois issus de la diversité culturelle (16 % de la population québécoise) qui partagent à la fois ses « valeurs », ses « propositions » et son « objectif indépendantiste » est réelle, a fait valoir le chef du parti, Jean-François Lisée. Il s’est fixé dimanche l’« objectif » de présenter au moins 20 candidats issus des communautés culturelles (sur 125) aux prochaines élections générales. « Je ne dirais pas qu’il y aura un quota, a-t-il précisé. C’est un souhait. C’est un objectif. » Mais, chose certaine, ces candidats ne seront pas tous dépêchés dans des circonscriptions imprenables, a promis le chef péquiste.

Source: Les questions de diversité divisent les péquistes | Le Devoir

Australia: Feedback on controversial citizenship changes to be kept secret

Hard to understand the rationale apart from stifling discussion and debate. Indicates a certain insecurity:

The Turnbull government will keep secret the public’s feedback on its proposed changes to the Australian citizenship test, in a marked departure from normal processes, as the controversial bill goes before Parliament this week.

The immigration department confirmed it will not publish submissions to the consultation process designed to inform the final version of its revamped citizenship regime – particularly the introduction of an Australian values test.

Open for the six weeks until June 1, the consultation was supposed to help the government define “Australian values” and to word a new pledge of allegiance to Australia. “We are looking for views,” Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said in April.

But the department will not air those views publicly, citing confidentiality, nor confirm the volume of feedback received. “Submissions were provided in confidence and were not for publication by the department,” a spokesperson said in a statement.

However, several organisations that made submissions told Fairfax Media they did not request the department keep their recommendations private.

The Refugee Council, Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils and the Liverpool Migrant Resource Centre have all published their submissions – critical of the government’s proposal – on their websites.

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton on Sunday confirmed a bill to enact the major changes – including a four-year wait before permanent residents can attain citizenship, and tougher English language requirements for aspiring citizens – will be introduced to Parliament this week.

The new regime would allow him, as minister, to revoke the citizenship of migrants suspected of gaining citizenship fraudulently – by lying on the test, for example. It will also require minors to pass a “good character” test to gain citizenship, in a move designed to target young migrant criminals.

“It is a bill that suits the times we’re living in and the government is very serious about making sure that people who pledge their allegiance to our country abide by our laws and our values,” Mr Dutton said on Sunday.

The citizenship reform package, the second in three years, has attracted the ire of migrant groups and some in Labor’s Left faction, who have voiced concerns about unfairly strict English testing and disenfranchising permanent residents for four years.

Labor reserved its position on Sunday, with citizenship spokesman Tony Burke promising to “deal responsibly with any sensible proposal” from the government. Mr Dutton also indicated he was willing to negotiate with the Senate crossbench.

The decision against publishing the public’s feedback defies routine practice for government consultations, whereby public submissions are usually published online unless they contain sensitive or defamatory material.

Source: Feedback on controversial citizenship changes to be kept secret

Too many Canadians don’t recognize the Islamophobia in their country

Melayna Williams on Islamophobia:

Indeed, plenty of work has already been done to capture, contextualize and fully understand what Islamophobia means. A paper published in 2011 by the Ontario Human Rights Commission highlights the “negative stereotyping and discrimination as a result of pre-existing perceptions of Muslims as ‘different’ from the rest of Canadian society, along with negative associations of their communities with violence and terrorism” in the decade following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City.

These problems even occur in institutions that pledge tolerance and inclusion, like Canadian universities. Following the Quebec City mosque attack, Muslim students publicly recounted incidents that are part of their daily reality: the defacing of posters for a conference on Islam at Durham College and the University of Ontario Institute of Technology; and the distributing of anti-Muslim flyers and insults on student election materials at McGill University, the University of Calgary and the University of Ottawa. A student at Simon Fraser University was told to remove her hijab, and horrifyingly, last year, a woman had her hijab pulled, was punched and spat on in a grocery store in London, Ont.

We don’t need more evidence—yet there’s still denial by many white Canadians. Exercising privilege in this way has clear detrimental effects, argues Tim Wise, an anti-racism writer and activist. “That white Americans don’t by and large see what people of colour see doesn’t mean that white folks are horrible people, of course,” he writes in an essay called “White Denial.” “What it does suggest is a degree of isolation and provincialism that should lead us to think twice before pontificating about a subject that we simply don’t have to know nearly as well as those who are the targets of it.”

This is why “recognition of Muslims as part of the fabric of this country is so critical,” argues Shirazi. Many Canadians have the luxury of not acknowledging racism, and they’ve done so to the extent that white denial has become its own narrative. Any attempt to ignore the problem—or treat its victims as “other”—undercuts any effort toward inclusion in the next 150 years.

Source: Too many Canadians don’t recognize the Islamophobia in their country – Macleans.ca

Liberals’ citizenship bill [C-6] to proceed with some Senate amendments

Being debated and voted on in the House Monday June 12.

Expect that the Senate will/should declare victory given two out of three amendments accepted, including the most important one of restoring procedural protections for those accused of fraud or misrepresentation:

Far more people lose their citizenship because it was obtained fraudulently, and the Senate wants to amend the bill in order to give those people a chance at a court hearing before their status is stripped away.

Hussen said the government will accept that proposal, albeit with some modifications of its own, including giving the minister the authority to make decisions when an individual requests it.

Hussen’s hand was partially forced by a recent Federal Court decision that said people have a right to challenge the revocation of their citizenship, although predecessor John McCallum had earlier suggested he would support the amendment.

“This amendment recognizes the government’s commitment to enhancing the citizenship revocation process to strengthen procedural fairness, while ensuring that the integrity of our citizenship program is maintained,” Hussen said in a statement.

The government will also accept a Senate recommendation that would make it easier for children to obtain citizenship without a Canadian parent.

But they are rejecting efforts to raise the upper age for citizenship language and knowledge requirements from 54 to 59, saying it’s out of step with the goal of making citizenship easier to obtain. The current law requires those between the ages of 14 to 64 to pass those tests; the Liberals want it changed to 18 to 54.

Hussen thanked the Senate for its work making the bill “even stronger and for providing an example of productive collaboration on strengthening important legislation.”

The Senate has the choice of accepting the government’s decision, rejecting it, or proposing further amendments of its own, which could further delay the legislation.

Source: Liberals’ citizenship bill to proceed with some Senate amendments – The Globe and Mail

When history comes back and bites you: Salutin | Toronto Star

Rick Salutin, looking back on his play 1837, with a new Indigenous peoples awareness and perspective. I particularly like his line: “The point isn’t that we were wrong and “they” are right: they too will be found wrong in due time, it’s how history works. In fact, everyone gets a chance to be both wrong and right.”:

I’m having an odd experience: having once used history as material to make writing points, I now find my use of it being judged as I had judged.

When I was a kid studying Canadian history, we were taught that the rebellion of 1837 in Toronto was a “comic opera” event, a farce put down by British imperial authorities that came to nothing.

Then, in university in the U.S., I learned that history was often lied about, to manipulate citizens. So naturally when I returned to Canada and became a writer in the 1970s, I looked around for pieces of Canadian history to set right and seized on that one. Along with a theatre company, using the “collective” process, we made a play, 1837, which became a staple of the Canadian repertoire, even becoming a kind of rite of passage for young actors.

Now it’s been “revived,” decades later, at the Shaw Festival, with a mature, accomplished cast and production.

First irony: at the time of the original show, we considered the Shaw and Stratford festivals the enemy — villains who disparaged Canadian artistic sources in order to foist foreign cultural material on us. We aimed to bring them down. We even included a mocking scene of a haughty Brit travelling to (Shawfest site) Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Now, it appears, everyone from that original production is delighted with the revival and plans to trek down to see it.

But more bitingly, we were certain we represented the good guys — the noble Canadian farmers of the time — versus their imperial overlords and local sycophants, the “Family Compact.” But hey, time moves on, and our show is (relatively gently) charged with overlooking truer victims: the First Nations.

Our play opened with squatting farmers being evicted from “their” land by an arrogant official on behalf of an absentee landlord. They vow to stay and fight on. It never occurred to us to ask who that land came from. People knew in fact but the issue hadn’t, as it were, occupied the main stage, the way it has since. The Shaw version copes with this by having its main set concealed by a native-inflected drop, which is then pulled off to reveal a corduroy road.

But the whole sense of place remains contentious. We set scenes boldly in locations like “Bay and Adelaide, southeast corner,” to show history happened here, as much as at Waterloo. If audiences snickered, actors took it as a challenge to make them respond solemnly to our own reality.

Yet today, events from hockey games to school announcements to political assemblies often open with an acknowledgment that “we” are meeting on the traditional territory of First Nations, based on an Indigenous protocol — great word — as recommended by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It was even employed at Shaw this season.

It’s one of the redemptive qualities of Canada that this ritual has taken root with relative ease, even been embraced enthusiastically, like asking fans at hockey games to rise for, “O Canada,” “if you are able.”

It may come easier if you’re younger. My friend, musician Simone Schmidt, who does much historical research herself (like her recent release, Audible Songs from Rockwood), suggests, if you have a hard time with this, repeating the phrase, “settler-colonial” 20 times a day till it starts coming naturally.

The point isn’t that we were wrong and “they” are right: they too will be found wrong in due time, it’s how history works. In fact, everyone gets a chance to be both wrong and right. The only sure thing is, said Hegel — a history buff himself around the time our play is set — “The truth is everything!”

Overall it makes me feel, in light of the ugly phase that nationalism is passing through worldwide, that we may have been fortunate not to have had more success than we did with our nationalist projects back then.

And how’s the revival? First rule regarding your own past work: manage to avoid embarrassment. Alan Jay Lerner — My Fair Lady, Brigadoon, Camelot — said when his last play opened on Broadway, that he used to hope for success, now he just wanted to escape humiliation. No problem there. Once past that, I enjoyed the show a lot, especially since I saw the opening with my 18-year-old son — though I’ve never known whether family counts as history or something … other.

Source: When history comes back and bites you: Salutin | Toronto Star

Macron Gets Serious About Stealing from U.S.—And Trolls Trump Again

Clever branding and communications:

French President Emmanuel Macron is upping his global trolling of U.S. President Donald Trump, launching a French government website this week with the url, www.makeourplanetgreatagain.fr.

Just over a week ago, moments after Donald Trump announced his decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement, France’s newly-elected president Emmanuel Macron offered American climate scientists refuge in France in an earnest video broadcast on social media.

Directly addressing the camera in English (a move practically unheard of in France), Macron called on American scientists and other innovators to decamp for France.

“To all scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, responsible citizens who were disappointed by the decision of the president of the United States, I want to say that they will find in France a second homeland,” he said in the video.

The video created an Internet buzz, racking up hundreds of thousands of views on Facebook and tens of thousands of retweets. As of June 9, a little more than a week after it was posted, the video had been viewed 13 million times.

Peter Frumhoff, the director of science and policy at the Cambridge Massachusetts-based Union of Concerned Scientists told The Daily Beast that he thought Macron’s video message was gracious and timely.

“At a time when science and scientists are so much under threat in the United States, I thought it was an apt thing to say and I appreciated it.”

“I think many American scientists under any conditions would welcome an invitation to come work with French colleagues at European research institutions, he continued. “There is a lot of good work there and science knows no boundaries.”

However, Fromhoff also said he didn’t know of anyone in the scientific community who took Macron’s statement to heart.

“I don’t know that his speech was intended to be followed through with any particular funding specifics or research collaboration support, and obviously that would be relevant to where people go to do their work. I didn’t see any details about that.”

“Obviously, most people just can’t pick up and leave,” he added.

He is right. Relocating to France is easier said than done, and would-be American expats (I was one of them) typically face mountains of paperwork and red tape with often-contradictory and baffling requirements. However, on June 8, a week after the video aired, the Elysée Palace launched a new website in English aimed at foreign scientists, entrepreneurs, and others who are interested in working in France, suggesting that Macron’s invitation may have been more than a symbolic, goodwill gesture. And in naming the initiative Make Our Planet Great Again, a nervy take on Trump’s campaign slogan, the French president also appears to be taking a swipe at Trump and his globally unpopular stance on climate change.

The site opens with the same June 2 video message from Macron. Users are then directed to another page, where they can select a profession—researcher, teacher, entrepreneur, NGO, student, or other—and their country of origin, followed by a brief series of questions regarding their interest in climate change. The site then promises interested parties that they will be contacted with more information within three working days. The site also offers information on grant applications for researchers—a senior-level researcher, for instance, is eligible for a €1.5 million four-year grant.

According to the French daily Le Monde,the site functions as much as a presidential promotion tactic as it does a recruitment tool, calling Macron’s efforts a “media counter-offensive,” and noting that several questions remained unanswered.

Source: Macron Gets Serious About Stealing from U.S.—And Trolls Trump Again