Bordering on legality: an investigation into the lines 'we' draw : the lines that draw 'us' (and the spaces in between)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines how legal scholars can contribute to debates within liberalism about border control. Many liberal theorists view border control as exceptional. Such theorists contend that standard liberal principles regulate relations among members of a political community. As such, these principles are not applicable with their full force to the border control context because this context raises the analytically prior question of who counts as a member of the community. Along similar lines, the legal systems in liberal states characterize border control law as legally exceptional. In this exceptional area of law, human rights norms -- especially due process nouns -- are attenuated. This dissertation challenges these exceptional understandings of border control by exposing the legal processes that render border control laws exceptional and by investigating legal strategies that migrants successfully deploy to resist exceptional border control laws. The dissertation begins by exploring the exceptional understanding of border control adhered to by many liberal theorists. It then moves on to examine how border control law establishes legally anomalous zones and legally exceptional classes of people, both of which allow states to deploy legal forms as a one-way projection of power over noncitizens. Next, the dissertation offers a critique of laws operating in this manner, arguing that such laws fail to comply with norms that are constitutive of what Lon Fuller termed 'legality'. The dissertation then considers a legal strategy that migrants and their allies use to challenge legally exceptional border control measures: church sanctuary practices, whereby non-citizens take up residence in sacred buildings to avoid deportation. Faith-based communities frequently justify sanctuary as a means to correct particularly egregious outcomes emerging from border control procedures that violate principles of legality. Moreover, states commonly defer to these arguments by mitigating the harsh outcomes of border control law in cases where sanctuary has been offered. The dissertation concludes that greater attention ought to be paid by liberal theorists to legal arguments made within extra-state institutions such as faith-based communities that are responsive to the interests of non-citizens and that successfully resist -- and develop alternatives to -- legally exceptional border control activities.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".