The Revolving Door of Im/Migration: Canadian Refugee Protection and the Production of Migrant Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper places the seemingly distinct projects of refugee protection and temporary foreign worker programs alongside one another to reveal their interlinked relationship. I argue that despite its seeming humanitarian exceptionality, refugee protection is deeply implicated in the production of both the category and supply of temporary foreign workers for the Canadian economy. I demonstrate that the defining limitations of refugee law in relation to questions of class and economic deprivation are integral to the conceptualization of the category of the migrant worker. I then engage with statistical data to show that patterns of refugee adjudications in Canada have contributed to maintaining the supply of temporary foreign workers. In particular, I show that Canada has consistently rejected refugee claims from key source countries of migrant workers, namely Jamaica and Mexico. By refusing these claims, Canadian refugee protection has constituted Jamaican and Mexican nationals as inappropriate subjects of permanent protection and, subsequently, primed them for incorporation as temporary foreign workers. In effect, Canadian im/migration has operated like a revolving door: pushing some nationalities out of the permanent protection of refugee status while pulling them into the precarious opening of temporary labour migration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".