Motion or amendment: Legislative Consent Motion: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Motion or amendment by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 9 June 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment (made as a minister)
- Business
- Motion · Executive Motion
- Heading
- Legislative Consent Motion: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
- Assembly identifier
- Document 442632
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Legislative Consent Motion: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, as amended in the House of Commons on 19th March 2025, dealing with sharing of information (sharing of trailer data by DVLA) (contained in Part 1, Clauses 30 to 33); offences relating to articles for use in serious crime (contained in Part 3, Clause 45-47); breach of an Interim Serious Crime Preventions Order in non-terrorist cases (contained in Part 3, Clause 49); and validation of fees charged in relation to qualifications (Clause 53) (in respect of the Department of Education’s (England) UK ENIC services insofar as they relate to education) of the Bill.
125 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.05 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.40 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.92 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:07 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.