• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Canadians have voted to merge with the United States of America...

Which is all well and good for the purposes of the story, but it's complete legal hogwash, because nothing, not even the legal agreement by which a foreign state is annexed by the United States, trumps the US Constitution.
Maybe they made amendments to the U.S. Constitution as part of the merger. Who knows. That's something that did cross my mind.

As for this miniseries....

The plot sounds so absurd and melodramatic that, reading the summary, I felt like I was reading Under the Gaslight.
A lot of people have said that. Even Paul Gross described the story as a really nutty spectacluar rollercoaster of a ride and I agree. I'm still surprised by this kind of reaction from people though since most movies and TV shows are like that to varying degrees anyway, like Jericho for example. Even The Amazing Mrs. Pritchard which you mentioned a few posts up has taken politics to a new level.

Well, see, I think the difference is that Jericho or The Amazing Mrs. Pritchard take things that are possible but unlikely and take them to extremes -- neo-conservatism and corporatism leading to an American civil war, or a regular person being elected Prime Minister. Whereas with this -- the entire concept is just absurd on its face. It doesn't even have a hint of truth in its premise; the United States simply has no desire to take over Canada. The last time it had any such desire was when it started the War of 1812, and that was in, well, 1812. The premise of the series comes across as being an example of extreme, unreasonable Canadian paranoia over their own cultural identity, and is more than a little insulting, to boot. Considering the very real nature of corporatism and neo-conservatism and the divisive effects they've had on our society, or considering how fed up most people are with how fake politicians have become, I honestly think that the premises of Jericho and The Amazing Mrs. Pritchard are more truthful and less absurd -- however unlikely -- than this.

This isn't about the US unilaterally taking over Canada, though, it's about Canadians voting to become a part of the US. There's a big difference.

And, in all honestly, that slight amount of intimidation\fear of the USA has always been a part of Canada. That was a very significant reason for Canadian Confederation in 1867, as well as for the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the 1880s and the Rideau Canal in 1832. You may find it absurd, but you're also not Canadian... I think you lack the cultural context to understand why the plot of this miniseries can resonate so well with Canadians.
 
Well, see, I think the difference is that Jericho or The Amazing Mrs. Pritchard take things that are possible but unlikely and take them to extremes -- neo-conservatism and corporatism leading to an American civil war, or a regular person being elected Prime Minister. Whereas with this -- the entire concept is just absurd on its face. It doesn't even have a hint of truth in its premise; the United States simply has no desire to take over Canada. The last time it had any such desire was when it started the War of 1812, and that was in, well, 1812. The premise of the series comes across as being an example of extreme, unreasonable Canadian paranoia over their own cultural identity, and is more than a little insulting, to boot. Considering the very real nature of corporatism and neo-conservatism and the divisive effects they've had on our society, or considering how fed up most people are with how fake politicians have become, I honestly think that the premises of Jericho and The Amazing Mrs. Pritchard are more truthful and less absurd -- however unlikely -- than this.

This isn't about the US unilaterally taking over Canada, though, it's about Canadians voting to become a part of the US. There's a big difference.

Erm, didn't the previous miniseries, H20, feature the United States invading Canada?

And, in all honestly, that slight amount of intimidation\fear of the USA has always been a part of Canada. That was a very significant reason for Canadian Confederation in 1867, as well as for the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the 1880s and the Rideau Canal in 1832. You may find it absurd, but you're also not Canadian... I think you lack the cultural context to understand why the plot of this miniseries can resonate so well with Canadians.

That may be. And I can understand the sense of intimidate or fear, or even the desire to establish an identity that is distinctly Canadian and not beholden to the US or to US stereotypes of Canadians. ("The Rant" from 2000 comes to mind.) But I find the idea of building a story around the presumption of the United States coming in and taking over to be kind of insulting.
 
Well, see, I think the difference is that Jericho or The Amazing Mrs. Pritchard take things that are possible but unlikely and take them to extremes -- neo-conservatism and corporatism leading to an American civil war, or a regular person being elected Prime Minister. Whereas with this -- the entire concept is just absurd on its face. It doesn't even have a hint of truth in its premise; the United States simply has no desire to take over Canada. The last time it had any such desire was when it started the War of 1812, and that was in, well, 1812. The premise of the series comes across as being an example of extreme, unreasonable Canadian paranoia over their own cultural identity, and is more than a little insulting, to boot. Considering the very real nature of corporatism and neo-conservatism and the divisive effects they've had on our society, or considering how fed up most people are with how fake politicians have become, I honestly think that the premises of Jericho and The Amazing Mrs. Pritchard are more truthful and less absurd -- however unlikely -- than this.
I disagree. I think the story has some good parallels with issues like Arctic sovereignty, NAFTA, the SPP, the buying up of Canadian corporations by U.S. interests, etc. Those are real issues, and as with Jericho or The Amazing Mrs Pritchard, this mini series takes something real to an extreme and turns it into a "what if" drama.
 
Erm, didn't the previous miniseries, H20, feature the United States invading Canada?
It's been almost four years since I saw H2O, but as I remember it, the U.S. did not invade. It moved in to stop a political crisis involving water from getting out of hand. Prime Minister McLaughlin was informed by U.S. officials that instability and potential war on their northern border would not be tolertated. Canada's foreign policy was then taken over by the U.S. and McLaughlin was allowed to stay on to run a provisional government. That's where H2O ended.
 
Well, see, I think the difference is that Jericho or The Amazing Mrs. Pritchard take things that are possible but unlikely and take them to extremes -- neo-conservatism and corporatism leading to an American civil war, or a regular person being elected Prime Minister. Whereas with this -- the entire concept is just absurd on its face. It doesn't even have a hint of truth in its premise; the United States simply has no desire to take over Canada. The last time it had any such desire was when it started the War of 1812, and that was in, well, 1812. The premise of the series comes across as being an example of extreme, unreasonable Canadian paranoia over their own cultural identity, and is more than a little insulting, to boot. Considering the very real nature of corporatism and neo-conservatism and the divisive effects they've had on our society, or considering how fed up most people are with how fake politicians have become, I honestly think that the premises of Jericho and The Amazing Mrs. Pritchard are more truthful and less absurd -- however unlikely -- than this.

This isn't about the US unilaterally taking over Canada, though, it's about Canadians voting to become a part of the US. There's a big difference.

Erm, didn't the previous miniseries, H20, feature the United States invading Canada?

I didn't see it, but I don't think so. As Agent_Richard said, I think it was more along the lines of the US being asked to come in to help avert a crisis.

And, in all honestly, that slight amount of intimidation\fear of the USA has always been a part of Canada. That was a very significant reason for Canadian Confederation in 1867, as well as for the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the 1880s and the Rideau Canal in 1832. You may find it absurd, but you're also not Canadian... I think you lack the cultural context to understand why the plot of this miniseries can resonate so well with Canadians.
That may be. And I can understand the sense of intimidate or fear, or even the desire to establish an identity that is distinctly Canadian and not beholden to the US or to US stereotypes of Canadians. ("The Rant" from 2000 comes to mind.) But I find the idea of building a story around the presumption of the United States coming in and taking over to be kind of insulting.[/quote]

Again, you're interpreting it wrong. The US did not unilaterally take over Canada in the miniseries, Canadians voted to merge with the United States in a democratic referendum. I agree with you that a story with the United States simply taking over would be implausible, but this I don't find anywhere near as far-fetched, even if I would find such a situation pretty deplorable.
 
Just to be clear, the U.S. didn't pull a "Red Dawn" or anything like that. That's what I meant when I said they didn't invade. What the U.S. did do was essentially take over Canada on their own initiative on the grounds that they couldn't let further chaos or war ensue as a result of the water issue that started the mess. McLaughlin didn't ask them to take over.

The Trojan Horse then picks up two years later with Canadians voting in a referendum to join the U.S. as six states. The details concerning how this deal was brokered and how the "Yes" side got slightly over half of the vote wasn't dealt with.

I don't think the issue is about whether or not the U.S. would "invade", but whether or not Canada could find itself "absorbed" by the U.S. through a series of developments.
 
Last edited:
So, in this hypothetical case, if Canada became a US territory and Citizenship was granted at the same time... a Canadian now American who has already been living in the US for more than 14 years could legally run for the presidency?

Again, the question is whether or not that new citizenship would be retroactive. A better comparison if you want to go for Guam or Puerto Rico as examples would be, "What if Canada became a US territory and its citizens were granted citizenship, and then it stayed a territory but never become a state or states. Would citizens of Canada born after the US annexation be eligible for the presidency?" Well, the answer would be yes, because they'd have been natural-born citizens and they'd've been living in the US for 14 years.

What happened to the real life cases though? I would have just assumed that everyone alive during those dates automatically got citizenship.
 
They have this wonderful invention, I think the Romans came up with it. It's called the "aqueduct".

[obligatory]"But what have the Romans ever done for us?!"[/obligatory]
 
Regarding this water thing - I know it sounds bizarre, but at one time Alaska was thinking of selling water to California. The scheme, which was developed by former Alaska Governor Wally Hickel (also a former Secretary of the Interior, I believe) involved large barges and giant 'water baggies'. Apparently, we were gonna fill these giant 'water baggies' with Alaskan water and float them down to California.

This was a serious proposal, by the way. Alaskans thought it was a stupid idea and we dispensed with the debate fairly quickly...but it WAS seriously considered.

So there you go. :lol:
 
So, in this hypothetical case, if Canada became a US territory and Citizenship was granted at the same time... a Canadian now American who has already been living in the US for more than 14 years could legally run for the presidency?

Again, the question is whether or not that new citizenship would be retroactive. A better comparison if you want to go for Guam or Puerto Rico as examples would be, "What if Canada became a US territory and its citizens were granted citizenship, and then it stayed a territory but never become a state or states. Would citizens of Canada born after the US annexation be eligible for the presidency?" Well, the answer would be yes, because they'd have been natural-born citizens and they'd've been living in the US for 14 years.

What happened to the real life cases though? I would have just assumed that everyone alive during those dates automatically got citizenship.

Everyone in those cases who was alive at the time received automatic citizenship, yes. I do not know, however, if that citizenship was considered to be retroactive (i.e., if they were considered to have become natural-born citizens retroactively) or if their citizenships were considered to begin on the date that citizenship was granted. Nor do I know where to find that information, if it even exists; since, so far as I know, no one who was not born a US citizen has ever run, the issue has never come up.
 
Everyone in those cases who was alive at the time received automatic citizenship, yes. I do not know, however, if that citizenship was considered to be retroactive (i.e., if they were considered to have become natural-born citizens retroactively) or if their citizenships were considered to begin on the date that citizenship was granted. Nor do I know where to find that information, if it even exists; since, so far as I know, no one who was not born a US citizen has ever run, the issue has never come up.


Oh, I see, you're saying that even after they got citizenship, they may not be considered "American born" because, well, they weren't actually born American?
 
Everyone in those cases who was alive at the time received automatic citizenship, yes. I do not know, however, if that citizenship was considered to be retroactive (i.e., if they were considered to have become natural-born citizens retroactively) or if their citizenships were considered to begin on the date that citizenship was granted. Nor do I know where to find that information, if it even exists; since, so far as I know, no one who was not born a US citizen has ever run, the issue has never come up.


Oh, I see, you're saying that even after they got citizenship, they may not be considered "American born" because, well, they weren't actually born American?

Yes. There are two types of citizens -- natural-born citizens, and naturalized citizens. The former are those who were citizens at birth (i.e., those born on American soil or those born to American citizens abroad). The latter are those who became citizens later in life through a legal process. The former qualify for the presidency, and the latter do not. Hence, the question is whether, when a community of people is granted US citizenship en masse, they are considered to be naturalized citizens or if they are retroactively considered to be natural-born citizens. I do not know if this question has ever actually been addressed.
 
I missed part one, anyone knows when I can catch it?

So, I don't get it... is the Paul Gross character "good" or "bad"?

It's a Canadian series, so I'm guessing he's meant to be the good guy. ;)

(Any American characters will probably...not be.)

No! In H20, our "protagonist" is seen by the public as a good guy but when seen in private, the audience realises that he is a schemy, power hungry man and the US in the end comes in because he made a mess of things. And in this one, Canada votes to join the US; the US doesn't invade or anything.

By the way, for electoral eligibility, if Paul Gross' character was born in Ontario and Ontario is now a US state he was born in the US since the electoral requirements of the US constitution deals with actual political borders at the time of the election.
 
Everyone in those cases who was alive at the time received automatic citizenship, yes. I do not know, however, if that citizenship was considered to be retroactive (i.e., if they were considered to have become natural-born citizens retroactively) or if their citizenships were considered to begin on the date that citizenship was granted. Nor do I know where to find that information, if it even exists; since, so far as I know, no one who was not born a US citizen has ever run, the issue has never come up.


Oh, I see, you're saying that even after they got citizenship, they may not be considered "American born" because, well, they weren't actually born American?

Yes. There are two types of citizens -- natural-born citizens, and naturalized citizens. The former are those who were citizens at birth (i.e., those born on American soil or those born to American citizens abroad). The latter are those who became citizens later in life through a legal process. The former qualify for the presidency, and the latter do not. Hence, the question is whether, when a community of people is granted US citizenship en masse, they are considered to be naturalized citizens or if they are retroactively considered to be natural-born citizens. I do not know if this question has ever actually been addressed.

I guess it has never really come up in real life so there's been no need to define it.
 
I missed part one, anyone knows when I can catch it?

So, I don't get it... is the Paul Gross character "good" or "bad"?

It's a Canadian series, so I'm guessing he's meant to be the good guy. ;)

(Any American characters will probably...not be.)

No! In H20, our "protagonist" is seen by the public as a good guy but when seen in private, the audience realises that he is a schemy, power hungry man and the US in the end comes in because he made a mess of things. And in this one, Canada votes to join the US; the US doesn't invade or anything.

But I wonder what will happen to the US when he's done with it. It seems apparent he only wants to become President as a sort of revenge fantasy against the US.
 
I missed part one, anyone knows when I can catch it?

It's a Canadian series, so I'm guessing he's meant to be the good guy. ;)

(Any American characters will probably...not be.)

No! In H20, our "protagonist" is seen by the public as a good guy but when seen in private, the audience realises that he is a schemy, power hungry man and the US in the end comes in because he made a mess of things. And in this one, Canada votes to join the US; the US doesn't invade or anything.

But I wonder what will happen to the US when he's done with it. It seems apparent he only wants to become President as a sort of revenge fantasy against the US.

Well, yes, but he's also not a very good person... we won't even know if he gets elected until next week.
 
If anyone wants to know how it ends, here’s what went down in the second half. But first, a repost of part 1...
The mini-series picks up two years after the events in H2O. Thomas McLaughlin has arrived at the home of Marc Lavigne (a key player in H2O and a washed-up nobody now) in Gatineau, Quebec. The two of them watch the results of the referendum unfold on television. When the results come in in favour of Canada joining the U.S., McLaughlin tells Lavigne that he’ll get his revenge.

Two years pass once again and we see a group of people gunned down at a law firm in London, England by a man coerced into doing so. This prompts an investigative reporter named Helen Madigan to investigate what happened since her adopted son was the shooter and took his own life in the incident. Also, the ones who staged the shooting know she’s snooping around and want her killed.

When we see Thomas McLaughlin, he’s putting the finishing touches on the plans he’s been putting together with a media baron named Randall Spear (another key player from H2O). Everything is set to go. In a meeting with some powerful men from a number of European countries, McLaughlin talks about throwing a wrench into the U.S.’s plans to take control of Saudi oil. In order to do this, he’ll be installed as President of the United States. When asked which party he’ll run with, Spear says that he’ll run as an independent. Both he and McLaughlin assure the group that they can guarantee his victory.

When the drama cuts to President Stanfield in the White House, we see that the U.S. does in fact have designs on Saudi Arabia and its oil and that he has willingly turned a blind eye to what is being done to accomplish this. He’s acting out of desperation because if the U.S. doesn’t get control, China will. He’s also keeping his eye on McLaughlin, wondering what he’s up to when he appears on the news as a hero who has negotiated the release of a U.S. dignitary who was taken hostage in the Middle East.

With the first part of his plan having been a success, and with a positive public image in place due to the hostage situation, McLaughlin gets himself a running mate. He then continues his plans to build an even more powerful image for himself on the campaign trail by staging an attempted assassination on himself which will be followed by his “resurrection”. Everything goes well when he is shot, hospitalized and is informed by his associates that his poll numbers have skyrocketed.

Meanwhile, back in England, Helen Madigan has discovered that someone killed in the London law firm was involved with the development of a piece of software that will be used to rig the upcoming U.S. election.

That’s where things left off. McLaughlin is using an image he’s building as well as a piece of software to get the presidency.
In part 2, Tom McLaughlin walks out of the hospital to a media circus. His recovery is making headlines everywhere. The media circus continues when he gets the support of a well known religious leader and even gets baptized in a lake in the dessert to many onlookers and camera crews. It’s like the second coming and he’s never been more popular.

While still on retreat in the dessert with some key players on his team, Tom asks his running mate Mary Miller of Texas to marry him again. Again you say? They were once married before and got divorced. Apparently they met while he was auditing a course at Harvard when they were younger. She accepts and they get married (I find it interesting that the First Lady will also be the Vice President).

While all this is going on, Helen Madigan is continuing her investigation into this program that will tamper with the election results. She travels to the U.S. to warn McLaughlin and he reacts with surprise. I have to say one thing though. I said last week that McLaughlin was using it to rig the election. As it turns out, he really didn’t know about it. It was his backers that put it together, intending to use it. McLaughlin was offended by this move and said he can win without it. That’s the last we hear of this program.

McLaughlin’s run for the Presidency continues, but he needs something more that can push his popularity over the top. As luck would have it, a situation involving some kidnapped American children develops and makes headlines. The children are eventually killed and McLaughlin uses the opportunity to point out how the current president did nothing. The campaign continues.

Marc Lavigne, who I mentioned last week and who has been following events decides to meet up with Helen Madigan. He tells her all about McLaughlin and the two of them discover that it’s McLaughlin who plans to rig the elections. They also discover that his assassination attempt was staged. A hired hitman who’s been a part of McLaughlin’s cabal has been flowing them and listening in on their investigations from a van for quite awhile now. He breaks into their motel room and kills Lavigne. he then tries to kill her, but in a brief stuggle he ends up dead, leaving Madigan to escape and carry on.

As McLaughlin continues his vigorous campaign across the U.S., his campaign managers, who aren’t part of his secret plot realize that he can’t win when they play around with all sorts of projections. Miller suggests a radical new approach that involves telling it like it is and this seems to work well. During the campaign, one of Stanfield’s people discovers that Mary Miller had an abortion a long time ago. This could damage McLaughlin’s campaign if it ever got out. Fortunately McLaughlin has a plan of his own to counteract this. One of his guys in the White House discovers that Stanfield has been having a gay affair with one of the White House aids. A stalemate is reached and neither the abortion or the affair is made public.

After a nail-biting election, McLaughlin wins. Shortly afterwards, he meets again with Helen Madigan who reveals that she knows what’s going on. She threatens him by saying that she can warn other countries. Mclaughlin laughs and tells her that they were involved with is little coup. An impassioned and angry McLaughlin also tells her about his plans to curb America’s power and bring down its Empire status. He says that this is all a game and he won because he told the best story to the people. He even reveals that he’s been using Miller in his plans. Miller, who’s been standing outside has heard all this and is shocked. She makes plans with some Pentagon insiders to do something about what she’s found out.

How does the movie end? Most of McLaughlin’s backers are found and killed off one by one. McLaughlin, Spear and a few associates take off in a private jet and we find out that it’s been sabotaged. Everyone inside has passed out while McLaughlin, partially conscious looks out at a pair of fighter jets that have been dispatched to shoot down the plane which has become a danger. Miller, who is in one of the Air Force command centers sees live camera footage of McLaughlin in a daze, smiling out the window as Stanfield, who’s with her allows her to give the final order to shoot the plane down.

That’s where it ends. We don’t see the plane get shot down.

I can’t say I was happy with the ending. I’ll have to give it some thought to see what I can make of it. Was something else going on that I missed? I don't know. If so, I probably haven't provided the necessary details here that could shed some light on what that might be. In any case, I was expecting more, maybe a big twist at the end like what we got with H2O. I’m also wondering if Paul Gross left an opening for a third instalment.

Was there anything else of interest? Yeah. McLaughlin made reference to someone named “Rumson” and there was a presidential candidate named “Hilary Benton”. Gross likes to play around with names like that.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top