Motion or amendment: Addressing the Impact of Illegal Immigration in Northern Ireland - Amendment 1
Motion or amendment by Mr Colin McGrath on .
- MLA
- Mr Colin McGrath
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 16 May 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Addressing the Impact of Illegal Immigration in Northern Ireland”
- Heading
- Addressing the Impact of Illegal Immigration in Northern Ireland - Amendment 1
- Assembly identifier
- Document 439774
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Addressing the Impact of Illegal Immigration in Northern Ireland - Amendment 1
Leave out all after 'legal migration to the UK;’ and insert:
‘acknowledges that immigration can deliver many benefits including contributing to economic growth and addressing skills shortages; regrets the continued divisive rhetoric around immigration in UK politics, including from the UK Government; agrees that insufficient investment places greater pressure on the delivery of key public services; recognises that immigration policy should focus on integration and addressing the drivers of displacement; expresses concern that Northern Ireland remains without a refugee integration strategy; and calls on the First and deputy First Minister to publish a refugee integration strategy by September 2025.’
111 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
Divisions on this item
- 20 May 2025: Addressing the Impact of Illegal Immigration in Northern Ireland - Amendment 1 – The Amendment Was Therefore Agreed
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.08 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.91).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.55).
- Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.44 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.55 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:06 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.