Against the backdrop of demographic change and economic reconfiguration, recruiting international students, especially those at tertiary level, has drawn growing attention from advanced economies as part of a broad strategy to manage highly skilled migration. This comparative study focuses on three English speaking countries receiving international students: Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. International student policies, in particular entry and immigration regulations, and the trends in student mobility since the late 1990s are examined drawing on secondary data. By exploring the issue from the political economy perspectives, this study identifies distinct national strategies for managing student mobility, determines key factors shaping the environment of student migration in each nation, and addresses the deficiency of human capital theory in the analysis of global competition for high skills.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/2193-1801-2-132) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Sally is carrying out a historical sociological project concerning women' s organizations associated with trade unions in Canada during the Cold War. We meet her when she is beginning to collect archival materials on these women's organizations, commonly known as Ladies' Auxiliaries, in the Archives of Ontario. While in the archives, Sally grapples with various ethical dilemmas and struggles on how to proceed with her research. She turns to the Tri Council Policy [1] and a Qualitative textbook [2] for help in making decisions about how to conduct ethical archival research. [Tri-Council Policy (TCP) and the qualitative research textbook (QT) are positioned behind a small desk in the 'archives'. Sally, the researcher, is sitting in the audience.] TCP: The following study is exempt from the Research Ethics Board review process: 'Gendering labour struggles during the Cold War: a socio-historical study of the Ladies Auxiliary of Mine Mill and Smelter Workers Union.' Researcher: Exempt? Why exempt? TCP: University ethics board review is generally not required for research involving the writing of modern history or literary or artistic criticism, even though all these might well involve human subjects. Researcher: Modern history?? I wonder what that means…hmm there' s no footnote in this policy. How does the passage of time reduce our obligations as researchers to abide by the ethical principles? The Cold War is modern history isn't it? But hang on a sec, why is modern history exempt from the Tri Council Policy and the university ethics board approval process? TCP: Research about a living individual involved in the public arena, or about an artist, based exclusively on publicly available information, documents, records, works, performances, archival materials or third-party interviews, is not required to undergo ethics review [3]. Researcher: A living individual? I wonder what that means for a dead individual? This project has both. The Ladies Auxiliary of Mine Mill and Smelter Workers existed up until 1967 so some of its members are still living but many are dead, so I'm dealing with a combination of living and dead individuals. So am I required to undergo an ethics review? TCP: Research about a living individual involved in the public arena, or about an artist, based exclusively on publicly available information, documents, records, works, performances, archival materials or third-party interviews, is not required to undergo ethics review [4].