2474 A. ELLERMANN expose the role of border policy in maintaining global income inequality. He reminds us that, today, a historically unprecedented 80 percent of global income inequality can be attributed to interstate inequality alone. In other words, ‘[t]ransnational social stratification in terms of income is not primarily a function of “national class position” but of “state of residence”’ (2020, 2587). The deeply racialized nature of global income inequality, itself the legacy of colonialism and imperialism, is maintained through migration controls that close off legal immigration pathways from the Global South to the Global North to all but a select few. In order to disrupt the social reproduction of racialized transnational patterns of exclusion, then, Owen calls for structural changes that pattern access to migration opportunities and equality of access more broadly on principles of global justice. Global justice, he argues, will always remain out of reach as long as migration governance remains anchored in unilateral border controls. To address social injustice requires the creation of a cooperative regime of global migration governance that corrects global inequalities in political power among states, and that provides fair access to migration opportunities by requiring states in the Global North to adopt migration policies that prioritise access for those who are most disadvantaged. In drawing our attention to racialized exclusion at the global level, Owen provides an important complement to those contributions that focus their critiques of exclusion and discrimination at the national and subnational level. The contributions to this Special Issue also draw our attention to questions that have yet to attract sustained scholarly attention. Most of its articles – with the exception of Owen and Tichenor and Jacobson – focus their analyses on the nation state. While studies of the local politics of immigration and citizenship have recently gained a foothold in the literature (in particular in the United States and Canada), few analyses have examined the group-specific effects of subnational policies and local enforcement practices. Even fewer scholars have examined ways in which patterns of discrimination may both vary and intersect across vertical levels of jurisdiction. Are patterns of group bias found at the national level replicated or altered at subnational and supranational levels? A second line of inquiry absent from this issue is the study of the border and of migratory journeys—a focus which would require the use of ‘mobile methodologies’ to capture ‘processes of en-route diversity making’ (Hall 2017). What happens to patterns of discrimination and spaces of exclusion as migrants cross multiple national borders – each with their distinct control regime – on their way to their intended destination? How does the enforcement of exclusionary measures at the border produce biases that are not discernable by looking at immigration law alone? Finally, and perhaps most obviously, the analyses of this Special Issue are limited to the study of migration and citizenship in advanced democracies. Whilst this focus was intentional—after all, we have sought to challenge the notion that the immigration and citizenship regimes of ‘liberal states’ are relatively free of group bias—we realise that our insights will not fully carry beyond the Global North. Now that the much overdue study of migration and citizenship in the Global South has finally gathered steam, it is time for scholars of illiberal regimes and economically developing regions to examine patterns of discrimination and group bias in these understudied contexts, and to compare their findings to those evident in the Global North. It is our hope that, despite its limitations, this Special Issue will play a role in facilitating further empiricist and normative research into these and other questions of ‘discrimination in migration and citizenship.’