99.8% asylum seekers successfully cross the channel with small boats...is that really dangerous to deter people from abusing the system?

[ShopUK]

I recently looked into the statistics for small boat crossings in 2024, which the UN has called the deadliest year for this journey. Out of over 36,000 crossings, there were around 80 tragic deaths, leading to an impressive success rate of 99.8%. Given these figures, I wonder: is it really that dangerous to make the boat crossing? Are the majority on board truly in dire situation?

Among those crossing are small children and women, and my heart goes out to them. I genuinely hope they find safe shelter in the UK. However, I am concerned that a significant number of these individuals are undocumented young men.

News reports suggest that each asylum seeker pays between £1,500 and £3,000 for their crossing, with many staying in hotels in London. Once they arrive in the UK, they typically receive a full year of accommodation, food, clothing, electricity, water, heating, and medical treatment, along with £8.86 a week in pocket money (which adds up to £3,233 a year).

I remember staying in a London B&B during my university days—sharing a cramped room with a few others, with filthy bedding, no heating (because it was "broken"), cold showers, and a meager breakfast—all for £24 a night. Ironically, paying £3,000 wouldn’t even cover half a year’s stay there, and that was many moons ago when each pound was worth more!

Those undocumented young men, after spending a year in the UK for free, if their asylum claims are unsuccessful, these men can appeal. If that fails, they can return home at no cost. If they succeed, they gain refugee status and the chance to apply for citizenship in ten years. Isn’t this a compelling proposition?

It’s a complex issue, and while I empathise with those seeking a better life, I find myself questioning the motivations behind these journeys. Apologies, but my empathy is running low these days. I know boat crossing is always a sensitive topic, I may regret and delete this post later...

What did you hope to learn from this post when it's brought up most days, sometimes several times a day covering exactly the same issues?

The majority of people coming over on the boats are young men. The journey across Europe is perilous and it's often very difficult for women to make it.

Around 70% are given status. They get £50 a week if they have to buy their own food or £8 if not.

They are in limbo for years because there's a huge backlog in claims.

Thanks for the reply. Sorry for getting the numbers wrong.

I was thinking, in my vague memory, I recalled pictures of Vietnamese asylum seekers seeking for safety in the 1980s.
like this https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/refugee-crisis-son-of-vietnamese-boat-people-shares-story-of-how-britain-treated-asylum-seekers-in-the-1980s-10493316.html

Those who were on the fishermen boats were men, women and small children, in the cramped boat that travels from Vietnam in the Pacific sea to safe countries. Therefore, I had always had the idea that women and small children, will try to travel through if needed.

And to go the point that only young men make the journey because it's perilous, but it can also imply that the situation back in their home country are not in as bad so that they don't necessarily need to come to the UK. I know, again, it's morally controversial to say so. And it's even more controversial to say these young men, as men, should be able to take care of themselves much more than women and children - did they leave those who need them behind? I welcome all women and children for they are vulnerable in nature and by their culture. Whatever it is, I don't feel comfortable to have that many capable young men claiming refugee status in the UK from small boats.

Oh that the government, any government could have a 99.8% success rate for anything..........Apart from stealing money !