Salway et al. BMC Public Health 2011, 11:514 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/11/514 pointed out that whereas ‘migrant’ tends to carry the connotation of temporary or seasonal movement, ‘immi- grant’, in their context, refers to someone who has moved to the country with the intention of settling per- manently and ‘landed immigrant’ is the official term for someone who has been granted the right to live in Canada permanently. In Germany, the distinction between permanent and temporary migrants to the country is emphasised through the use of the terms Gastarbeiter (guest worker) and Ausländer (foreigner) or Aussiedler (resettler), reflecting different legal statuses and entitlements. In contrast, the UK researchers felt that the terms ‘migrant’ and ‘immigrant’ were used fairly interchangeably -perhaps reflecting a less rigid categori- sation of people entering the country and the possibility of those on fixed-term work permits deciding to settle permanently and gain citizenship. However, the UK researchers also alerted the team to the negative conno- tations that the term ‘immigrant’ can carry, and noted that though the term ‘migrant’ is sometimes used in public health and epidemiological work to encompass all those born outside the UK, neither ‘migrant’ nor ‘immigrant’ would tend to be used for the children or grandchildren of people who had migrated to Britain. Similarly, though the terms ‘foreign born’ and ‘foreign origin’ have been used in the UK, they have carried dis- tasteful associations and are uncommon. In contrast, the German team noted that German scholars do not reject the term ‘migrant’ for the second generation, and cited Schönwälder [18] who argues that the use of this term (Einwanderer) is not perceived as othering or excluding in the German context. Nevertheless, some scholars have opted to use the phrase ‘individuals with a migra- tion background’, in recognition of the problematic nat- ure of the label ‘migrant’. Germany was unique in its use of specific terms to distinguish between migrants of German ethnic back- ground, termed Aussiedler (resettler) and migrants of ethnic background other than German, termed Auslän- der (foreigner). It was also noted that the latter are con- structed in policy discourse and the popular media as much more problematic than the former. Despite no conceptual equivalent, research team members in both Canada and the UK did identify collective terms that served to distinguish ‘types’ of migrant or minority and which could be seen to contribute to the racialisation of particular groups. So, for instance, the term ‘visible min- ority’ is used in Canada and the collective ‘Black and minority ethnic’ or ‘BME’ is used in the UK, both of which place emphasis on skin colour, and by implication a degree of cultural distance from the majority White population, as well as group together people with very diverse backgrounds and circumstances. Contrary to the UK and Canada, the German team reported that the Page 4 of 13 terms ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ are rarely used and the con- cept of ethnic minorities is uncommon in Germany [18]. The German situation is, of course, similar to much of Europe where past abuses have given rise to strong concerns regarding the identification of ethnic identity in official data. Differences were also evident in the standard practices and specific categories and labels employed by statutory authorities and researchers to identify and enumerate migrant or ethnic ‘groups’. So, for instance, in Germany population registers exist and the Federal Institute for Statistics provides regular updates on the ‘foreign popu- lation’ by legal status and the population size by country of citizenship, while ethnicity and language are rarely monitored. In Canada and the UK, population level data on migrants/minorities come primarily from the cen- suses, though the concepts, questions and categories employed diverge importantly. Aspinall [19] has noted the inclusion in Canadian state data collection of ethnic origin/ancestry (originally defined through the paternal ancestor) as well as ‘population group’. Indeed, in the most recent Canadian census in 2006 a range of ques- tions were included relating to migration and ethnicity (for 20% of people who received the long form), asking about ‘ethnic or cultural origins of ancestors’ as well as country of birth of both parents, citizenship, languages spoken and a question that categorises people into one of the following categories by simply asking ‘Is this per- son...?’: White, Chinese, South Asian, Black, Filipino, Latin American, Southeast Asian, Arab, West Asian, Korean, Japanese, Other-specify. In the UK, data on migrant status and ethnic group are collected at census, the latter since 1991, but not ancestral origins. In recent years, use of the 2001 Census ethnic categories has been required in statutory agencies including the health sec- tor, and, though data are far from complete, it is com- mon to find information on service use and outcome by ethnic group. Many large-scale national surveys also gather data on ethnic group. The 2001 census in Eng- land asked respondents, ‘What is your ethnic group?’ and provided five major response options each with sub-categories: White - (British; Irish; Other); Mixed - (White and Black Caribbean; White and Black African; White and Asian; Other); Asian or Asian-British - (Indian; Pakistani; Bangladeshi; Other); Black or Black British (Caribbean; African; Other); Other ethnic group - (Chinese; Other). Clearly, the ethnic categories in use in Canada and the UK differ greatly, with some cate- gories carrying different meanings in the two contexts and some having saliency only in one setting. Further- more, there has been change over time in both question wording and in response options in both countries. It is beyond the scope of the current paper to describe comprehensively the diversity of terms and their