Chapter 6 moves to the 1880s–1890s to consider how an increasingly shrill public anxiety about ‘Asiatic’ immigration in the settler empire became fixed on the racial diversification of trade mobility. The chapter compares parallel controversies around Indian trade mobility in the Transvaal Republic and colonial Australia to explore how those controversies revealed disputes over ‘mobility sovereignty’ as the right to move. The Transvaal Republic’s government exercised an explicit form of mobility sovereignty by introducing a discriminatory law to segregate all Asian traders, in the process targeting Indian British subjects in violation of the Republic’s agreement with Britain. But in colonial Australia, Indian hawkers were not subject to any equivalent sweeping law. Instead, their continuing mobility and their entitlements as British subjects upset settler colonial presumptions about the right to move and its relationship to settler domesticity. Indian British subjects in both countries responded to discrimination by asserting their equal rights as British subjects and imperial citizens. But in colonial Australia, at least, hawkers’ licenses remained a passport to non-white mobility.