ABSTRACT Hollifield’s ‘migration state’ concept draws attention to the political tension between openness and closure in liberal-democratic countries, arguing that domestic migration policy regimes represent an equilibrium outcome between security, rights, markets, and culture. This overstates national strategic control over migration and borders. Through a case study of recent developments in Canada, sometimes held up as the paradigmatic centralised liberal migration state, we present evidence of growing policy blurring, fragmentation, and decentralisation as migration management programmes have been patched and layered in response to controversies and pressure from domestic interests, including employers, higher education institutions, advocacy groups, and subnational governments. As a result, volumes of temporary foreign workers and foreign students have increased tenfold since 2000. More generally, we propose that a strategy of disaggregation reveals the internal complexity of, and political tensions within, contemporary migration states.