Over the past decade there has been a surge of academic and policy interest in the contributions of transnational migrants in furthering national development objectives in their 'home' countries. These approaches tend to be bifurcated into two distinct categories: (1) 'diaspora strategies' that target the participation in national development objectives of sought-after elite, high-skilled migrants and (2) migration-as-development strategies, which focus on facilitating and channeling the economic and social remittances of nonelite, low-skilled migrants. Although these broad categorizations have never been entirely adequate in capturing the complexity of international migration flows, a conceptual division between them persists, with very real consequences for state policies in migrant-sending countries in Southeast Asia. This paper explores the separation between diaspora strategies and migration-as-development frameworks through a focus on rights and skills, and questions of relative labour value. I argue that while diaspora strategies and migration-as-development frameworks cannot simply be merged, the academic separation between them should be challenged and more in-depth theoretical engagement should be encouraged. I further suggest that migration policy makers should strive to evaluate their migration policies to address the increasing complexities of contemporary migration.