Independent Immigrant Selection Criteria and Equality Rights : Discretion, Discrimination and Due Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is a response to Walter Chi Yan Tom's « Equality Rights in the Federal Independent Immigrant Selection Criteria », published in 1990 in this journal, in which it is asserted that the federal independent immigrant selection criteria are discriminatory within the meaning ofs. 15 of the Charter and are not demonstrably justified according to s. 1. The author argues that Tom badly distorts the section 15 meaning of discrimination when he equates the discretion and drawing of distinctions, which are part of the administrative decision-making process by which independent immigrants are selected, with section 15 discrimination. The article also addresses the conflict between State sovereignty and the sovereignty of universal legal principles, a conflict which is raised in Tom's article. Finally, the author examines the ways in which standing rights have been used by the courts in immigration decisions to avoid dealing with substantive Charter issues, and criticizes the lack of rationality and coherence in the assignment of due process rights to different classes of nonnationals under current immigration 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 | 0.001 | 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".