Paul Murphy condemns 'safe country' motions as draconian

We in People Before Profit are strongly opposed to the two safe country motions which we have before us and which I will focus on in the time available. These are draconian motions that designate countries with appalling human rights records like Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia as safe. They allow for people to be deported to so-called safe third countries, even when they have no connection to that country. Once a country is designated as safe, a yellow pack accelerated asylum process is used. Member States can apply border procedures, in essence meaning they can incarcerate people without trial in border detention camps. The whole process has to be completed within three months. The speed of this process obviously means that miscarriages of justice will be far more likely. In other words, individuals, whole families, children will be deported back to countries that they have fled, to face persecution, to face torture and even to face death. The basis for designating countries as safe is inherently flawed. It is based on current recognition rates for people applying for asylum from those countries. The regulation we are being asked to approve states that there is in general no risk of persecution or serious harm within the meaning of regulation 2024-1347 in Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Morocco and Tunisia, as well as the potential EU candidate Kosovo as shown by the very low recognition rates. This is clearly not an unbiased standard, as it assumes that there are no or very few injustices in how the system currently operates. I do not believe that that is true. The regulation further states that if the recognition rate is 20% or lower, it serves as an indication that applications from that nationality are likely to be unfounded. But even assuming for a moment that government decisions are always legally correct in their own terms, which again I do not believe, what about the rights of the 20% of people from those countries whose claims were recognised prior to this regulation? Their equivalence into the future will be faced with an accelerated process, a higher burden of proof on them to prove their claim in a shorter space of time, and in reality a harder time finding their application for asylum approved. One example of one of these so-called safe countries that we are adding to the list is Egypt. I was in Egypt recently. It did not seem to be a country that does not have fundamental human rights issues. It is an authoritarian dictatorship. You have arbitrary detentions happening all over the place. You have persecution of journalists. You do not have free and fair elections. Political activists are routinely rounded up. A point someone made to me when I was in Egypt is that you do not see Palestinian flags in people's homes in Cairo. Why is that? It is not because the people do not support the Palestinians. It is because they know that the Sisi regime will round you up if you show a Palestinian flag because it is seen as a political act. It is why they could not allow the Global March to Gaza to proceed because I think the danger that it would send a message to their own people that they should have the right to protest. The EU's own documentation on the regulation admits that human rights defenders, political activists and opponents may face arbitrary arrest and torture and may be targeted with measures such as travel restrictions and asset freezes and that human rights challenges in Egypt remain significant particularly in relation to the protection of fundamental freedoms, governance and the rule of law. It does not sound very safe to me. How is it safe? If you are a trade unionist? If you are a political activist? If you are a human rights defender? Egypt is not a safe place to try and do any of those things. I mean that is obvious. You can go read the amnesty reports, human rights watch reports, any reports you like which will tell you the truth about Egypt as a very authoritarian dictatorship. The EU and our government's get out clause is that designating a country as safe is supposedly, quote, without prejudice to the specific challenges faced by certain groups in the country which may merit particular attention. But aren't the people most likely to be fleeing here or elsewhere and seeking asylum taking this desperate step of leaving their family, their community, their country that they know behind aren't they precisely the ones who are likely to be facing persecution? They are the human rights defenders. They are the LGBTQ people. They are the political activists. They are the ethnic minorities. And then they are going to be subject to this accelerated process. So there is no special recognition of the specific challenges faced by those who are actually likely to be the ones fleeing and applying for asylum. They are the ones who are going to get punished. And the regulation on safe third countries is also a travesty. It allows for people to be sent to so-called safe third countries that they have no connection to. This can include a country that they have transited to, perhaps in the back of a truck or a shipping container, but also in countries that they haven't been to at all. We know what the weasel words of safe third countries really means. It means wealthy European countries deporting families to appalling conditions in places like Rwanda and Libya, where they are very likely to experience extreme hardship and human rights violations. It is the European Union outsourcing its quote unquote immigration problem. Deporting people to horrific places where they are treated in awful ways. It is a disgrace that a country among the most responsible for international immigration per head of population is about to inflict this on people in the same situation that so many Irish people went before. Our government lobbies year after year on behalf of so-called undocumented Irish immigrants in the US, pleading for them not to be deported, pleading for them to be given a pathway to legal citizenship. I agree with that lobbying. But the hypocrisy between that and how people in equivalent situations are treated here is really quite glaring. At home, the same government that lobbies abroad for the undocumented Irish is chartering planes to deport school kids ripped out of their classrooms, ripped out of their friends groups, ripped out of their communities in front of others and causing real damage to people. I want to raise a particular case. I got a load of emails this morning, which I really appreciate, that people are speaking out on behalf of vulnerable families who are being treated appalledly by this state. Six families who live in my community, in IPAS centres, at the Red Cow Hotel and in the Inshikor suites. And this Friday, tomorrow, they are faced with eviction from their accommodation. Today, less than 24 hours before they face this eviction, they have yet to be provided with the location of their next accommodation. And I understand that this is happening to dozens of families all over the country at the same time this week. These are people who have been granted asylum. So they are not unworthy or whatever. They have gone through the asylum process. They have been granted asylum. They, like lots of people in this country, have been unable to find more permanent accommodation, despite searching for it tirelessly. They want to remain in their current education and employment. There are kids in their current schools and so on. But like so many others, they have been unsuccessful. Those who have made the difficult decision to accept transfer to other emergency accommodation are yet to receive any information on where this accommodation will be, despite reassurances in their eviction notices that it would be provided. It still has not been provided. And now, as a result, the residents are reporting harassment by staff in their centre to pack up their things as they have been told that new families will arrive on Friday to take their places. They have also been told that if they find themselves on the streets on Friday, they will not be eligible for emergency homeless accommodation while they remain under the care of IPAS, awaiting transfer. Some care. An incredibly stressful situation for these families, many with young children. I'm appealing now, with less than 24 hours to go, for the Government to intervene to pause these evictions until assurances can be provided about where these families will be transferred to. It makes sense for them to stay in the locality where they have their connections, where they have their routes, where they have their employment, where they have their school places. So I would appreciate a response from the Minister in relation to that. Thanks. Thank you, everyone. I would appreciate a pleasure. Thank you, and