Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, I make a policy argument in defense of family and relationship-based immigration preferences in U.S. immigration law that accounts for economic objections and calls for solidarity among socioeconomically disadvantaged U.S. residents on this issue. I begin with a historical account of policy arguments for limiting family-based immigration. I challenge the view that family-based immigration is a fiscal burden on the nation as a whole and acts against the interests of disadvantaged native-born workers. Then, I present and respond to perception-based objections to family-based immigration by disadvantaged citizens who believe that they are suffering from competition with mixed-skilled immigrants, including those sponsored by family members. Advocates of family unity in immigration policy are fighting the perception of zero-sum competition between immigrants and disadvantaged citizens by organizing together for improvements in wages and working conditions, leveraging arguments from the U.S. civil rights struggle to advocate for inclusive immigration policies.
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".