The English Channel has long been a symbol of shared history and cultural exchange between the United Kingdom and the continent. However, in recent years, the calm waters have witnessed a surge of small boats carrying asylum seekers from various parts of the world, sparking a heated debate about immigration policies and national security. I feel it is important to critically examine this issue, considering the following factors:

Are they all genuine asylum seekers?

While there are undoubtedly individuals fleeing conflict and persecution, the question of whether all those crossing the English Channel are genuine asylum seekers demands closer scrutiny. Genuine refugees seek protection and safety, but it’s essential to distinguish them from economic migrants seeking better economic opportunities. I would argue for a strict application of international and domestic laws to ensure that those who truly face life-threatening situations are given refuge, while discouraging the misuse of the asylum system for economic gain.

Why do they burn their passports and identity documents?

The act of burning passports and identity documents raises my suspicion. A genuine asylum seeker would value these documents as evidence of their identity and the circumstances they are fleeing. The destruction of these crucial papers can be interpreted as an attempt to obscure one’s true origins or reasons for seeking asylum. This practice challenges the transparency and credibility of claims, making it difficult for host nations to accurately assess the legitimacy of the applicants’ stories.

How will we as a country sustain the enormous burden on public services?

The influx of asylum seekers, particularly those arriving through unauthorized means, strains local services and resources. There are pressures on housing, healthcare, education, and other public services. It’s not just a matter of ideological differences; it’s about ensuring the sustainability and quality of services for both the existing population and those who enter the country legally. Responsible immigration policies should strike a balance that meets humanitarian obligations without overburdening the host nation’s citizens.

Could they not remain in France, a safe country?

Many of the asylum seekers come from countries where they initially found refuge, such as France, before attempting to cross the Channel. I would stress the importance of considering the first safe country principle, which encourages individuals to seek protection in the first safe nation they arrive in, rather than “asylum shopping” for perceived better conditions. Encouraging migrants to remain in the first safe country not only respects the sovereignty of that nation but also ensures that resources are allocated where they are needed most.

Are there not more robust methods of deterrence?

It is essential to address the root causes of unauthorized migration and implement more robust deterrence methods. Enhanced border security measures, involving the Royal Navy to patrol the Channel, arresting, detaining and returning the illegal migrants might be a more robust start. Picking them up mid-Channel and taxiing them to Dover is no form of deterrent at all.

Then, investment in diplomatic efforts to address instability in source countries, and efficient repatriation processes for individuals with rejected asylum claims can discourage dangerous journeys across the Channel. Stricter penalties for human traffickers and facilitating cooperative agreements with transit countries can also help to reduce the flow of unauthorized migrants.


In conclusion, the English Channel asylum seekers crisis is a multifaceted issue that demands a much more robust approach. As responsible citizens, we must examine the situation through the lens of national security, fiscal responsibility, and the well-being of both our own citizens and those seeking refuge. It’s crucial to differentiate between genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants, as well as to uphold the integrity of the asylum process through transparent documentation. Balancing our humanitarian obligations with the realities of limited resources requires comprehensive solutions that address the underlying causes and discourage unauthorized crossings. By doing so, we can ensure a safe and prosperous future for both our nation and those who truly need our help.

Leave a comment