Obscure, Minimize, and Distract: The Canadian State's Playbook on the Characterization and Justification of Immigration Detention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
State discourse on immigration detention reveals a concerted effort to obscure the realities of immigration detention in Canada. This paper exposes Canadian statutes and federally published websites as non-neutral domains where discursive violence takes place and where enactments of state violence are justified. Although it positions itself as a welcoming 'safe haven' for migrants, the Canadian state distracts us from the punitive nature of indefinite immigration detention, minimizes the number of migrants detained, and inflates the danger that migrants pose to Canadian society and borders. The Canadian state's moral authority to enforce immigration detention must not be accepted as natural, lest we naturalize the violence, harm, and settler domination that the state enacts against 'undesirable' migrants. Applying a Critical Discourse Analysis, this paper investigates Canadian state and state agency discourses on/of immigration detention in order to reveal the discursive strategies the state employs to characterize and justify immigration detention.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".