FitzGerald, David2023-10-252023-10-2520201469-9451https://hdl.handle.net/10315/41482https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1680115This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies on 17 Oct 2019, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1680115‘Remote control’ has been a radical innovation that projects many aspects of migration and border enforcement beyond a state’s territory. Scholars across multiple disciplines make distinctive and sometimes contradictory claims about the extent to which state control over space and geographic borders is of declining significance. Drawing on a study of remote control policies in the United States, Canada, the EU, and Australia since the 1930s, this paper argues that states push much of their migration control out from their territorial boundaries though a process of extraterritorialisation. However, these liberal states simultaneously ratchet up controls at a finely calibrated border line in a process of hyper-territorialisation. The goal of restricting migrants’ access to territorialised human and civil rights drives both of these manipulations of territoriality. A taxonomy of controls based on the metaphor of an ‘architecture of repulsion’ describes their logic and practice. Many of these practices involve states sharing the legitimate means of coercion over movement in a way that challenges a core assumption about modern states. The degree to which remote control deters unauthorised migration remains a critical research question, but there is more deterrence than found in standard measures of border enforcement efficacy.enAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 InternationalArticle