Why do Asylum Seekers cross the channel on small boats

Just to bring us up to date, over 21,000 migrants have arrived by boat this year already and well over 7,000 have made the journey since Labour won power.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13796711/migrant-boat-seconds-sinking-english-channel.html#comments

One of the comments is thought provoking and scary. Just wondered if anyone here has the answer:
Legitimate question - what happens when we literally have nowhere left to put the numbers of people coming over on boats? When we run out of hotel/hostel/B&B spaces, when we have no houses left where are we meant to house them?Also, what happens when we do run out of money to pay for them because we have all been taxed to the point we cannot survive ourselves and end up having to claim benefits?

Then another article says that record numbers of migrants living in Britain are not working, costing taxpayers an estimated £8 billion. Official figures show that 1,689,000 non-UK nationals are either unemployed or classed as economically inactive because they are not looking for a job.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13794959/Record-numbers-migrants-living-Britain-jobless.html

I know it's the Daily Mail but feel free to dispute those terrifying figures if you feel they are wrong.

I am not terrified by those figures, our numbers are tiny in comparison with most other European countries. Germany took in one million Syrians in 2015 alone and then tens of thousands more from different countries in the following years and most of them work and have settled there.

Unfortunately Asylum seekers here are not allowed to work, a pity as there are so many vacancies and some of them are highly qualified in their particular fields and many more want to work. Instead they have had to wait for years for their application to be considered, because the last government did not do its job.

I understand that the numbers of asylum seekers is actually much lower than often quoted because thousands of foreign students, workers from different countries with contracts together with their families, thousands more from Hong Kong and Ukraine heavily outnumber the people arriving on plastic boats. All these are added together as ‘immigrants’ which gives a skewed number.

I have no time for the DM they are a poor excuse of a newspaper, frankly they scare monger and frighten people with ‘news’ that is only maybe or perhaps, or wholly invented and people read and believe the printed word as the truth.

Thanks silverlining, it’s reassuring when other posters share realistic information. The DM is set upon painting doomsday scenarios. It’s coverage of Starmer here and Kamala Harris over the ocean is deliberately distorted and focussed on re-framing their politics as aimed at ruining our lives.
We should remember that papers opposition to this country offering refuge in the build up to ww2. It even opposed the kindertransport because there was no room at the in .

Speaking of which, what sort of tone-deaf numptie equates banning smoking outside of pubs with the Holocaust?

80000 annual deaths from smoking? Over time the numbers add up. There’s a considerable cost to the NHS. Obviously a very inappropriate comparison with the Holocaust but I would hope that smoking related deaths are discussed in an intelligent way at some point.

Agreed. It is a serious issue, and there is a balance to be struck between personal freedom and the rights of people not to inhale passively, and even the costs to the NHS, but it is not remotely comparable with the Holocaust.

I mentioned the comment as it is another example of the hyperbole that is so prevalent just now - anything to smear the government, however tasteless and unfounded it may be.

I’ve just looked at the DM on line and hyperbole is in every political piece. Its attacks on Kamal Harris are in the same vein as those on Starmer. Personal and stoking anxiety and anger in its references to socialism - you’d think that word meant mass murder if you’d never heard it till reading its comments.

The good news is that the Mail must be afraid that the government is going to improve things, so wants to turn people against them before they start. Why else would there be all the speculation?

By all means criticise what they do, but the constant sniping at what they could maybe, possibly think about considering is tiresome, and, I think unprecedented? I don’t remember this happening before, but I suppose we’ve had a right wing and a right wing press for so long, which maybe explains it.

I think we all know that the DM is full of scandal and exaggeration, but it is possible to look beyond that.

What they are very good at is covering stories that the BBC and others either don't mention or only mention briefly. The DM will cover the story in full with pictures, maps, graphs and statistics. That is why it is the most read newspaper.

I am fully aware that there could be a bias in the story but it's the facts and figures which are important. Can anyone here dispute the facts and figures in those articles? Or is this just a lot of hot air because you disagree with the way it's written?

Beware statistics they can do easily be twisted depending on the method used.
I have no faith in the DM ‘facts and figures’.

Which facts and figures are you referring to, Chestnut?

You quote numbers of 'non-working' asylum-seekers, but as they are not able to work by law, that statistic can only have been arrived at to suggest that they are a drain on society. If they are processed faster, and allowed to work ASAP then many would be active contributors to the economy - why not frame it that way? As I'm sure you know, it's not the 'facts' that matter - it is what those 'facts' represent, and the Mail is one of the sources that uses 'facts' in a very particular way (ie to show immigrants, benefits claimants, anything to do with the Labour Party and its supporters and other groups) in the worst possible light.

According to you Gov the most popular newspapers are in orde
1. The Sunday Times
2 The Guardian
3 The sun
4 The Metro
5 The Independent
6 the Daily Mail

I thought the sun was the most read/ bought paper.
Certainly surprised about the guardian and the Sunday times being 1 and. 2.
Didn’t the independent close and was replaced by the I.?
However the DM is way down which is where it belongs.

I think the Daily Mail is excellent in its political coverage and has such excellent columnists as Richard Littlejohn, Boris, Nadine Dorries, Sarah Vine and Tom Utley. They all write excellent articles which .i usually completely agree with. richard Littlejohn has been an industrial journalist for years and knows what he is talking about. They all write with a lot of common sense.

I was thinking of the Mail Online when I said the most read newspaper. Sorry for any confusion.

Doodledog

Which facts and figures are you referring to, Chestnut?

You quote numbers of 'non-working' asylum-seekers, but as they are not able to work by law, that statistic can only have been arrived at to suggest that they are a drain on society. If they are processed faster, and allowed to work ASAP then many would be active contributors to the economy - why not frame it that way? As I'm sure you know, it's not the 'facts' that matter - it is what those 'facts' represent, and the Mail is one of the sources that uses 'facts' in a very particular way (ie to show immigrants, benefits claimants, anything to do with the Labour Party and its supporters and other groups) in the worst possible light.

I didn't mention asylum seekers, the article said:
Official figures show that 1,689,000 non-UK nationals are either unemployed or classed as economically inactive because they are not looking for a job.

Maybe silverlining48 who is not terrified by these figures can tell us how we can keep providing for so many people as well as our own citizens.

Will that include the old, the young and the ill/disabled? Oh, and the rich, and people who claim to be being supported by someone else in the family? And students?

All of those groups are economically inactive, whether they are UK nationals or not. Some of them will have already contributed over the course of their lives, and others will do so when they mature or if/when they recover from illness.

If we allow the non-UK people to work and remove the burden of economic activity from UK-born workers so that all able-bodied adults are expected to make a contribution for a set number of years then maybe we can provide for those who can't provide for themselves?

Doodledog Will that include the old, the young and the ill/disabled? Oh, and the rich, and people who claim to be being supported by someone else in the family? And students?
You need to read the article. It covers people aged between 16 and 64 who were born overseas and have the right to live in the UK, but excludes students and asylum-seekers. There are 1.6 million of them, costing us £8 billion a year. Do you really think we can get enough of them working to pay that amount? Most of them will have low paid jobs.

You are right - I haven’t read the article. Sorry. I find it too depressing to read (what I assumed would be) more propaganda, but I shouldn’t have commented before reading it.

I agree it's depressing reading. I just feel too many people refuse to believe we have a problem, but maybe that's their coping strategy. I don't think we will find a solution until people face the reality of the situation.

All refugees are good and should be welcomed. All refugees are bad and should be sent home.

The truth and the solution lies somewhere in between.

The media don't like common sense and reason though, it thrives on stoking up fear in the electorate, many of whom are addicted to the adrenaline it produces that makes their sad and empty lives a little more bearable I guess.

many of whom are addicted to the adrenaline it produces that makes their sad and empty lives a little more bearable I guess.

The most patronising comment I've ever seen on here. 🤦‍♀️

Maybe, but I've still plenty too. I just keep quiet lol!

I am not quibbling on the 1.6 million figure but I think we do have to think about who that represents if they are between the ages of 16 and 64, that's nearly 50 years and in the last 50 years we've had all sorts of people arrive for all sorts of reasons. I wonder if this figure includes people from Europe who decided to stay after Brexit? Also, there will be many who have worked and paid into our society and then for all sorts of reasons are not working eg women who have raised families with children working here and paying taxes, people who have retired early because of ill health or because they can afford to, people who are temporarily out of work. There are over 9.2 million people in this country who are economically inactive that's 22% of those who could be working so it's a big problem for our economy because we have an ageing population. I don't know how the figure of £8 billion has been arrived at so I can't comment on that but there will be lots of economically inactive people including those who came from abroad and have been given leave to stay who are deserving of support from the public purse. There's no easy or quick answer to this issue but I'm aware that stats can be used quite mischievously to cause alarm and I wonder if this is one of them?

No wonder crossings have increased and will continue to do so. Labour have scrapped the Rwanda Scheme, the Bibby Stockholm barge and now the accommodation in the former RAF base in Lincolnshire. Saying they will continue housing in dispersed accommodation ie hotels. If they continue down this route with no deterrent to illegals trying to get to 'Treasure Island' then Nigel has a good chance of being the next Prime Minister.