The criminalization of migration, detention centres, and their portrayal in the media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper highlights the ways in which political ideologies and the media influence the securitization of borders which in turn results in and continues the cycle of the criminalization of migration. The literature review looks briefly at the development of Canadian policies towards migrants, and the way that international treaty obligations shape this. It will also look at role of the media in the creation of a moral panic, resulting in a mass fear of migrants. This is used as justification for immigration detention centres and the human rights violations within them. I employ a brief content analysis and examine the messages twelve popular media articles portray to Canadians about the centres. I find that recent articles about Canadian immigration detention centres can be divided into four themes: “How They Work”, “Public Opposition”, “Not as Bad as the U.S.” and “Prison-like Conditions”. I conclude with policy recommendations and areas for future research with an emphasis on the need to develop effective, rights-based policies for incoming migrants. Key words: Crimmigration, securitization, moral panics, policy, immigration detention centres, human rights, refugee rights, media
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".