LAUSR

In their truly constructive contributions, the preceding responses have dealt above all with two issues: first, the usefulness and relevance of the liberal paradox for understanding the gap between moral responsibility and action; and second, the cross-dressing of forced migration with a focus on the agency of forced migrants themselves. In various ways, these responses have managed to carve out the issues at stake in much sharper relief. The two issues raised in the comments speak to the potentials and opportunities for the agency of forcedmigrants. I will argue that we need to take up this lead and extend the arguments of the critics to include more fully the agency of political–economic elites and civil society but also of researchers themselves. Following Catherine Wihtol de Wenden’s train of thought, one may conclude that the externalization of migration control from the borders of national states toward the external borders of the EU and above all into countries of origin and transit serves a crucial function – to circumvent the liberal paradox. Wihtol de Wenden observes that “the countries of emigration have been transformed into gate keepers of European borders”. The set of strategies advancing remote control through states adjacent to the EU and countries of origin in North Africa, West Africa and the Middle East serves to minimize the impact of the liberal paradox while it aggravates the welfare paradox. Once cross-border migrants have made it into the territory of liberal states, there is a paradox between efforts adhering to human rights on the one hand and those controlling the migrant population on the other hand. Externalization of control ensures that this liberal paradox is not activated, at least not to the full. At first sight, this could also apply to the welfare paradox, which holds that there is a tension between social rights for all on the one hand and the deregulation of social and labour rights and standards as part of a liberalizing global economy on the other. One may surmise that a decrease in immigration leads to fewer forced migrants competing with established non-migrants for public services and jobs. Yet, the depiction of (forced) migrants as exploiting generous welfare states and competing in labour markets does not necessarily depend on high and increasing numbers of mobile border-crossers. Restrictive policies