Debate contribution: Illegal Immigration: Impact in Northern Ireland
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 20 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Illegal Immigration: Impact in Northern Ireland
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4964408
Read the official Assembly record
Text
No, thanks. They are people who are fleeing war, ethnic cleansing and persecution. A very small number of migrants come here in search of a better life: they should be supported. Would anyone on the Benches to my right try to deny that they would not do the same? Would they not try to make a better and safer life for themselves and their families if they were in the same position? Yet, when migrants arrive here, they are often met with hostility, racism and violence. That hatred is consciously stoked up by the likes of the DUP. Shame on you, and shame on the proposer of the motion. Describing fellow humans as "illegal" is where the hostility starts. The use of the word "illegal" to describe people who move across borders has been condemned by the UN and other organisations. The term "illegal" places the focus and blame on the person, rather than on the violence of border regimes and the difficulties and complexities of displacement and loss of status. People might come to Ireland to seek safety, and they might be forced to take unsafe routes to get here, but no human being is illegal. Migration is a natural —
No, thanks. Migration is a natural part of the human experience. It always has been, and it always will be. Housing is also mentioned in the motion. It is true that the estimated cost of accommodation for asylum seekers in the North has risen to around £400 million in 10 years. Some people, when they hear that number, think that asylum seekers are living in the lap of luxury. Some people believe the lie, which is spread by the far right, that asylum seekers live in luxury hotels and B&Bs, while so-called local people are left to rot on the streets. In reality, hundreds of asylum seekers across the North are living in inhumane, oppressive conditions. I was going to invite the Members to my right to visit those hotels, but maybe that is not a good idea given what they have said today. The people in those hotels are not able to cook meals or wash their clothes. Many of them have curfews and their rights limited. The £400 million spent on accommodation over 10 years is not a small sum, but it pales in comparison with the amount handed over by the Government to landlords in the form of housing benefit. Every single year — every single year — £330 million is spent on subsidising landlords in the North. Landlords will always charge extortionate rents as long as Stormont foots the bill. The message from the DUP is, "Work away, lads". Who are the real scroungers? It is not migrants, refugees or asylum seekers. Many will say that it is those who rip people off with huge rents, subsidised by the state. I remind the Members to my right that their party colleague the Minister for Communities is responsible for housing. In case they have forgotten, I say that he has overseen an escalation of the housing crisis: average rents in Belfast are over £1,100; almost 60,000 people from 30,000 families are officially homeless; and 12,000 families have been waiting for social housing for more than four years. HMOs are a part of that housing crisis. To his credit, the Member for East Londonderry to my right asked the Infrastructure Minister about the impact of holiday lets and HMOs on residential areas. The only other time that HMOs have been mentioned by his party colleagues during the entirety of this mandate was when the Member for Upper Bann, during his recent Member's statement, shamelessly tried to scapegoat migrants for the housing crisis. Some people would question the DUP's legitimate concerns about HMOs. What exactly is the link between "illegal" immigration and the rise in the number of HMOs? Is the DUP able to point out any evidence that clearly links the two? If anyone were to look into it, they would find that the vast majority of tenants in HMOs are people who were born here. The rise of HMOs has nothing to do with migrants and asylum seekers. HMOs are an efficient way for profiteering landlords to line their pockets as quickly as possible. It is a simple as that. Do DUP members have any concerns about HMO landlords exploiting tenants in the Holylands and other student areas? My recollection from my time on Belfast City Council is that they are all too happy with it. Is the DUP content to let landlords charge upwards of £800 per room, raking in obscene profits?
Are HMOs only a problem now because some people who are not white live in them?
As long as some sections of society blame migrants for the housing crisis, we are letting the Communities Minister off the hook. We are letting the Executive off the hook for failing to build enough homes, not reducing rents and refusing to open up tens of thousands of empty homes.
Shame on the Members opposite for bringing a disgraceful motion.
844 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: 0.28 (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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.67).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.98).
- 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 | 0.44 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.23 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.29 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.67 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.28 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.01 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| 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 12:33 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.