2472 A. ELLERMANN the ways in which visa categories ‘[correlate] emigration histories and countries of origin with legal status, employment opportunities, rights, and eligibility for permanent settlement and citizenship acquisition’ (2020, 2504) – correlations with far-reaching implications for status precarity and immigrant integration. Rather than being indicative of a non-discriminatory, universal admissions regime, these visa categories – through their structural effects of categorical differentiation – become the basis for ‘what observers ordinarily interpret as inequality-creating individual differences’ (Tilly 2001, 366) which mask structural inequality and discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and class. Antje Ellermann’s (2020) article develops the concept of human-capital citizenship to capture the increasing importance of class as an axis of inclusion and exclusion. By tracing developments in Canadian and German immigration policy over time, she shows that, as policy makers have come to conceive of individuals as the bearers of human capital, economic and family immigrant admissions have undergone profound change. Ellermann argues that states’ preference for high-skilled immigrants is not simply a reflection of changing labour market needs but, rather, is indicative of a new conception of citizenship. Under human-capital citizenship, economic attributes such as education, skill, and selfsufficiency hold profound cultural significance and serve as markers of social status. As the desirability of immigrants has come to correspond to their rank in the humancapital hierarchy, policies that (de)select immigrants on the basis of skill and education do not necessarily require actual labour shortages to be adopted. Instead, with the rise of human-capital citizenship, the core rights of economic migrants – most importantly, access to residence and family unification – have become stratified by skill level, rather than by economic contribution. Ellermann’s analysis further shows that human-capital citizenship’s upper-class bias has stratified not only economic, but also non-economic admissions. In the area of family unification, family ties – while necessary – oftentimes no longer suffice for admission as governments have imposed human-capital based conditionalities on family sponsorship. To the extent that class status closely maps onto ethnic and religious group membership, these conditionalities have resulted in intersecting patterns of class-based, ethnic, and religious inclusion and exclusion. Whereas Ellermann examines broad cross-national policy developments, Anna Boucher (2020) disaggregates high-skilled immigration policies to uncover cross-national differences in the ways in which skill is defined and operationalised. Using administrative datasets from Australia, Canada, Britain, the U.S. and the European Union, her analysis refutes the widespread assumption that ‘skill’ in ‘skilled immigration’ is something that is clearly identifiable and easily differentiated from ‘unskilled’ and ‘semi-skilled’ immigration. Instead, the operationalisation of skill ranges from education, occupation, and wage to linguistic fluency – differences that have far-reaching implications in terms of who is selected. It also matters who selects as government-driven selection produces different admission patterns from that performed by employers. Boucher’s use of country-level visa data presents a more deeply gendered and racialized reality of skilled immigrant selection than is generally provided for by global studies which rely on imposed definitions of skill. Not only is the reality of skilled immigration more gendered than is commonly assumed, but Boucher’s analysis also reveals significant ethnic origin bias. While many studies have adopted tertiary education as the central measure of skill, the use of ethnicity-disaggregated flow data reveals continued ethnic stratification across skilled and unskilled visas. Boucher finds that the widespread reliance on aggregated flow data