Immigration Detention at Sea: The carceral mobility that defines maritime migration governance in Australia

I greatly appreciate the detailed notes from the anonymous reviewers and the opportunity to improve upon my article. I have taken onboard the comments and edited the article appropriately. Most notably, this has including re-structuring aspects of the paper and re-writing section 1. My intervention and theoretical contribution are now foregrounded at the start of the article, while my argument is now more clearly signposted throughout, making the piece more engaging.

Below, I respond in detail to the suggestions by the reviewers. I hope my comments are easy to follow and that my amendments meet the editors’ expectations.

Thank you very much.
Kind regards,
Andonea J Dickson

Thank you to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive feedback. I have revised the article pertaining to the comments. Overall, the article has been re-written and re-structured as well as given a new and clearer title. I have created a stronger line of argumentation throughout with additional signposting which, in addition to edits to my writing, addresses concerns relating to the lack of engaging nature of the piece (reviewer 3). Information and data have also been updated, specifically in relation to the number of asylum seekers who have been subject to at sea mobilities as a result of Australian migration governance (page 10-11 and page 21). Below are more specific details of the re-writing, structured by the sections of the article and pertaining to requested changes from reviewers.

Section one:
In addressing suggestion 1 by reviewer 2, I have re-written and re-structured the first section of this article. This section now provides a clearer theoretical outline, demonstrating my focus on coerced mobility at sea and how this practice expands the carceral landscape of Australian migration control. This is now also more clearly signposted throughout the article, creating a clearer structure throughout.

The re-writing of this section means it reads less like a literature review with serial citations, and rather emphasizes my analysis upfront and the significance of mobility to carcerality (addressing a weakness identified by reviewer 2 as well as suggestion 2 by reviewer 2).

I have diminished reference to the phrasing “to detain is to take”, a weakness identified by reviewer 3 as disrupting the flow of the section.

In response to suggestion 2 by reviewer 1, I have ensured there is not a repetition of my argument at the end of sentences.

In response to a weakness identified by reviewer 2, that the opening of the paper is overly long, the re-writing of this section has not only created greater clarity in argument but has also reduced the word count of this section by approx. 400 words.

Correlating to a weakness identified by reviewer 1, my use of terminology is now clearer. However, it felt tangential in this particular article to provide further detail on the carceral wet or liquid geographies, as this is the topic of a former article (Dickson 2021).

Section two:
Addressing suggestion 2 by reviewer 3, on the space between detention and mobility, I have included a paragraph on page 12 detailing the experience of Tamil asylum seekers upon the vessel, as well as evidence from the judges demonstrating that this confinement was an explicit case of a detention. This provides a clearer connection between mobility and detention (which I also outlined more clearly in section 1).

This change also responds to suggestion 2 by reviewer 1, adding detail to the experience of the Tamil asylum seekers. I wholeheartedly agree that the inclusion of further testimonies would be interesting and advantageous. Yet, this would require further fieldwork and is beyond the scope of these revisions.

In response to reviewer 1’s comments, I have included reference to the agenda of “deterrence” in migration governance on page 9, with reference to De Leon (2015) Pickering and Weber (2014) and Matera et al (2023).

Pertaining to suggestion 3 by reviewer 3, I have drawn reference to the interesting articulation of mobilities within Paola Cuttitta’s article on page 4. However, as the case I am examining relies exclusively upon state-based actors operating within and just beyond Australian territories, I don’t draw on Cuttitta’s reference to externalization.

Section three:
Pertaining to suggestion 3 by reviewer 1, I have added subsections to the third section of the article. These subtitles are ‘To Detain is to Take’ (the original title of the article) and ‘A Geography that Demands Carceral Mobility?’, and I believe they make this section more readable as well as more clearer signpost my argument.

Pertaining to suggestion 1 by reviewer 3, I have diminished reference to the inside/outside discussion, with reference to it only on page 3 and not in the third section.

Overall:
There were some longer paragraphs across the article that have been edited to read more succinctly (this applies especially to the re-writing of the 1st section of the paper). I have also edited or deleted phrases that weaken the writing, such as “this statement is significant for a number of reasons”, suggestion 3 by reviewer 2.

Reference to the indefinite nature of detention at sea has also been refined, adding more detail and clarity to this ruling and when and how time limitations apply.

I have reviewed the references – suggestion 3 by reviewer 1.