<|begin_of_text|><|start_header_id|>system<|end_header_id|>You are an expert on climate change, human mobility and migration. Answer the question truthfully.<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>user<|end_header_id|>Here are the title and abstract of a scientific paper probably related to climate change, human mobility and migration..
Title:"Beyond insiders and outsiders: welfare and immigration reforms in 1960s US."
Abstract:"Both welfare and immigration policies sort, monitor and handle people, but each targets a different population. Whereas welfare policies address those who reside within national borders, immigration policies address those who originate outside of them. What, if any, is the logic underlying the relationship between welfare and immigration policies? A growing interest in this subject in Europe postulates that states with generous welfare policies execute restrictive immigration policies, while states with limited welfare policies are relatively open to outsiders. Plausible as this explanatory logic sounds, it does not resonate with the main currents of the 1960s in the US, in which both welfare and immigration policies witnessed farreaching expansions (The War on Poverty of 1964 and the Immigration Act of 1965). Using official archival material and secondary sources, I argue that welfare and immigration during the 1960s were indirectly linked through the Civil Rights discourse of the time. A growing awareness of racial discrimination was one of the main reasons for the War on Poverty, but it never became a legitimate rationale for addressing poverty in the 1960s. In immigration, on the other hand, racial discrimination provided the main discursive frame for abolishing the quota system. Civil Rights discourse at the time was thus more dominant in the process of homogenizing distinctions between whites from diverse ethnic and national origins than in addressing the correlation between race and poverty. This case both calls into question the argument that immigration policy depends on welfare policy and demonstrates that welfare recipients and immigrants do not constitute a homogenized social category. Instead, it shows that in the welfare-immigration equation social distinctions between citizens can be more important than distinctions between citizens and outsiders.."
I have six questions you need to answer.
Q1: Is this article is about 'human migration mobility': 1 = yes; 0 = no. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q2: What drivers of migration and mobility does the article study? 0 = 'other', 1 = 'climate', 2 = 'environment', 3 = 'economic', 4 = 'conflict', 5 = 'political', 6 = 'social', 7 = 'family'. Answer with a number or a sequence of numbers separated by commas. Do not give a textual explanation. 

Q3: What is the overall sentiment of the article?:0 = 'neutral', 1 = 'negative', 2 = 'positive'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q4: What type of climate or environmental keywords are explicitly mentioned?:  0 = 'none', 1 = 'algal blooms', 2 = 'infestation', 3 = 'infectious diseases', 4 = 'ocean acidification', 5 = 'sea ice', 6 = 'acid rain', 7 = 'drought', 8 = 'cold wave', 9 = 'heat wave', 10 = 'glacial', 11 = 'wildfire', 12 = 'air pollution', 13 = 'biodiversity loss', 14 = 'coastal erosion', 15 = 'land degradation', 16 = 'deforestation', 17 = 'desertification', 18 = 'water pollution', 19 = 'diebacks', 20 = 'permafrost loss', 21 = 'sand mining', 22 = 'sea level rise', 23 = 'earthquake', 24 = 'tsunami', 25 = 'volcanic', 26 = 'flood', 27 = 'avalanche', 28 = 'landslide', 29 = 'downburst', 30 = 'thunderstorm', 31 = 'sandstorm', 32 = 'haze', 33 = 'storm', 34 = 'cyclone', 35 = 'blizzard', 36 = 'hail', 37 = 'snow', 38 = 'tornado', 39 = 'wind', 40 = 'hurricane', 41 = 'typhoon', 42 = 'other'. Answer with a number or a sequence of numbers separated by commas. Do not give a textual explanation. 

Q5: What discipline does the article belong to?: 0 = 'other', 1 = 'social science', 2 = 'natural science', 3 = 'arts and humanities', 4 = 'multidiscipline and interdiscipline'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Q6: Does the article apply quantitative and/or statistical analysis?: 0 = 'no', 1 = 'yes'. Answer with a number. Do not give a textual explanation.

Use the following template: 

Q1 = [];
Q2 = [];
Q3 = [];
Q4 = [];
Q5 = [];
Q6 = [].<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>assistant<|end_header_id|>Answer:
Q1 = [1];
Q2 = [3];
Q3 = [];
Q4 = [0];
Q5 = [];
Q6 = [0].
Beyond insiders and outsiders: welfare and immigration reforms in 1960s US
Both welfare and immigration policies sort, monitor and handle people, but each targets a different population. Whereas welfare policies address those who reside within national borders, immigration policies address those who originate outside of them. What, if any, is the logic underlying the relationship between welfare and immigration policies? A growing interest in this subject in Europe postulates that states with generous welfare policies execute restrictive immigration policies, while states with limited welfare policies are relatively open to outsiders. Plausible as this explanatory logic sounds, it does not resonate with the main currents of the 1960s in the US, in which both welfare and immigration policies witnessed farreaching expansions (The War on Poverty of 1964 and the Immigration Act of 1965). Using official archival material and secondary sources, I argue that welfare and immigration during the 1960s were indirectly linked through the Civil Rights discourse of the time. A growing awareness of racial discrimination was one of the main reasons for the War on Poverty, but it never became a legitimate rationale for addressing poverty in the 1960s. In immigration, on the other hand, racial discrimination provided the main discursive frame for abolishing the quota system. Civil Rights discourse at the time was thus more dominant in the process of homogenizing distinctions between whites from diverse ethnic and national origins than in addressing the correlation between race and poverty. This case both calls into question the argument that immigration policy depends on welfare policy and demonstrates that welfare recipients and immigrants do not constitute a homogenized social category. Instead, it shows that in the welfare-immigration equation social distinctions between citizens can be more important than distinctions between citizens and outsiders.