The Case of Ahmad Shamieh’s Campaign against Dublin Deportation: Embodiment of Political Violence and Community Care^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article in critically engaged, analytically elaborative and multiperspective way discusses the Dublin (anti)deportation politics and struggles in Slovenia in the post Balkan corridor period. In that respect, I am suggesting the author to emphasises the "struggling" or counter-politics dimension also in the title. Beside ethnographically based interpretation of Dublin deportation politics in practice, the article offers comprehensive insight and overview of the relevant and related literature. Having that in mind, I am recommending the author to include in the article also the reference to Nicholas De Genova 2020. article "Migrant 'illegality' and deportability in everyday life", for example, to contextualize the use of term deportabile, as well as elsewhere if and where he/she finds it appropriate. I also strongly recommend consulting and engaging with the Fiorenza Picozza article "Dublin on the move" published in movements: journal for critical migration and border regime  studies (2016).

Author Response

Dear reviewer 

thank you for your suggestions. I included the concepts of Nicholas De Genova more, especially the term deportability. I changed the title. I added analyses of embodiment of deportability related stress. I reorganised the structure of the article. I made major revisions in Abstract, Introduction, Methodology, Conceptual framework, and Analyses.   

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The submitted article "State power-games and refugee politicy. The case of Ahmad Shamie's campaign against Dublin deportation" is a very interesting case study, but the scientific processing has various problems.  

Methodology

One issue is the positioning and reflection of the authors. The positioning is clear, for this also an analytical frame of reference is referred to, but it is not elaborated enough. Bias and limitations are not sufficiently explained.

Numerous conclusions of the authors lack a logical line of reasoning that refers to data, sources and/or an analytical frame of reference. The method is not sufficiently stated, neither the empirical survey nor the approach to the analysis. There is also a lack of information on how the different contents of the interviews are subsequently analyzed and presented in the text. This is especially central, since the method in this case could represent a central interaction with the positioning of the authors. Under method, a number of theoretical concepts are also cited (p.3), but these are not consistently followed in the content that follows, and are drawn upon in the spirit of the article's thread and argument.

Results and Conclusions

The presentation of Ahmad's case with extensive narrative passages underlines the high importance of media and politics in this case study, however, the corresponding explanations (analytical framework) are lacking, also in the later conclusions explanations and argumentation are not nearly sufficient. Conclusions are generally not sufficiently supported by sources. Also, the strong legal reference (national and international) is not sufficiently explained and specific references to (legal) sources are missing. In particular, the media examples cited are selective and seem to be one-sided. Information on selection criteria and media analysis is missing. 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer 

thank you for your comments. I reorganized the structure of the text. I reviewed Abstract, Introduction, Methodology, I added conceptual framework and analyses at the end. I haven't done any media analyse, so I cannot give any selection criteria.   

Reviewer 3 Report

 

This is a very emotional and interesting paper about the case of Ahmad 2 Shamieh’s campaign against Dublin deportation. The way in which the author / authors describe and analyse Ahmad's case in the context of an investigation is very interesting.

 

Only one thing: I ask to the author / authors to separate the theoretical framework from the methodology. As it is presented, the methodology used is not understood, which is very easy to exploit. I believe that it is necessary, to first place a brief theoretical framework - already existing in the article - and separate it from the methodology.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer

thank you for your comments. I separated the theoretical framework from the methodology as you suggested. Actually I did major changes of the whole text. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Peer review of socsci-1126342

This is an interesting article, based on original interview material, which will make a contribution to knowledge about solidarity, belonging, and alternatives to ‘protection’. However, I think it would be a stronger article for a round of careful revisions. There are some issues with structure, and with the development and argument of some of the key claims made in support of the author’s argument that Ahmad Shamieh is ‘a political subject par excellence’. The comments below are intended to support the author in strengthening the presentation of their findings and reflections on the same.

 

Main points

Structure

1. The logic behind the structure is not as clear as it should be. The article seems to go back and forth, leaving the reader struggling to follow the key lines of analysis. It didn’t seem logical to me for section 1 to present his story ‘in the context of […] the Dublin Convention’, but for the next section to discuss the Dublin system. (In the event, the second part didn’t actually really seem to discuss the Dublin Regulation - rather it offered a quite brief discussion of an unspecified discretionary mechanism which needed detailing). Similarly, I didn’t follow the logic of addressing the anti-deportation movement and deportation spectacle before looking at the lead up to it (the chronology of the state’s power games).

 

I strongly recommend that the author reviews the sub-headings and signposting of the article, and thinks carefully about the overall logic of the way the article is structured and developed. Another example of where this is problematic is on page 10 of 23. The signposting suggests a subsequent emphasis on the governmental crisis, but we are drawn straight into a discussion of ‘the deportation spectacle’.

 

2. As the review form asks directly whether the research question is clear, I would note that there isn’t a clearly articulated research question which might be added to the methodology section.

 

Content

3. The issues with structure have a knock-on effect on the content and analysis. The engagement with existing literature on refugee politics is sprinkled throughout the article, which hinders the author’s ability to outline in detail their contribution to these debates. Given the use of Rancière in the abstract and at points throughout, I expected more engagement with the detail of his argument (even if concise).

 

4. Even more importantly however, I think that the author’s own argument could be sharpened (and the originality thereby improved). On this important point, I would identify lines 635-6 as a point where a tension – albeit a potentially productive one – was identified. On the one hand, Ahmad acted politically; on the other hand, this seemed to strengthen the state’s determination to reject his claims. This is interesting, but this tension (ambivalence / ambiguity) seemed to me to merit some more explicit reflection. Again, at line 658 I thought this was interesting and that the author might have more to say about the price of protection (and about alternative relations to one of protector / protectee). And again, at line 667, I would encourage further reflection on the extent to which this is a ‘win’, or something more nuanced. Is Shamieh simply a ‘political subject par excellence’? I think there was also scope to pick back up on some of the assumptions outlined in the positionality section of the methodology section (e.g. political listening), as this didn’t come through in the main body as much as it might have (and it was very interesting!)

 

 

5. There are other areas where I craved further precision in the key theoretical claims. At lines 42-44, for example, I wanted to hear more about the precise ways in which the right to stay was democratised, and about the relationship between staying and belonging (which I do not see as the same thing).

 

6. At line 50, the author states that ‘Ahmad’s trust in the rule of law seems unwavering’, and I wondered on what grounds it ‘seemed’ unwavering (as well as the point at which it ‘seemed’ so. Presumably as time went on it wavered). In the same paragraph, I craved elaboration on why this was part of ‘a kind of paradox’, especially given that his interactions with the state were mediated by Slovenian lawyers. Remaining still in this paragraph, I had questions about the implications of Shamieh communicating ‘with the state more […] than an “average citizen”’ (lines 51-54), especially given the state’s continued and repeated refusals to listen to his claims.

 

7. A further example of a too-quick claim is at line 124, where the author makes a claim about ‘the power of the bureaucratic state based on racist hatred’ – ‘based on’ is doing a lot of work here, and if there is a direct (causal) connection, this needed evidencing in more detail. On a similar point, the words ‘evil’ and ‘hate’ on p. 667 really needed substantiating. (I am not disputing that there is hate at work, but this needs demonstrating more effectively or toning down).

 

 

8. I would also recommend revisiting lines 202-205. What is the precise relevance here of the claim that the Dublin Regulation had not been applied to ‘most’ of the nearly million people travelling along the corridor? What does this mean for Ahmad’s case? And for our analysis of state power? I also think more could be (and needed to be) said about the so-called ‘ideal refugee’ (lines 210-213) as the grounds for the claim that he should have been identified as such were not clear.

 

9. At line 219 – the author needed to say more about how and why the Rog community was strengthened – this comes across for now as more an assertion than demonstrated claim. In honesty, I didn’t find enough engagement with the Squat to really substantiate this line of analysis in the paper as it is. Similarly the anti-racism thread needs elaborating as its more implicit than explicit as things stand.

 

10. In general, the author needed to better explain the use of the phrase ‘power-games’ if this was important to the overall argument about state politics.

Terminology

11. The article would benefit from a clearer initial sense of the way in which key terminology was being used. Refugee and asylum-seeker were often used interchangeably. This can be a justified approach, but would need to be explicitly justified. A particular question I had was about the use of the term ‘refugees’ at line 149, at a point in which Shamieh and his family were still in Syria (there is of course also a debate about whether conflict – as opposed to persecution – is grounds for refugee status determination).

 

 

 

Minor points

• There needed to be a precise reference to the paraphrasing of Rancière’s argument used in the abstract and throughout.
• Referencing / citation needs to be made consistent. Here there is a mix of in-text author-date citations and footnotes (formatted in the footnote following author-date / Harvard conventions).
• Lines 68-70 didn’t fit with the signposting work of that introductory paragraph – I would suggest just deleting this sentence.
• The use of paragraphs is sometimes uneven. There are some very short paragraphs, and some very long paragraphs (e.g. lines 261-292).
• As above, the use of sentences is sometimes uneven. At lines 141-151 there were lots of short (and hence jarring) sentences.
• At footnote 8 (page 7 of 23), evidence / a citation was needed (and ‘asylum decision-makers’ was vague – is this in general?)
• At lines 215-218, the use (without further links to literature) of the phrases ‘fetishisation’ and ‘obsessed’ wasn’t persuasive.
• At line 228 I would suggest caution – is it really ‘everyone with Muslim names’? (in which case further evidence is needed) or Syrian asylum-seekers?
• Line 281 – I would think about qualifying the word ‘safe’ given the context.
• Line 323 – all media?
• Line 358-9 – was it a planned performance or was it spontaneous?
• Footnote 11 – I suggest integrating this point into the main text.
• Lines 419-421 read to me like a suspenseful fictional story rather than an academic article (and ‘the real shock’ (for whom, Ahmad I presume) isn’t clearly explained in the next section. Lines 460-464 should probably be moved up to the previous page.
• Lines 454-455 – did the PM have a realistic opportunity, all things considered in the subsequent discussion?
• Lines 552-3 – more detail on the precise social rights of relevance would be useful here as this phrasing is on the vague side.
• Use of the phrase ‘social work’ – I wonder if this was lost in translation. Did the author mean something like activism?
• Line 657 – ‘pulled out teeth’ – did they fall out or were they pulled? Or do you mean pulled in some metaphorical sense?
• Line 662 – I wasn’t sure what precisely was meant by ‘freedom of social determination’.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

thank you for your careful reading, your time and most constructive comments I ever got in revision process. Following your comments, I hope I addressed all or at least most of them. I reorganized the structure of the text (I changed the sub titles), I improved methodology, I added theoretical framework and most importantly I added more analytical approach as you advised (I added embodiment of deportability related stress. Actually I added the perspective of politics and body I did not had before). Some of the concept that I didn't find so productive (and you asked me to elaborate more on them since they were just mentioned) are deleted from the text. Due to the deadline I didn't have the time to submit the text to proof-reading, which of course I will do as soon as I get some hopefully positive response.