Between Legitimate Refugees and Deportable Subjects: (In)admissibility in Canadian Immigration Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While legal discourse commonly interprets ‘admissibility’ as ‘inadmissibility’ within Canadian immigration law and policy, this research explores ‘admissibility’ as a concept of its own and how it is implemented through Canadian immigration practice. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides concrete terms in which individuals are deemed inadmissible to Canada, however the same cannot be said for an individual being found admissible and nowhere in the Act is admission to the Canadian state guaranteed simply from not meeting such terms. This depicts a disparity between an individual being found not to be inadmissible and actually being admissible to Canada – underscoring the importance to examining how ‘admissibility’ is determined, in addition to ‘inadmissibility’, within the field of immigration. Specifically, this project addresses the following research question: How is admissibility constructed and framed within Canadian immigration law and policy? Two case studies – 1) The security certificate mechanism and 2) Canada’s recent response to the Syrian refugee crisis – of opposing immigration objectives – determining individuals to be inadmissible and admissible, respectively – are analyzed, though it is important to recognize that the construction of admissibility takes place through a variety of sites and processes, most of which are less public than the two cases. To gain an informed understanding of admissibility, this project employed a multi-phase research process that collected data from three sources: 1) Access to Information data from governmental bodies, 2) Open source data from online government websites, and 3) Data from interviews conducted with practitioners in the field of immigration law. Admissibility emerges as a fluid construct that is framed and circumscribed by ‘security’ – and due to its political nature, the terms surrounding the admissibility of a non-Canadian citizen is susceptible to influence, suggesting multiple ways or “points of admissibility” in which an individual’s admissibility can be constructed. Additionally, I provide a detailed review on my experience with the Access to Information process.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.051 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".