Paul Murphy Accuses Government of Performative Cruelty on Migration
Paul Murphy criticised the government's migration policy, accusing ministers of using debate calls as cover for dog-whistling and scapegoating asylum seekers. He opposed proposals to charge people in state-provided emergency accommodation and warned such measures would entrench poverty and be performative cruelty.
Murphy said the government does not want a genuine debate on migration but a free run to scapegoat asylum seekers. He accused a minister standing in for the Taoiseach of repeatedly calling for debate as a tactic to avoid substantive challenge and argued the government prefers rhetoric over policy change.
Murphy criticised the minister who conflated overall migration figures with a small number of asylum seekers who had not been deported, and praised Fintan O'Toole for exposing that misinformation. He rejected accusations that challengers were shutting down debate, saying debate must include challenge to dog-whistles and false claims.
Murphy opposed plans to charge people working while staying in I-PASS or other emergency accommodation, arguing implementation would cost more than it would raise. He said charging would trap people in poverty, prevent exits from emergency systems, and represent a performative cruelty that sets a dangerous precedent.
Murphy argued the turn to blaming immigrants distracts from underlying problems such as the housing crisis, the health crisis and the cost-of-living crisis, and accused parties of power of resorting to anti-immigrant rhetoric after a joint debacle in the presidential election. He referenced a Fianna Fáil TD's suggestion about countering the far right and said evidence from Europe shows that shifting establishment rhetoric to the right only cedes ground to the far right. He also criticised previous anti-immigrant competition in election campaigning by Sinn Féin and warned that measures aimed at asylum seekers could next be extended to homeless people.
Main criticism of government approach
Murphy said the government does not want a genuine debate on migration but a free run to scapegoat asylum seekers. He accused a minister standing in for the Taoiseach of repeatedly calling for debate as a tactic to avoid substantive challenge and argued the government prefers rhetoric over policy change.
Claims about public debate and misinformation
Murphy criticised the minister who conflated overall migration figures with a small number of asylum seekers who had not been deported, and praised Fintan O'Toole for exposing that misinformation. He rejected accusations that challengers were shutting down debate, saying debate must include challenge to dog-whistles and false claims.
Opposition to charging people in emergency accommodation
Murphy opposed plans to charge people working while staying in I-PASS or other emergency accommodation, arguing implementation would cost more than it would raise. He said charging would trap people in poverty, prevent exits from emergency systems, and represent a performative cruelty that sets a dangerous precedent.
Political consequences and wider social concerns
Murphy argued the turn to blaming immigrants distracts from underlying problems such as the housing crisis, the health crisis and the cost-of-living crisis, and accused parties of power of resorting to anti-immigrant rhetoric after a joint debacle in the presidential election. He referenced a Fianna Fáil TD's suggestion about countering the far right and said evidence from Europe shows that shifting establishment rhetoric to the right only cedes ground to the far right. He also criticised previous anti-immigrant competition in election campaigning by Sinn Féin and warned that measures aimed at asylum seekers could next be extended to homeless people.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Other speeches
Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →
Mattie McGrath
Mattie McGrath blasts Irish Water over Conmel supply crisis
Richard Boyd Barrett
Richard Boyd Barrett calls for national radiotherapy replacement plan
Joe O'Reilly
Joe O'Reilly on nitrates derogation, farm succession and mental health
Michael Fitzmaurice
Michael Fitzmaurice Challenges CAP Cuts and New Environmental Rules
Gerard P. Craughwell
Gerard P. Craughwell: Demands Banks Reclaim Vulture-Fund Mortgages
Mattie McGrath
Mattie McGrath: Condemns 'Broken' International Protection System
Transcript
I thought it was very strange yesterday in leaders' questions. I counted no fewer than seven times Jack Chambers stepping in for the Taoiseach and called for a debate on our migration policy. And this is kind of the last refuge of the scoundrel, is rather than actually coming out and arguing for a position, you just say we need to have a debate about it, suggesting that somehow you're not able to have a debate. You are able to have a debate, sure, you serve the ministers, you're responsible for government policy. But it has become clear that what the government wants is not a debate. What you want is a free run to engage in dog whistling, to engage in scapegoating of asylum seekers and for that not to be challenged. Because Simon Harris was out deliberately conflating migration numbers in general with a small number of asylum seekers who hadn't been deported. And when Fintan O'Toole very accurately and precisely skewered that and exposed the misinformation that Simon Harris was engaged in, and when that was then echoed and emphasised by some opposition parties, the response by Simon Harris to this debate actually happening was to accuse us of shutting down debate. The debate isn't just you get to say whatever you want, you get to throw out your dog whistles and not be challenged on it. You will be challenged on it. But the truth is, the government doesn't actually want to significantly change aspects of our migration policy. If you did, you'd bring forward those proposals. You want to basically stick with the current migration policy but add in some more elements of performative cruelty to dog whistle, to scapegoat asylum seekers and to distract from your failures in government. The idea, as it was suggested there by Fianna Fáil TD, that by doing so we're going to cut across the rise of the far right and that's what the evidence across Europe shows is ridiculous. Obviously all the evidence shows that as the establishment moves to the right, reinforces the rhetoric, the analysis of the far right, you simply give them more and more space because you cede ground to them. And Fintan O'Toole was absolutely correct in terms of analysing why this is happening. There's a question that hovers over Irish politics. What will the parties of power do when they start to panic about losing it? Last week, after their joint debacle in the presidential election, we got the grim answer, turn on immigrants. It's not the first time we got the grim answer. We got the grim answer in the run-up to the local elections where Sinn Fein deserved a fell for it award, where they tried to compete in being more anti-immigrant than the government and resulted in a disastrous election for them because it all became about immigration. The government earlier stated that they were overrun at that stage, that the result was that people were on the canal. That's not what happened. That's not true. There were empty beds in the system. You chose to put people on the canal because you wanted to make people homeless in order to centre the issue of immigration and say this is the problem. It is all an incredible distraction technique to make people think that the problems in our society, the housing crisis, the health crisis, the cost of living crisis, the causes of those problems are not those at the top, not those who profit from those crises and not the government that represents those forces that profit, but instead the most vulnerable people. The latest act of performance of cruelty or suggestion which has been trailed again and again and again is the idea that you're going to charge people for who are working for staying in I-PASS accommodation and it's presented as just your common sense. Why wouldn't you be paying? Well, one, why wouldn't you be paying? Because it's going to cost you more to implement it than you'll actually raise. Two, there's a very good reason that, for example, we don't charge people who stay in emergency accommodation because we want them to be able to actually get out of this emergency accommodation. You're going to keep people in poverty in these systems just so you can have some performative cruelty and I'd say this is a thin edge of the wedge. If you get away with doing this for asylum seekers in their emergency accommodation, are you going to do the same for homeless people? Are you going to take that horrendous attack? And I think if you set up this system, you spend millions of euros on it, you establish the principle that if you work and your state-provided accommodation you should pay, then all homeless people will be next. And that's why we have to stand against this divisive policy.