It’s very cool that Michael Cassabon was allowed to come back to do a second piece.

I have been looking to see if he’s posted a longer piece elsewhere as he did for the U of T library shoot. I doubt this is a TrekMovie exclusive.

He’s now at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario but hasn’t posted anything on his own social media that I can see.

I’ve been wondering about the Emerald Chain too.

While there is a treaty and détente, it seems odd that only the Venari Ral have been mentioned as a threat this season.

I like it better than the theory that Anisha Mir was always truly Vendari Ral and will betray everyone, and likely die, in the finale.

Then, since it sounds to be clear and recent, perhaps you could explore citizenship by descent in an EU country where you have a legitimate claim.

I was very relieved to see Lura back

I hope we’ll see much more of her in season two.

Looking again at the production photo of Tatiana Maslany as Anisha Mir, there may be an entirely different long con going on from the Federation side.

Could be a coincidental styling choice but, Anisha seems to be dressed in something close to a Section 31 uniform!

So, speculation…

We know from Discovery that Starfleet and the 32nd century Federation have some kind of shadowy espionage and covert operations organization.

Could it be possible that Anisha, who was known to Nahla Ake, was more than a desperate mother looking to trade her skills to the Venari Ral for sustenance for herself and her child?

Was there some kind of deep covert mission that went profoundly wrong? If so, was Ake read in?

If Anisha is somehow a Federation operative, how will Caleb deal with his being put at risk, then sacrificed for an operation?

Anisha may be less morally culpable for her actions as an infiltrator of the Venari Ral, but as a mother putting her child in the line of harm, there is a completely different calculus.

You might do better looking for an actual ancestor born or naturalized in Canada.

You may be surprised.

The note at the top of the article has got me speculating on the meaning of the word play:

Episode 10 of season 1 of Starfleet Academy is titled “Rubincon,” and no, that is not a typo for “Rubicon.”

The suffix con leaps out.

Brakka seems a full on dark triad kind of villain. With that comes the Machiavellian manipulation and deceit, including cons.

For rubin, the first part of the word, the dictionary definitions I find say that it’s an obsolete word for ruby (alternative spelling is rubine).

So literally, the title of the episode means, well, “ruby + con”.

Which gets us back to a sound-alike for rubicon…

Clearly the writers are making a point here with this double entendre.

My money’s on the red wall of omega-47 being a grossly gigantic con where the isolation of the Federation is not quite the threat it seemed at the end of episode 9.

However, is it only Brakka who is responsible for the con, or is and has Anisha Mir been part of a long con of both Ake and her son from the start?

And, what is it that Brakka and Anisha Mir are really after with all this?

Concerns about equity for adopted persons were raised by senators when the bill was being studied in committee. They let C-3 go through due to the need to address Bjorkquist but asked the Minister to come back with further amendments in future.

There is a different form and process for adopted persons adopted outside of Canada. Current processing time is about two years.

It involves two steps:

1. Confirmation of parent’s Canadian citizenship, which when completed provides a digital identifier to be used in step two
2. Applicant provides the documentation of the adoption and original birth certificate.

The text on the linked IRCC page reads:

If you choose to apply for citizenship, there are 2 parts to the process:

Part 1: We check if the parent can pass on Canadian citizenship to their adopted child.

Part 2: We check if the adopted child can become a Canadian citizen. See:

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/canadians/adopt-child-abroad/processes/choose-process/citizenship.html

Understand. Many of us are considering our dual citizenship options while they are available.

I can appreciate your concern.

Good luck. That should be fairly straightforward as you are only second generation descent.

No.

The 1095 day presence is a requirement should you wish to pass Canadian citizenship to a child born or adopted after December 15, 2025z

Long form birth certificates that name parents and marriage certificates to show name changes would cover it.

Baptismal certificates can be used when there’s no civil registration of births. Civil registration began very late in several provinces of Canada. There’s more likely to be an Anglican or Roman Catholic baptismal record regardless of being Indigenous.

You may be able to find ship manifests and landing records in Family Search or Ancestry. Those list nationality — you would be looking for her to be a British subject domiciled in Canada at the time she landed in Australia.

Your great grandmother’s death certificate may have information that could be useful, as they usually state the place of birth. Newspaper death notices and obituaries can also be helpful as supporting information.

Lastly Canadian and US census records can be used as supporting information.

There is no generational limit. However, a direct line of descent has to be documented back to an ancestor born or naturalized within the borders of what is now Canada.

Acadians in Louisiana have been successful in making claims back to the Le Grand Derangement / Expulsion by the British. They had meticulous records however.

It’s a concern the way the CPC MPs confabulated citizenship by descent with immigration during the committee hearings on the Bill.

The Government responded to the 2023 Bjorkquist court decision that found the first generation limit unconstitutional as a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

C-3 establishes a requirement going forward: to pass down citizenship to persons born after December 15, 2015 a parent born outside Canada must have had a cumulative 1095 day presence in Canada before the child’s birth.

The C-3 changes were in response to the 2023 Bjorkquist court decision that struck down the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent. The Government had to bring in legislative amendments or the Court would have just struck the limit down as a Charter violation.

It was Conservative Party of Canada Harper Government that enacted the limit in reaction to air lifts of Canadians in Lebanon, calling them ‘Canadians of convenience.’

The CPC tried to amend the Bill C-3 to require a 1095 day presence in a 5 year period in order to past citizenship down to future generations, basically making it like the requirement for naturalization. Instead the law has a lifetime 1095 day presence to pass down citizenship to children born after December 15, 2025.

Having your grandmother’s birth is a great start.

You need to prove a direct line of descent by birth* back to your grandmother — assuming she’s the last generation born or naturalized in Canada.

So, her birth certificate would establish that she was Canadian if it’s from a Canadian province or territory. However, you will also need to demonstrate :

• that one of your parents was her child with their long form birth certificate with her name listed as their mother — if your grandmother’s family name changed in marriage, you’ll need a marriage certificate or other proof to show she was the same person;

• likewise, you’ll need to demonstrate that parent your parent’s child through your long form birth record and possibly your parents’ marriage certificate if claiming through your mother.

*Adoption unfotunately continues to not have quite the same process:

If you were adopted, and you are claiming citizenship through your adoptive grandmother, this is possible but it’s a two step process where your adoptive parent would need a Confirmation of citizenship first and then you could apply for a grant of citizenship.

If the parent you are claiming citizenship through was adopted by your grandmother, as the Act is now, they would not be able to pass down citizenship to you. They could get a grant of citizenship for themselves but it would only come into effect the day the grant is made and couldn’t only pass it down to their children born after the date of granting.

Jonathan Frakes mentions several things in the TrekMovie interview that may impact costs.

Alex Kurztman set the direction style with more close up, tight camera work. More, he specifically ordered special long camera lenses to enable that. This means that despite the enormous sets and UHD cinematography, with long lenses they are able to block the scenes without as much extraneous detail.

Saving the wide angles for when they need them but closing up on the characters, and doing more in set internal volumes must surely reduce a lot of crew time and accelerate production.