Sharon Keogan
Industrial and Commercial Panel · Independent · Ireland
“The future of European border security is being decided right row at the European Commission. It is currently drafting the renewed mandate of Frontex, the EU border police force. As Ireland holds the rotating EU Presidency, the Minister for justice cannot simply pose as a disinterested broker while our European borders are compromised.”
“Holding the EU Presidency gives this Government massive agenda-setting leverage at the Council of Ministers. The Minister must use this chairing power to strip out counterproductive rights promotion provisions. Under the guise of good intentions, these provisions and their enforcers have defanged and undermined Frontex.”
“I thank the Minister, Deputy Calleary, and I appreciate that he will engage with the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, on this. We live in the land of technology.”
“The Minister, Deputy Calleary, is welcome to the House. I rise to focus the attention of the House on a vital public service that sits at the very heart of social inclusion on this island, the free travel scheme.”
“Sitting down with Stormont to deliver a single unified rule book for free travel means we lift everyone to the same high standards of dignity and mobility, ensuring that a person's vulnerability is not penalised simply because of the jurisdiction they happen to live in.”
“It will point to the senior pass scheme, where a resident here can apply for a separate concessionary card to travel into the North. Let us be completely honest with ourselves.”
The complete record
Every one of 772 lines we hold for Sharon Keogan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 16.
“I do not know what the Minister is going to propose to make that an easier transition for those unaccompanied minors who come here and find themselves either trafficked into this country or without documentation. Maybe they are in a transition period as they find somebody they are related to and who could already be in direct provision in this country. Having a safe and loving environment for that child to come into is really important because that child will be traumatised for years to come. I would like to know what that looks like to the Minister. What do these detention centres look like? I can tell him, from a child's perspective, it is a hard place to be.”
“Regrettably, I did not put down any amendments on the prohibition of children being detained, but I would like to know what the Minister thinks that should look like, when it comes to the detention centres for children. I might be the only person in here who has ever fostered children who have come through the airports as unaccompanied minors. I tell him that the hardest thing you will ever do as a foster parent is to bring a child into your home who has come off a plane. Most kids I had were under the age of 12 and it is harrowing to deal with those children who have been left to fend for themselves in a country and a strange place where they know nobody. No person should have to hear the howls and cries of those children.”
“The Government needs to define the capacity we can take. Putting them into hotels and direct provision centres or processing centres down the line is not the way to deal with the capacity issue in the country. That is not giving dignity to those who are seeking asylum.”
“It is only this month, I think, that we had an individual take this Government to court because it could not provide housing for them. It is not too long ago that we had people camping outside buildings on Mount Street because we could not provide capacity. We had no capacity. One of the State's arguments in the court case was it was unable to provide accommodation to the individuals. Capacity is really important. Our capacity to deal with individuals who are coming into the country is really important. What dignity is the Government giving the people who are sleeping in tents? There is no dignity in that. I am disappointed the Government has decided we can taken an infinite number of asylum seekers into the country when we have not got the resources for them. We just do not have the capacity.”
“-----people seeking asylum at this moment in time in Europe, and almost 32,000 here in this country. We are the country with the third highest number of applicants in the entire EU. Only Cyprus, which is a front-line State, and Luxembourg, which has a tiny population, are ahead of us. We have more than six applications for every thousand people. That is higher than Greece and Italy, both of which are states on the front line of the ongoing crisis. I hope the Minister of State will consider my amendments.”
“Without these three steps, this Bill operates in a vacuum, as if capacity is infinite, irrelevant or too awkward to measure. We all know that Ireland's reception system is at record numbers, under severe strain and reliant on temporary accommodation. There are court cases from international protection applicants because we cannot house them. We are struggling to meet the basic standards and facing escalating pressures from EU solidarity obligations. Let me make brief reference again to the numbers we mentioned yesterday. Those numbers are horrific. We are talking about 1.2 million-----”
“This is not about blocking expansions, it is about ensuring that expansions are explained, justified, and scrutinised, because expanding capacity is not a neutral act, it is a major policy decision with serious consequences. It affects housing, local services, policy, community relations and the Department's budget. It affects every existing applicant in the system and Ireland's position under EU solidarity rules. If the Minister wants to expand capacity, let him explain why, and let the Oireachtas consider it. This is democracy, transparency, and accountability. The broader issue is we cannot run an international protection system on guesswork. When one looks at amendments Nos. 16, 380, and 381 together, they form a coherent logic in respect of defining and reporting on capacity and debating any change to capacity.”
“Some may argue that this creates additional administrative work. My response is simple; if the Department cannot produce a quarterly statement of its own capacity, it is not able to administer a system this complex in the first place. Amendment No. 381 proposes requiring Oireachtas scrutiny before any expansion of capacity. The final amendment in this grouping, amendment No. 381, deals with something critically important, namely, the democratic accountability around any decision to expand national capacity centres. Under this amendment, before any expansion occurs, the Minister must lay before the House a statement setting out the reason for the expansion, the impact on the operation of the Act, and the implications of the State's obligation under EU Acts.”
“Most importantly, we would not know in real time when the system is near breaking point. The Government frequently tells us the State is doing its best and that there is pressure and that capacity is limited but none of those phrases mean anything unless we measure what capacity is, how close we are to it and how it is trending over time. As a quick side note, I believe the Minister has been doing a good job. Of course, he could have gone far beyond on this particular legislation but that is another matter. However, we need a serious change to this Bill and our stance in the EU, especially making use of the derogations, precisely in order to protect the good work done so far. To return to the point, quarterly reporting is not burdensome. It is not politically motivated; it is a basic governance.”
“Amendment No. 380 proposes transparent reporting every three months. If amendment No. 16 defines the concept, amendment No. 380 ensures that we monitor it properly. This amendment requires Ministers to lay before each House every three months a statement containing the current national reception capacity, as well as the number of applicants currently accommodated within that capacity. Why is this essential? It is essential because immigration and international protection policy is not static; it changes by the week. Pressures rise and fall. New obligations emerge. EU solidarity cycles adjust. Border dynamics fluctuate. Without regular reporting, the Oireachtas is legislating blindly, local authorities are planning blindly and front-line services are responding blindly.”
“It determines how many people can be processed, housed, interviewed or safely accommodated, as well as what constitutes overcapacity or pressure under both domestic law and EU mechanisms. How can the Government trigger a crisis derogation? How can the Minister change capacity constraints? How can any of these sections function when the foundational term is undefined? My amendment defines national reception capacity as being the number of applicants who can be accommodated within State-provided reception facilities in a manner consistent with the standards of the reception conditions directive. This is legally sound. It aligns Irish law with EU standards, and it prevents future Ministers from moving the goalposts by redefining capacity in whatever way is politically convenient. This is not opposition; it is legislative discipline.”
“16, in defining "national reception capacity", does something very simple: it puts into law a definition of the term and defines what it actually means. Right now, the term "capacity" appears repeatedly in the Bill and is used in several senses such as the capacity of the applicant to understand the application process. In one case, we had adequate capacity, which means the adequate capacity of the State calculated by the European Commission in accordance with the asylum procedures regulation. This last case is dangerous and I will consider bringing Report Stage amendments - or I would have - to correct it, because we should be determining capacity, not the Commission. This is extraordinary when we consider that reception capacity determines the State's ability to comply with EU deadlines.”
“If this opt-in had been decided by referendum on foot of a fully informed debate, we all know that Irish voters would have roundly rejected it. Against this backdrop, it is incumbent on everyone in these Houses, Opposition and Government alike, to push to the limits the powers our national Government can find within this Bill. This returns me to the question of national capacity. If we legislate for a system that is disconnected from the capacity to deliver it, we are not creating order; we are creating the conditions for collapse. No Senator in this House, regardless of party or ideology, should want that because it will benefit nobody. It will not benefit international protection applicants, the public, Berlaymont or Leinster House. Amendment No.”
“God only knows how busy they are putting out fires. This is how Brussels has been operating for years. We need to acknowledge that the EU institutions, like any institution, have an innate interest in accruing powers for themselves. We need to be clear-eyed that open Eurofederalists have a heavy influence within the institution. They are fully entitled to their views but the end product is that competence creep is a reality. For the past 30 years national governments have been constantly losing control via the back door. When a Minister agrees to an opt-in, it barely makes the news. Years later, in hindsight, we find that we have no control over our monetary policy and no control over our fisheries. Now we will have no control over our asylum policies. We have to acknowledge this reality and ask how sovereign these opt-ins really are.”
“In the meantime, we need to guard our sovereignty with respect to the capacity of our system. How we define, recognise and build a system around capacity is within our jurisdiction. This will be crucial in guarding the integrity of our sovereignty in concrete, material terms, and not just in terms of principle as we discussed yesterday. The concrete nature of sovereignty, both our own and that of any member state, is crucial to understand. The Minister said yesterday that our sovereignty is technically intact because we opted in as a sovereign nation. Let us be real on the nature of how opt-ins happen and how the EU more generally works. While I will not impugn motives on anyone, sometimes Ministers do not have the full picture of how many powers they may be giving away and what the actual cost-benefit is.”
“Senator McDowell said that our Government should be going to Europe to seek, through the Council, a path towards looking to reverse our own opt-in; to build alliances with other countries that are unhappy with the pact, such as the Netherlands, Poland and Austria; to reverse the general course of this pact; or even to reverse even the course the EU has taken. I might add that we should have debates scheduled in this House on this subject. In the meantime, I am a realist. We have opted in and that is a fact. We should make the most of the space between our national sovereignty and the existing EU regulations to exercise our own sovereign control over this issue, which is something I hope these amendments will do. To be frank, this pact is doomed to fail over the long term.”
“The central issue we must address in this Bill is that of capacity. The amendments in this grouping all look at and attempt to solve one of the most uncomfortable and glaring inconveniences of this Bill, which is that none of its ambitions can be realised unless we are honest about the capacity of the State, the information available to the Oireachtas and the practical limits of implementation. The Minister mentioned yesterday that the position of many Members of this House is that we should not have opted into the migration pact in the first place. To be open, that is my own position. We do not want to be an echo chamber.”
“I move amendment No. 16: In page 20, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “ “national reception capacity” means the number of applicants who can be accommodated within State provided reception facilities in a manner consistent with the standards of the Reception Conditions Directive;”. Amendments Nos. 16, 380 and 381 have been proposed for a similar reason. Yesterday, the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, asked us what measures would we like to see included in the Bill. When we discussed an earlier Stage of the Bill, by the nature of it we were debating it in more general terms rather than setting out the concrete nitty-gritty changes we want. I hope that these amendments, and the greater package of amendments of which they are part, will give the Minister some idea of what we are looking for.”
“I really have to ask those expressing outrage today where this outrage was when the emails revealed that one woman claimed she had been trafficked into Ireland at 13. Where was the outrage when our Government declined to investigate these claims and the other possible Epstein links to Ireland? Once again, we seem to be directing more energy into outrage over appearance and pageantry than outrage over real concerns.”
“Polling has shown that very few people in the UK or in any country for that matter believe that late-term abortions are acceptable, regardless of whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, yet legislation that de facto allows it was pushed through in an incredibly undemocratic way. Second, I want to comment on the recent outrage over the improvised Epstein files floats in Galway and Mayo. I will not comment on the inappropriateness or otherwise of the display, but instead I point out that if you search online for the Epstein files and Ireland, you can see dozens of articles in just the last 24 hours condemning the float and very few investigating what the files say about Ireland.”
“Today I want to speak on two issues. The first concerns the recent development in the UK regarding the law passed by the House of Lords that effectively decriminalises abortion up to birth. Since this concerns the country that has jurisdiction over Northern Ireland, I feel compelled to speak out. We should first be concerned as to whether we are being exposed to a serious risk of opening a back door to unregulated late-term abortions, mainly via pills in the post, through the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland. While I understand the North is devolved from Westminster in these matters, this is a risk that we in these Houses must seriously analyse. More importantly, I would like to condemn this as a dangerous development.”
“Before we finish, I do not know whether we got a chance or not to congratulate Senator Cathal Byrne on his recent marriage. I do not know whether we did or not but I want to extend our congratulations from this side of the House.”
“The words used there were "likely to be a paralegal." I am really concerned about that. There are many people around the country who are seeking asylum at this moment and going through the immigration process with unscrupulous immigration consultants who do not have a legal background at all. They end up paying out thousands to these people. It is important that legal counselling is coming from accredited individuals, licensed individuals, to stop that happening. I do not know how the Minister is going to do that. These are the most vulnerable people who are coming to our country. Tomorrow morning I could go out and set up an immigration consultancy, and off I go and charge anybody any amount I like. That is what is happening in this country at this time and there is no accreditation framework to stop those people acting in this way.”
“I, too, am a little confused. I want to clarify a point. With regard to this legal counselling, the business of immigration consulting has exploded over recent years. Is this is a legal framework that the Minister is putting in place to make sure that those people who are giving legal advice are accredited? That is what I want to know.”
“This Bill may move us toward a centralised EU migration model but amendment No. 382 ensures that, whatever path we choose, we do not forget the fundamental principle that must guide it. Ireland is sovereign and sovereignty must never be presumed; it must be stated, asserted and defended. Will the Minister provide an update on Border control operations? We had a system there with the PSNI and Garda working together. Have there been any apprehensions on the Border?”
“If the Government rejects it, it is admitting that sovereignty is being diminished, that national discretion is being constrained and that the EU's role will supersede Ireland's. That is the truth that they do not want to say out loud but the Irish people already know it and expect someone in this Chamber to call it what it is. Amendment No. 382 is not about slogans, theatrics or making a point; it is about ensuring that, as we legislate under immense EU pressure, we do not lose sight of who we are legislating for. Ireland is a sovereign nation and sovereignty is the foundation of democracy. Democracy demands that the Irish people - not EU majorities, foreign governments or supranational institutions - retain the final say over who may enter and remain in this State.”
“However, co-operation must be voluntary, it must be flexible, it must respect national differences and it must never be confused with surrendering national control. Amendment No. 382 ensures co-operation remains co-operation, not absorption. It affirms that Ireland decides, Ireland governs and Ireland sets policy, except to the minimum extent required by directly applicable EU law. That is not radical. It is not extreme. It is basic sovereignty. If the Government truly believes sovereignty matters, there should be no difficulty in accepting this amendment. Amendment No. 382 strengthens the Bill. It does not weaken compliance or undermine obligations. It simply states openly and honestly that Ireland's sovereignty remains intact.”
“382, courts will default to expansive interpretations of EU obligations, national discretion will be minimised and the benefit of the doubt will lie with the EU institutions, not with Ireland. With amendment No. 382, the courts will be guided to interpret grey areas in favour of Irish sovereign authority, not in favour of the constant expansion of EU competence. It is a guardrail, a reminder of the constitutional principle written into statute. If we do not write it in ourselves, nobody else will write it in for us. Ireland should co-operate with Europe but co-operation is not subordination. I want to say this very clearly. I am not against co-operation. I am not against partnership. I am not against supporting other member states or working together on shared challenges.”
“In this situation of enormous instability, the most solid guarantee is our ability to control our own response. To this end, amendment No. 382 is not symbolic. It is practical. It creates a legal basis and a safety valve for Ireland to assert that national limits matter and that the State cannot be compelled to do what it physically cannot do. Sovereignty is not a luxury; it is essential when capacity is finite. This amendment ensures the Irish courts would interpret the Act through an Irish lens, not an EU-first lens. Let us think forward. What happens when a dispute arises as to whether Ireland must implement a certain EU-derived procedure in full, even if doing so would overwhelm our system? Without amendment No.”
“In short, that is the floor we are to expect and given the sheer scale of arrivals over the past several years, the amount of economic pressure other EU states are under, the amount of political pressure they are under to apply for their own derogations and the sheer scale of geopolitical instability we are facing, there is no guessing what numbers we could be told by the Commission next year or the year after. I gave those figures earlier, where countries now have a backlog in their systems of 1.3 million. Immigration numbers will continue to rise due to war and chaos throughout this world, as they have done over the past number of years. Then so too will the Commission's annual relocation demand. That is an unavoidable arithmetic of the pact.”
“In fact, our own Government argues against Brussels' use of GDP when making policy regarding our country, yet here, on the question of the relocation of IP applicants, we have been straightjacketed into a one-size-fits-all approach that works for bigger, more industrialised nations. It is a perfect example of sovereignty necessity. Furthermore, while we are on the opt-in to this pact, there is yet another reason we must assert our sovereignty wherever and however possible. We have no idea how many relocations we are to receive. The pact sets a minimum of 30,000 relocations across the Continent per year, which would give us, under the current formula, about 1,000 relocations. Let me return to that word, "minimum".”
“Let us look at the migration pact. Under it, there will be a relocation mechanism. That mechanism will take the overflow of migrants hitting Spain, Italy, Greece and so on and will relocate them based on population and GDP. Let me emphasise the last point, GDP. Here is another example of why our sovereignty is necessary. Unlike that of other bigger EU nations, our GDP is not an accurate reflection of our economic capabilities due to our specific tax laws and the financial instruments in our markets that allow huge sums of money to flow through our country but not rest here.”
“Without that anchor, this Bill becomes the gateway to a future where Ireland is permanently downstream of EU majority decisions that may have nothing to do with our interests. We cannot pretend Ireland has the capacity to surrender national control and simply keep up. Let me be blunt. We do not have the housing capacity. We do not have the processing capacity. We do not have the return capacity. We do not have the infrastructure. We do not even have a border control on our own land border. Yet this Bill locks us into mandatory, time-bound obligations designed for countries with entirely different capabilities. It will ultimately result in leaving all voters, administrators and leaders wondering why our asylum system is overwhelmed while communities are frustrated and services are collapsing under the weight of decisions made elsewhere.”
“Sovereignty must be stated explicitly because the Bill places Ireland into an inflexible, majority-driven EU migration system. The Government and Brussels may insist that nothing is being forced on Ireland, but let us look at the reality. By opting in to the migration pact and now legislating to implement it in full, we are creating a situation in which EU regulations take precedence over Irish statute, EU timeframes override Irish administrative capacity, EU relocation mechanisms override our national discretion and EU definitions, procedure and priorities replace our own. This is not abstract; it is happening right now. That is why amendment No. 382 matters, because it anchors a principle that is otherwise absent, that Ireland retains inherent sovereign competence even while co-operating internationally.”
“It is not a bargain that takes us and our particular circumstances into account. It is a pact that is not made for a small nation with limited capacity, a unique common travel area and resources, in particular its housing system, that are already stretched to breaking point. Amendment No. 382 reminds us, the courts, the Government and future Governments that Irish sovereignty does not trickle down from Brussels. It flows from this Chamber, from the Constitution and from the Irish people, and let us make no apology for saying that. If we do not assert sovereignty clearly in primary legislation, then over time, through interpretation, practice and custom, we will find it has slipped away and by the time we notice, it will be too late to pull it back.”
“It is a simple amendment but it cuts right to the heart of the matter. If this Bill truly respected Ireland's sovereignty and truly preserved the freedom of the Irish people to determine their own migration laws, then such an amendment would not even be necessary, but it is necessary. Let me explain why. This Bill accelerates the transfer of Irish migration control to the EU and amendment No. 382 is a line that must be drawn. This Bill embeds EU migration policy into Irish law so deeply and constructurally that our own domestic preferences become secondary. We are binding ourselves into an EU migration framework designed for the needs of much larger states. It is essentially a bargain between wealthier northern EU nations to support the Mediterranean states on the front line of the migration crisis.”
“I did indicate to come in earlier on my amendment No. 382. While it is technically my last amendment, it is certainly not the least. This amendment, and those proposed by the Senators in the same grouping as me, all confront a truth that has been brushed aside for too long, namely, the erosion of Ireland's sovereign control over its own migration, border and international protection policies. That brings directly to amendment No. 382, which I have tabled and which states plainly and unapologetically: Nothing in this Act shall be construed as diminishing the sovereign right of the State to determine and regulate its own immigration, border and international protection policies, save only to the extent necessary to give effect to obligations arising under directly applicable European Union law.”
“When we look at these figures side by side, we begin to see that, in practice, the pact means that Ireland, with limited infrastructure, a distinct common travel area and a housing system that is already under strain, will now be expected to take annual allocations calculated not on our real capacity but on the distorted GDP numbers and the overwhelming pressures across the Continent. That is what this boils down to. These are horrendous figures. The Minister is going to tell us and this country that this will be a very quick system and will only take 12 weeks. We need to be realistic here. It will not be sorted in 12 weeks.”
“I am speaking on the section. Italy's backlog is 234,000. Luxembourg has a backlog of 4,195, while Malta has 1,415 applications pending. The Netherlands has 63,240 applications pending, while Poland has a backlog of 12,775. In Portugal, the figure is 8,595, in Romania it is 295, while in Slovakia it is 90 and in Slovenia it is 1,480. Spain has 248,780 applications pending and in Sweden the backlog is 5,050. To summarise, the backlog in Europe at this moment stands at 1.3 million applications pending. These numbers are not fluctuations or arbitrations. These are the reality of the system we are now locking ourselves into. The crucial point is that these very figures are the total European caseload that the Commission will use to determine the future reallocations, the future solidarity contributions and Ireland's future obligations.”
“I thank the Minister. It is good to see him back in the House today. I support Senator Michael McDowell. I do not believe this will work, the reason being the current backlog in this country. There are over 20,000 people in the system who are awaiting a decision on their international protection application. Let us not just look at Ireland. Let us look at what is happening in the EU. Austria's backlog stands at 22,530. Belgium's backlog is a staggering 58,785. Bulgaria's backlog is 1,630 and the backlog in Cyprus is 23,225. Czechia's backlog stands at 625, while Denmark's backlog, which has been significantly reduced, is 2,465. Finland's backlog is 4,206. France's backlog is an extraordinary 153,090 and Germany, Europe's bellwether, has 306,000 applications pending.”
“Sovereignty is not a slogan. Control is not a heading in a Bill. Capacity is not created by passing legislation written to satisfy EU deadlines. Ireland needs a migration system that answers to the Irish people, not to the majority will of other European governments with diverging interests. We need border control - real border control, not paperwork control. We need capacity - real capacity, not imaginary processing centres that do not exist. We need laws that can change when Ireland needs to change them, not when Brussels allows it. For that reason, for sovereignty, for realism and for honesty, I will be opposing this Bill.”
“If we are truly serious about thorough and fair international protection, migration, sovereignty and national capacity, we need Irish solutions, not EU-mandated frameworks. There are steps we can take to truly and fully move forward. We can renegotiate Ireland's approach to opt-ins so that no Government can bind the country without parliamentary oversight. We can tighten Ireland's visa rules, an area fully under national control. We can further strengthen checks at ports and airports and, critically, along the common travel area where more abuse actually occurs. We can negotiate directly with the UK on cross-border management. In the longer term, we could consider aligning with the Danish model, a real opt-out, not the illusory opt-in sovereignty we have today. These are real tools, real policies and real sovereignty.”
“Ireland built more houses per capita in 2025 than any other EU country, as per the EY EUROCONSTRUCT database, yet the percentage of Irish 30-year-olds still living with their parents has increased more in the past decade than in any other European country. We are building more than anyone else and falling further behind than anyone else. A Bill written in Brussels will not fix any of this. We need time to move towards a better model, in alignment with our national needs and capacities. This Bill pretends the capacities exist; they do not. It pretends our infrastructure and housing systems can absorb more pressure; they cannot. It pretends our appeals system can clear its backlog; it will not.”
“We need only look at what is happening already, because the next issue is that our system is already collapsing and the numbers prove it. The International Protection Appeals Tribunal, the final step in the process, is currently accumulating a backlog of 25 cases net per day. By December 2025, that backlog had hit 18,243 cases, a number so enormous, so unmanageable, that reform on paper becomes meaningless. The system is drowning and this Bill pours more water into the boat. Let us talk about housing, because asylum and migration policy cannot be separated from the capacity to accommodate both new arrivals and those already here.”
“Ireland has no proper land border infrastructure for detention or processing. It has none. The common travel area means that the inflow from Northern Ireland continues completely unaddressed. This Bill does absolutely nothing to close the loophole. According to the Garda Commissioner this week, organised crime groups are already trafficking people across that Border. This Bill offers no new tools and no enforcement plan. The EU expects us to manage higher numbers, but gives us tools to reduce numbers. What will happen? We risk becoming not a sovereign gatekeeper but a processing hub, a holding bay for people we cannot remove, house or process within the timelines the pact imposes. This is not hypothetical.”
“The Government opt-in was reckless, thoughtless and utterly devoid of strategic foresight. It walked Ireland into a binding EU framework without a single serious national debate, without explaining the risks and without acknowledging the constraints the Government was accepting on behalf of future governments and generations to come. We are legislating under duress of our own making, and that is political malpractice. The next big issue with this Bill is that while it would give us power on paper, this does not translate into actual change. In fact, it threatens to overwhelm us. The central issue here is capacity or, more accurately, the total lack of it. This Bill expects the State to handle a volume of border procedure cases that we physically cannot accommodate. Let us state the obvious.”
“Now with automation and the AI revolution, low-skilled migration is being reassessed worldwide and has been seen by many as a liability, not an asset. Migration needs to change as economies change and the world changes, but if we pass this Bill, Ireland will not be free to change. Because this pact can be changed by a majority among EU states, Germany and the larger bloc, we will be subject to their needs, not ours. If Germany decides next year that it needs lots of low-skilled labour, while we need to restrict inflows, we will bend to Germany. If, in the year after that, Germany decides to ramp up mass deportations, while we desperately need skilled workers, we will bend to it again. That is not sovereignty. That is dependency, and it is being locked into law by this Bill.”
“This Bill does not just create a new system; it sets a precedent that Irish migration law flows not from Leinster House, not from the Irish people but from Brussels. That is not theoretical. The Government already chose to opt in to the migration pact, even though it had no obligation to do so, and now we are legally bound to implement it in full. We are hard-wiring EU control into the heart of Irish migration policy. A sovereign nation cannot adapt if its hands are tied. In this day and age, the ability to adapt, especially in the area of asylum systems and in migration more broadly, is vital. For example, for years, the mainstream argument was that countries like Ireland needed low-skilled migration to do the jobs that Irish people do not want to do.”
“We gather here today to debate a Bill that the Government claims will deliver stronger migration controls, faster processing and a more robust system. Let me be absolutely clear; I believe in strong controls on migration and in defending the integrity of our borders and our asylum system. That is a matter of sovereignty, fairness and national capacity. However, I oppose this Bill. While that might sound like a contradiction, it is not, because sovereignty without control over law-making is not sovereignty at all. The fundamental issue is this: once we pass this Bill, we are locked into EU law and any future change to Irish migration policy will require EU approval, not Irish approval.”
“A resilient nation prepares for uncertainty. Ireland deserves a real energy strategy, not avoidance or delayed action. I want to comment on the MEK, as someone referred to that organisation earlier. Last year, the Department of foreign affairs came out with a statement that the group was linked to terrorism. Here we have a Senator commenting on it taking over the government in Iran. The people in Iran would be horrified to think this could happen.”