Morawska introduced the MSS's special issue on international migration research (based on a 2006 ISA conference). There are some great literature overviews here, but it's also pretty in-discipline stuff.
Agadjanian kicks things off with a focus on migration within sub-Saharan Africa. Data is scarce. Immigrants are unloved. Conflict drives much movement. HIV/AIDS complicates things further. More (and more 'mainstreamed') research is needed.
The Asian labour migration research scene is summarised by Asis & Piper. The infrastructure and output are coming along, but more theorisation and international ties would be beneficial.
Caponio covers the Italian research: it has matured since the 80s. There is more wonkish output, and more convergence with international concepts and concerns (natural as Italy's immigration situation became less 'exceptional'). The suggestions: watch out for the EU and speak more English.
Morawska is back to compare research agendas amongst the US and rich Europe. Europe is more overtly interdisiplinary, but the states seem to shift around key disciplinary tropes more effectively. The US is focused on assimilation, transnational ties and the effects of colour. It also tends to put more time into second generation outcomes, and do a better job of gender (there are still deficiencies). The Europeans prefer 'integration' to 'assimilation'. They also put more emphasis on the role of receiving-country factors (institutions, host-nation hostility...) for immigrants. There's a lot more here if you're in the field...
Finally Fong & Chan run through the patterns of recent immigration research in the US and Canada. The topics, frameworks and objects of books and articles are tallied (too much structure, not much culture). The US kept a closer eye on demographics while Canada watched the politics. The key framework has been "assimilation/pluralism". Canada adds a concern with inter-ethnic stratification. The US takes up research around markets and social capital. The whole scene is promisingly 'public'.