Insecure Refugees: The Narrowing of Asylum-Seeker Rights to Freedom of Movement and Claims Determination Post-9/11 in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter has a modest goal: to track some legislative changes since 9/11 which impact on two rights of asylum-seekers where those changes are linked to or justified by security concerns. These are the rights of asylum-seekers to have their claim determined, and to not be detained. This article identifies how legislation restricting these key rights of asylum-seekers has largely been promoted as necessary for Canada to be able to protect its public from criminality and security threats. The article thus queries whether measures, especially those introduced under Bill C-11, The Balanced Refugee Reform Act and those proposed under Bill C-4, Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada’s Immigration System Act, actually enable greater security. It concludes that some of the legislative changes have no clear connection with enhancing security, and may result in incentives for asylum-seekers to avoid making their presence known to officials, thus creating new security concerns. The paper concludes by finding that some of the proposed legislative measures regarding detention will likely not withstand a Charter challenge.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".