Introduction

All people are equal, according to Thomas Jefferson, but all migrants are not. States differentiate explicitly between categories of migrants (e.g., colonial, refugee, labour and family), and they differentiate implicitly according to categories of analysis, such as gender, class, religion and ethnicity. The relationship between gender and categorisation is twofold. In the first place, the ability to move between the categories of migrants is different for men and for women. Secondly, ideas about gender, together with those from other categories of analysis (e.g., class, religion and ethnicity), shape debates in the media and policies, as this volume makes clear. The contributions in this volume describe and analyse how in a number of countries – France, the USA, Turkey, Canada, Mexico, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark – distinctions between migrants were made and justified in policies and in public debates. The countries examined are similar enough to make valuable comparisons, while being sufficiently varied to lead to interesting conclusions. Each of the countries has significant and diverse groups of migrant populations. Several have large groups of migrants from earlier colonial or neo-colonial relationships with other societies; and all have developed important policies on migration and refugees, at least since the mid 20th century. Several of the major migrant groups have religious traditions that differ from those of the majority population, which often leads to conflict and controversies about national identities and social roles. About half of the countries have encouraged multiculturalism, while the other countries have not.

All authors except Schacher examine the period after the Second World War. Schacher analyses the Armenian refugee issue in the 1920s, pointing out striking continuities with more recent debates. All authors focus on gender as the primary analytical category. In the conclusion, we make comparisons between the countries and between the catego ries of migrants examined. All authors address the intersection of gender with other categories of analysis.

We have selected our subjects for four major reasons. In the first place, (re-)categorisations and processes of (re-)labelling can best be studied at nodal points: moments of debate (Laclau & Mouffe 1985). It is at such times that boundaries are redrawn or justified.