An Inconvenient Obligation: How the Major Political Parties of Canada and Australia Justify the Restriction of Asylum Seekers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>This thesis surveys the politics of asylum seeking in Canada and Australia, charting the asylum policies and related parliamentary debates of Jean Chretien's Liberal Government (1993-2005) in Canada and John Howard's Liberal Government (1996-2007) in Australia, as well as those of their respective opposition parties. In doing so, this thesis reveals how the major political parties of Canada and Australia justified the disjunction between what they said about asylum (their rhetoric) and what they did (their policy). In regards to what they said, politicians of the centre-left and centre-right frequently affirmed their commitment to the state's obligations to refugees. Yet, in regards to what they did, the major political parties of Canada and Australia supported policy measures that restricted the entrance of asylum seekers. Given these findings, this thesis proposes to understand the politics of asylum as a conflict of aspirations. On the one hand, the major parties of Canada and Australia held an aspiration to provide asylum to refugees and, on the other, they held an aspiration to regulate the entrance of non-citizens into their national community. The practice of asylum seeking brought these aspirations into conflict because asylum seekers frequently entered nations by irregular means, frustrating a government's capacity to regulate entrance. In trying to reconcile this conflict, the major parties of Canada and Australia subordinated their aspiration to provide asylum, narrowing its scope to those refugees who arrived by regular means. This redefinition of the aspiration to provide asylum has substantial implications for the global refugee regime.</p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".