Rights, Compassion and Invisible Children: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Parliamentary Debates on the Mandatory Detention of Migrant Children in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From 2011 until 2012, members of the Canadian parliament debated three iterations of legislation relating to the detention of asylum seekers. The final bill, unlike its predecessors, exempted children under the age of 16 from mandatory year-long detention, opening the door to children’s prolonged separation from parents or invisible detention as guests alongside mandatorily detained parents. Using a critical discourse analysis approach, we examine parliamentary debates and seek to determine how speech acts within the Canadian parliament construct a (detained) migrant child. Our results suggest that parliamentarians invoke logics of human rights and humanitarianism and that a reconfiguration of these paradigms places the state rather than the refugee in need of protection, thus introducing a hierarchy of compassion. Within this discourse, children are rendered so vulnerable as to be voiceless, enforcing the corollary image of the threatening adult refugee, which ultimately allows detention of children to be framed as a protective measure. We hypothesize mechanisms that make such constructions possible and discuss the implications for advocacy efforts.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.054 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".