How do we understand variations in immigration policy and politics across national contexts? What are the key dynamics that shape immigration policy within different political systems? These questions have generated an immense, interdisciplinary body of literature. While much of this literature has focussed on Western liberal democracies, attention has been shifting of late to Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East-an acknowledgement of the increasing scale and complexity of intra-and interregional migration corridors in the Global South. The concept of the "migration state" has been an important touchstone in efforts to widen the geographical scope of scholarship on immigration politics. The migration state concept, in its initial iteration, explains how Western liberal states use migration management systems to balance the market's demand for mobile labour with the national citizenry's demand for cultural and territorial closure (Hollifield, 2004). In extending the migration state concept to the Global South, Adamson and Tsourapas (2020), for instance, have described how states manage distinctive economic and political pressures, often with less bureaucratic capacity and weaker commitment to liberal norms than their Global North counterparts. Their typology includes nationalizing states (driven by the logic of ethnonational purity), developmentalist states (driven by demands for remittance earnings) and neoliberal states (driven by a desire to monetize cross-border flows, whether of refugees or wealthy tax dodgers). Another recent typology describes weak and strong varieties of democratic and authoritarian states (e.g. Tennis, 2020).Not all scholarship on immigration politics, however, relies on regime typologies to define immigration politics. Indeed, a large, diverse body of literature suggests, usually implicitly, that immigration politics across national and regional contexts are more alike than they are different (e.g. Cantat et al., 2023;Chauvin & Garcés-Mascareñas, 2014;Nawyn, 2016). This literature points to a basic dynamic common to all migration states-namely, the production and enforcement of distinctions between foreigners and citizens, whether through physical borders, (il)legalization measures, naturalization laws or day-to-day bureaucratic practices. By setting aside assumptions about regime types, these accounts allow for some interesting and perhaps uncomfortable comparisons.Coddington (2018), for instance, compares asylum and refugee policies in the United Kingdom and Thailand, showing how both have skirted international human rights law and pursued punitive and restrictive policies towards asylum seekers. Whether a country has a parliamentary democracy or is a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention matters less here than a general hostility to "uninvited," foreign "Others." Such bold comparisons are few and far between, so we are fortunate to have Katharina Natter's detailed comparative account of Morocco and Tunisia, which are more commonly known as emigration and "transit"