That it's a massive waste of time, effort, money, lives and we should just bring them over by coach and ferry.

I have no idea what the answer is. But how desperate must these people be to attempt such a dangerous crossing on a small boat? I often wonder, what if the UK had a catastrophic event and we had to flee to another country? I'm not sure I'd have the bollocks to attempt such a journey, but what would be the alternative?

It makes me so mad, when the Conservatives were in power time & time again Labour politicians would say “What we need is safe & legal routes” ie a way for people to apply for asylum in the countries or origin , this would stop so many , not all trying to enter illegally.
Now Labour are in power where are these safe & legal routes?

The money they give to the traffickers could be an application fee instead, hopefully then that would deter the traffickers?

Although if people were found to not be eligible for asylum, then wouldn't they just attempt the crossing anyway?

It's not acting as a deterrent as things are - what would you do to change that? Your comment is useless.

That's strange as I got my figures from the home office. Same source as you.

France have proposed asylum processing on their territory for the UK. The UK did not want it. (It would act as a huge pull factor.)

Stopping them and sending them straight back. We should've stuck with Rwanda.

This is all about returns, but it doesn’t specify the routes people are using to come so it will include all the Visa over stayers. They’ve used the term “ returns “ is quite a broad umbrella.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-june-2026/how-many-people-are-returned-from-the-uk

If you have a quick glance at the 30,000+ boat arrivals, and then you see a figure for 40,000 returns, it looks really good but it doesn’t actually count the majority of people who are here illegally.

Well don't come then, just a thought

I am probably naive in this but I think they should have an huge asylum processing place in France (for the UK) and if they bypass it, they get returned to it to start the formal process.

I suppose if they’re denied asylum the French would be not that up for it. But if they could apply without the potential for drowning that would be good.

@HappiestSleeping the home Office figures don’t really support what you’re saying

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-june-2026/how-many-people-come-to-the-uk-via-illegal-entry-routes

I’m well aware that arrivals via the channel are a small percentage but we don’t actually deport that many people either!

I’m not one of these people who says “ give me proof” like it’s a demand, but I am curious to know where you got your figures. Actual deportations are only nine or 10,000 a year? Then you add in voluntary returns, obviously that gets higher.

generally, I’m quite confused by what you’re saying

The government have proposed new community sponsorship routes which I think is a step in the right direction.

I think it is probably useful to point to some facts about now. Small boat crossings, while definitely a problem, are quite a small percentage of overall migration. The UK deported twice as many people as arrive irregularly. Not all of them are illegal. Boris made the situation worse by making it impossible to apply for asylum without being on UK soil. Asylum seekers are not automatically given a house and loads of money. They are housed, often in multi room establishments. They are not given 'loadsamoney', but because they are not allowed to work, they are given subsistence while their application is assessed. If they are granted asylum, their claim is reviewed periodically to establish whether the circumstances under which asylum was granted are still relevant. If they are not, asylum status is removed and the individual deported.

There is a huge backlog, but the current government are getting through it much faster than the previous one, although this is also still a problem.

This type of immigration is only one component of a huge problem the UK faces.

Don't know about coach and ferry, OP, but having ways in which people could apply for asylum safely and legally would reduce the unsafe crossings hugely.

Do you have any friends or family on the council house waiting list?

I understand the French authorities have proposed the UK set up an application / processing facility in France but the UK rejected the idea. That would help, then people could follow the legal process safely. There is currently no way to apply legally and safely for most of the at risk countries of origin

Don’t be ridiculous

Anything that's an alternative to people risking their lives in small boats crossing the Channel would be an improvement. I've crossed the Channel on a small boat - it was a 32' yacht, crewed by people who knew what they were doing, and even so it was scary as hell being out of the sight of land in a high swell, knowing that the Channel is a busy shipping route. I can't imagine how frightening it must be crammed into an overloaded dinghy.

If you want to increase the numbers hugely, that’s exactly the way to do it.

Read the Op
the Op is saying that he ditched his toddler son in order to get In to the migrant boat

watched the video from earlier today/yesterday of a migrant boat departing Boulogne. The one where the Dad (presumably) ditches his toddler in the sea in order to get onto the boat.

FFS, they should not even be here. It's totally wrong, so no, of course we should not be providing coaches.

To a rescuer not in the sea.

Op the ferry idea would just be a huge draw for people to France, they’d be overwhelmed and you couldn’t say yes to everyone.

The other option is clearly chaotic and risky, another person died trying this week.

So neither.

I'd prefer it if the French authorities arrested whoever is in charge of the boat for trafficking before anyone risks their lives at sea.

It is ridiculous. It is a farce. Throwing open the gates isn't the answer, though at least that would be a more honest approach. Can't make it to too easy for people to see the unpalatable truth, though.

Ignoring the news is good for temporary escape, on an individual basis, but someone has to pay attention or there's no hope at all. Someone has to try to bring sanity and common sense back to the world, and I hope people don't vote if they've decided not to stay informed.

Can you link to this video where this dad supposedly dumps his son in the sea in order to enable him to climb in to the boat?