Migrant abandons child during Channel migrant crossing

This is the harrowing moment a migrant left an injured child and climbed onto a Channel dinghy as the stricken youngster was rescued.

Footage of the man carrying the terrified tot through the waves to a waiting taxi-boat emerged on the same day 781 people crossed. After a wave crashes into the small child near Berck, the migrant continues pushing towards the boat, which was already packed with asylum seekers.

A wave then carries the vessel into the pair, and the dazed child starts floating on top of the water. French lifeboat crews rushed through the water, lifting the shocked child onto a rescue paddleboard. But the man shockingly turns away and tries to climb onto the dinghy.

The bewildered child is then left sitting nearby, watching, as dozens of people flounder in the water, with others still trying to clamber onto the boat.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: “This is a sickening and heartbreaking scene. A few weeks ago, I saw a similar embarkation myself, where the young male illegal immigrants pushed women and children off the boat.

“The needy are abandoned and young, often-violent men push their way to the front and enter the UK. Women have recently died during crossings on these boats in unexplained circumstances. This illegal immigration route must be completely ended.

“The French government is morally culpable for letting it happen on their beaches when they could easily stop it, as the Belgians have done. The charities supporting this wave of illegal immigration are equally guilty for what is happening, including for the deaths that have occurred.”

The man carries the child towards the dinghy (Image: NowherePhotographer)

The child, apparently unmoving, falls into the water (Image: NowherePhotographer)

Rescuers approach the child (Image: NowherePhotographer)

The child is taken away (Image: NowherePhotographer)

France’s Maritime Prefect for the Channel and the North Sea said the child had been taken into care after the incident on Monday afternoon.

The organisation said: “The gendarmerie and the fire service subsequently took charge of the child, and the prefecture’s land-based services then took over. The child was taken into care following a medical incident.”

The astonishing moment came as 781 people crossed the Channel – a record number for this year.

It will heap pressure on ministers as they desperately try to convince people the borders are secure.

Some 18,565 people have crossed the Channel this year, down 42% on the equivalent point last year.

New analysis has revealed the number of migrants to have crossed the Channel under Labour is greater than the number of full-time soldiers in the British Army.

Some 83,279 people have arrived in small boats, overtaking the 83,000 in the Army.

An average of 103 people per day have crossed the Channel in the 809 days since Labour won the keys to Downing Street.

Mr Philp said: “Labour has let an entire Army-sized population cross the Channel illegally.

“More people have arrived in small boats than we have soldiers defending Britain. That is completely bonkers. Labour has lost control of our borders and seems utterly incapable of getting it back.

“The Conservative plan is to end hotels and benefits for illegal immigrants and instead deport them.”

The dinghy packed with migrants (Image: NowherePhotographer)

But Labour’s Lucy Powell, the Education Secretary, sensationally claimed that Border Force cannot intercept every single migrant crossing.

The Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, launched an “urgent review” as officials confirmed at least 21 asylum seekers arrived in Samphire Hoe on Tuesday.

Others are feared to be on the run, with the Home Office carrying out a “thorough investigation”.

And at least five migrants were detected at The Warren, a rocky stretch of coast near Folkestone, on Monday. The crossings were the first unauthorised landings in a year

Zia Yusuf, Reform’s Home Affairs spokesman, said: “This is an abject surrender of our borders by Lucy Powell and Labour. Every migrant boat can and should be intercepted, but this government is too gutless to deploy the Royal Navy and protect the British public from this invasion of undocumented fighting-age men.”

Mr Yusuf added: “It’s abundantly clear that this government will not stop the invasion of unvetted fighting-age males into our country.

“Instead, they are incentivising them with lavish police motorcades to their taxpayer-funded hotels, all while the British public struggles to afford to live in our own country.

“Labour’s promise to smash the gangs is in complete tatters. Without withdrawing from the ECHR and deploying the Royal Navy, the boats will keep on coming, and Brits will continue being forced to foot the bill for these invaders.”

Ms Powell echoed that language on Thursday but suggested not all crossings could be prevented.

Asked on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme if the situation was embarrassing for the Government, she responded: “(You) can’t stop everything all of the time.

“Of course, it’s a concern. That’s why the Home Secretary has demanded and ordered this urgent review, because this is not what we want to see. This is not acceptable.

“But the overall picture is an improving picture. It is hard, difficult work that requires constant, constant effort by our border forces, our security services, police, our partnerships with France and other countries.

“This is a mammoth and huge task, which is now starting to reap some dividends. But of course, you know where there are still issues arising, we must absolutely tackle them.”

Pressed on Good Morning Britain whether she stood by her statement, Ms Powell said: “I think you’re just taking that completely out of context.

“We are clamping down on small boat crossings every single day… we are sucking the oxygen out of it, we are taking steps, and there are many, many steps.

“It’s not an easy thing to do to just turn on a switch, turn off a switch overnight. We have to constantly evolve.”

A Government spokesperson said: “Our progress this year in tackling small boats is indisputable – with crossings down by 42% and the lowest recorded over the summer months since 2020.

“But this week’s events show that while the peaks we are seeing are far below those of previous years, we need to push further and harder in order to eradicate this vile trade.”

Lord Sugar Calls for Royal Navy to Stop Asylum Seekers Reaching Britain as Channel Debate Intensifies

Lord Alan Sugar, the businessman and BBC The Apprentice star, has reignited Britain’s immigration debate after calling for the Royal Navy to intercept asylum seekers attempting to reach the United Kingdom in small boats. His proposal, published as part of a list of measures he would pursue if he were prime minister, has attracted support from people demanding tougher border controls while raising important questions about international law, maritime safety and the government’s response to Channel crossings.

The intervention comes amid continuing political pressure over irregular migration, with rival parties offering sharply different approaches to preventing dangerous journeys across the English Channel. Sugar’s comments have also drawn attention because they echo proposals from Reform UK, which has argued that military vessels should play a more prominent role in intercepting migrant boats.

For critics of the current system, the issue is straightforward: they want Britain to demonstrate that its borders are under control and that irregular crossings will not automatically lead to permanent settlement. For opponents of aggressive interception policies, however, the challenge is ensuring that efforts to enforce immigration rules do not endanger lives or breach Britain’s legal obligations.

The disagreement highlights how immigration has become one of the most divisive questions in British politics.

Lord Sugar Sets Out His Priorities

Sugar, best known to television audiences for his role on The Apprentice, outlined several priorities in response to people asking what he would do if he were in charge of the country.

Among his suggestions were the construction of five large, modern prisons and the recruitment of an additional 10,000 police officers and prison officers. He suggested that the proposals could be financed by reducing military spending.

His comments on immigration attracted particular attention. Sugar argued that people fleeing oppression should seek safety in a nearby country and said he would ask the Royal Navy to prevent asylum seekers arriving on Britain’s shores.

The proposal quickly became part of the wider discussion about how the government should respond to small-boat crossings. Supporters viewed his intervention as a demand for firmer action, while critics questioned both the practical consequences and the legal basis of the approach.

The comments are significant because Sugar is a prominent public figure with a large audience, even though he is not responsible for setting the government’s immigration policy. His intervention adds another recognisable voice to a debate already dominated by politicians, ministers, campaigners and local communities.

However, a proposal made in a hypothetical scenario is not the same as a detailed operational plan. Questions remain about how interceptions would work, which country would accept people returned at sea and what safeguards would be required.

Why the Royal Navy Has Become Part of the Argument

The Royal Navy’s potential role in Channel crossings has become a recurring subject of political debate.

Some politicians argue that naval vessels could provide a more forceful response than the existing arrangements, helping authorities intercept boats before they reach British shores. Reform UK has promoted a proposal involving naval patrol vessels monitoring small boats and facilitating their return to France or another agreed destination.

Supporters contend that stronger enforcement could discourage people from making dangerous journeys and weaken the business model of smuggling gangs. They argue that if irregular crossings do not provide a route to remaining in Britain, fewer people may be willing to risk the journey.

But this argument raises practical questions. Naval personnel would need clear instructions about what they could lawfully do, how to respond when a vessel was in distress and where passengers could be taken safely.

The English Channel is one of the world’s busiest shipping areas. Small inflatable boats may be overcrowded, poorly equipped and vulnerable to changing weather conditions. An interception that is mishandled could put passengers, rescuers and other vessels at risk.

Maritime law also requires assistance for people in distress at sea. Any policy involving the Royal Navy would therefore need to distinguish between lawful enforcement and the obligation to protect human life.

The question is not simply whether the Navy has the capability to intercept boats. It is whether a proposed operation could be carried out safely, lawfully and with the cooperation of the countries involved.

The Dispute Over the First Safe Country

One of the central arguments in the debate concerns where people fleeing persecution should seek asylum.

Sugar suggested that asylum seekers travelling to Britain have already passed through several safe countries. The argument is frequently made by those who believe Britain should not be the destination for people who could have sought protection elsewhere.

However, international refugee law does not establish a universal rule requiring every refugee to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. The legal circumstances depend on the relevant international agreements, domestic legislation and individual cases.

European arrangements have included mechanisms for determining which country is responsible for examining an asylum claim, but these rules do not amount to a simple worldwide requirement that everyone must apply in the first country encountered.

People seeking protection may have family connections, language links or other circumstances that influence their destination. Their claims must be assessed under the applicable legal framework.

This distinction matters because political proposals must be judged against the law as it stands, rather than assumptions about how the asylum system should operate.

It is possible to argue for stricter immigration enforcement while still recognising that genuine asylum claims require fair consideration. The challenge for policymakers is to establish procedures that are effective, consistent and legally defensible.

Reform UK’s Similar Proposal

Sugar’s suggestion has similarities to Reform UK’s proposals for using naval vessels in the Channel.

The party has argued that a more assertive approach to interception and returns could reduce arrivals. Its supporters say that existing policies have not provided a sufficiently strong deterrent and that the government needs to change the incentives encouraging people to make the crossing.

The idea has generated controversy over the meaning of interception, the legal authority for returning people to France and the consequences if French authorities refuse to accept them.

A successful policy would require more than sending ships into the Channel. It would need operational arrangements, cooperation with French authorities, procedures for people who express a fear of persecution and clear safeguards for vulnerable passengers.

Without those elements, the policy could become a source of diplomatic conflict and legal challenges rather than a lasting solution.

Previous British proposals for maritime pushbacks encountered serious concerns about safety and legality. Those experiences demonstrate why a government would need to examine the operational details carefully before committing the armed forces to such a role.

The Government Faces Pressure to Deliver Results

The debate puts pressure on the government to demonstrate that its immigration strategy is producing measurable improvements.

People concerned about Channel crossings want to know whether the number of arrivals is falling, whether smuggling networks are being disrupted and whether asylum applications are being processed more quickly.

They also want clarity about what happens when a claim is rejected. Delays between an initial decision, any appeal and a final outcome can create uncertainty for applicants while increasing the administrative burden on the state.

A more efficient system could help reduce those pressures. Faster decisions, better cooperation with other countries and stronger investigations into criminal smuggling networks are all potential elements of a comprehensive approach.

The government has also emphasised action against people-smuggling gangs, arguing that disrupting the criminal networks behind the crossings is essential to preventing dangerous journeys.

Critics, however, question whether enforcement measures are sufficiently effective and argue that the public has heard too many promises without a decisive resolution.

The disagreement reflects a broader problem in British politics: voters want clear outcomes, but immigration policy depends on several agencies, international partners and legal procedures that cannot be changed by a single announcement.

Public Safety and Humanitarian Responsibilities

The strongest disagreements over Channel policy often arise from competing concerns about border control and humanitarian protection.

For people demanding stricter enforcement, uncontrolled-looking arrivals can undermine confidence in the immigration system. They argue that the government has a responsibility to determine who may enter the country and to prevent criminal networks from exploiting vulnerable people.

For humanitarian organisations, the priority is ensuring that people fleeing war or persecution are not placed in greater danger by enforcement operations. They warn that policies designed to deter crossings must not expose passengers to drowning, return them to persecution or prevent legitimate claims from being considered.

These concerns are not necessarily impossible to reconcile. A country can enforce its immigration laws while maintaining rescue obligations and fair asylum procedures.

The practical difficulty lies in designing policies that achieve those objectives together. An approach that reduces crossings but creates serious safety risks or unlawful returns could face legal challenges and damage international cooperation. An approach that processes claims too slowly could also undermine public confidence and increase costs.

That is why any proposal involving the Royal Navy needs detailed examination rather than being judged solely on whether it sounds tough.

Could the Proposal Change the Political Debate?

Sugar’s comments illustrate the extent to which immigration has moved beyond the traditional boundaries of party politics.

Business leaders, television personalities and other public figures increasingly contribute to debates once dominated by ministers and specialist policy experts. Their interventions can amplify public concerns and place additional pressure on elected representatives to explain their positions.

The political impact of Sugar’s proposal will depend on how voters respond and whether parties turn the idea into a detailed policy commitment. Public attention alone does not establish that a proposal is workable or that it would deliver the intended result.

For Reform UK, the debate provides an opportunity to promote its argument for stronger border enforcement. For Labour and the Conservatives, it presents another test of whether their own approaches can address concerns about irregular migration while meeting legal and operational requirements.

The issue is also likely to remain relevant to Britain’s relationship with France. Any lasting arrangement for returning people intercepted in the Channel would require careful negotiation, because the United Kingdom cannot simply assume that another country will accept passengers without an agreed legal and operational basis.

What Happens Next?

Lord Sugar’s call for the Royal Navy to stop asylum seekers reaching Britain has added momentum to a debate that shows little sign of disappearing.

His proposal reflects frustration among people who believe the government must take stronger action to prevent irregular crossings. At the same time, it raises questions about maritime safety, international cooperation and the legal protections owed to people seeking asylum.

The key issue for policymakers is whether a naval interception strategy could be implemented safely and lawfully, and whether it would reduce crossings in a sustainable way. Those questions require clear evidence, detailed planning and cooperation with France rather than political rhetoric alone.

Britain also faces the broader task of improving asylum processing, disrupting smuggling networks and ensuring that final decisions are implemented fairly and efficiently.

Sugar has made his position clear, but turning the proposal into government policy would involve decisions far more complex than deploying ships to the Channel.

Ultimately, the immigration debate will be shaped by results. Voters will want to see whether dangerous crossings decline, whether public money is spent effectively and whether the authorities can maintain confidence in the border system while protecting human life.

The Royal Navy proposal may become another defining point in Britain’s immigration argument. Whether it offers a practical solution, however, will depend on the legal framework, the arrangements with neighbouring countries and the evidence of what such a policy could actually achieve.