Affording Discretion to Immigration Judges: A Comparison of Removal Proceedings in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the United States, immigration judges lack the discretion to consider defenses during the removal proceedings of legal, non-citizen residents if they have committed an aggravated felony. American citizen children face the significant risk of lifelong separation from parents, who commit relatively minor crimes, because the definition of an aggravated felony is so broad. Canadian immigration laws, akin to those in a majority of developed countries, grant judges the crucial opportunity to weigh the separation of a parent and citizen child in the removal decision. This Note argues that Congress should follow Canada’s example by passing the proposed Child Citizen Protection Act. Such an equitable approach is necessary to adhere to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Although the United States is not a party to that Convention, its duty as a signatory may still require it to promote the best interests of citizen children in its immigration courts. Further, the principles governing that Convention may be morphing into an international custom, which would place American removal proceedings directly at odds with binding international law.
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 | 0.000 | 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".