Daily Boat Immigrant Arrivals Top 1,000 for 1st Time This Year
More than 1,100 illegal immigrants have arrived by crossing the English Channel, the highest number recorded in a single day this year.
Provisional Home Office figures show 1,195 people arrived on Britain's shores in 19 small boats on Saturday, the highest total so far in 2025 and the first time this year the number exceeded 1,000 in one day. The previous highest figure was 825, recorded on May 21.
So far in 2025, 14,812 people have illegally entered the UK by crossing the Channel in small boats. According to analysis of the data by The Epoch Times, this is 42 percent higher than this time last year, when a total of 10,448 had arrived. It is also nearly double the number of arrivals by May 31, 2023, when 7,610 had landed.
Saturday's figures remain below the daily record of 1,305 set on Sept. 3, 2022, which was a year that saw the highest number boat landings overall. In total, of 45,755 people had arrived in 2022, with similarly high daily figures recorded on Oct. 9 (1,241) and Nov. 12 (1,214).
Landings so far this year are also higher than the number who had arrived by May 31, 2022 (9,607), which suggests 2025 could be another record year, unless government efforts to stop the boats and tackle the smuggling gangs are successful.
A total of 165,590 people have crossed the English Channel to enter the UK since record-keeping for this type of illegal immigration began in 2018.
Undermining Border Security
A Home Office spokesperson said the government wants to end dangerous small boat crossings, 'which threaten lives and undermine our border security.'
Related Stories
5/22/2025
5/19/2025
'Through international intelligence sharing under our Border Security Command, enhanced enforcement operations in Northern France and tougher legislation in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, we are strengthening international partnerships and boosting our ability to identify, disrupt, and dismantle criminal gangs whilst strengthening the security of our borders,' the spokesperson said.
Since coming to power in July 2024, the Labour government has taken a different approach to tackling illegal immigration compared with its Conservative predecessors. Notably, it scrapped the Rwanda Plan, which aimed to send asylum seekers who arrived illegally to safe third countries like Rwanda, a policy the previous administration argued would deter people from making the cross-Channel journey.
The Conservatives had also
Similarly, the Labour government continues to work with international and European partners to '
UK Working With France
The Labour government has since founded the cross-agency Border Security Command, which will take a
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer speaks during a visit to BAE Systems in Govan, Glasgow, on June 2, 2025.
Andy Buchanan/PA Wire
Giving a major defence speech in Glasgow, Scotland, on Monday, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said that 'nobody should be making that journey across the Channel, and it's our duty to make sure that we ensure that they don't.'
Starmer said his government was working closely with French counterparts on taking further action in northern France, which is where most of the boats depart from.
Asked about the Rwanda Plan, the prime minister said, 'The reason we stood down the Rwanda scheme was because it cost a fortune, and only a handful of people went on a voluntary basis to Rwanda, and it didn't deter anybody.'
'I'm not up for gimmicks. I'm up for the hard work of working with partners, enhancing the powers that law enforcement have in my determination to take down the gangs that are running this vile trade,' he added.
Home Office figures revealed in December that the Rwanda Plan had
However, the UK is in talks with several Balkan nations about setting up '
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp had called the proposals a 'weak imitation' of the Rwanda policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
SIMS: CBC set to get more money and power
Canada's government news organization is set to get fatter and more powerful. In the middle of the election campaign, Prime Minister Mark Carney vowed to pay the CBC more money, waving around about $150 million in fresh taxpayer cash. CBC covered that big scoop with a headline calling the CBC 'underfunded.' Think about that scene. Imagine being a CBC employee asking questions at a news conference during the election, with Carney saying that, if he won, the CBC would get more money, while Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said he would defund the CBC. The CBC covered this funding story in the middle of the election. That's a conflict of interest so big it would dwarf Godzilla. Journalists should not be paid by the government and that scene in the election is a perfect illustration of why. In the speech from the throne, the Carney government announced: 'The government is determined to protect the institutions that bring these cultures and this identity to the world, like CBC/Radio-Canada.' To get an idea of what that protection could look like, consider the federal government report delivered on Feb. 20, before the election. Former heritage minister Pascale St-Onge said the government should nearly double the amount of money the CBC gets from taxpayers every year. 'The average funding for public broadcasters in G7 countries is $62 per person, per year,' St-Onge said. 'We need to aim closer to the middle ground, which is $62 per year per person.' If the government funded the CBC that way, the CBC would cost taxpayers about $2.5 billion per year. That amount would cover the annual grocery bill for about 152,854 Canadian families. St-Onge also pushed for the CBC mandate to be expanded to 'fight against disinformation.' 'I propose to anchor in CBC-Radio Canada's mandate its role in helping the Canadian population fight against disinformation and understand fact-based information,' St-Onge said. Carney's Liberal party platform pledged to 'fully equip them ( CBC) to combat disinformation, so that Canadians have a news source they know they can trust.' What does this mean? Will the CBC play a role as an official 'fact-checker' in Canada, or is this just clunky language urging the CBC to be more fact-based? What is clear is that the federal government is planning to hand the CBC more money and enshrine its funding into law, taking it out of the annual budget vote and clouding transparency. CBC hasn't improved its accountability after years of scrutiny from Canadians. Former CEO Catherine Tait was being paid about half a million dollars per year. New CEO Marie‑Philippe Bouchard has started her new role where Tait left off, as she is also set to be paid between $478,300 and $562,700. After years of criticism over executive bonuses, the government media company finally said it would get rid of the bonuses but hike the salaries of the executives instead. With so many Canadians struggling to pay for the basics, the CBC needed to read the room and end the bonuses and knock the CEO down a few levels in pay. Taxpayers are forced to spend a lot of money on the CBC, but only a tiny fraction of them choose to watch it. For CBC News Network's flagship English language prime-time news program, the audience is 1.8% of available viewers, according to its latest quarterly report. That means more than 98% of TV-viewing Canadians chose to watch something else. The CBC is a waste of taxpayers' money. Nearly nobody is watching it and it is a severe conflict of interest for journalists to be paid by the government. The CBC doesn't need more money from taxpayers; it needs to be defunded and raise money based on its work.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Is Sir Keir Starmer a Right-wing extremist?
Is Sir Keir Starmer KC – Left-wing human rights lawyer, former director of public prosecutions, and Labour Prime Minister of the United Kingdom – a dangerous Right-wing extremist? Common sense, evidence and reality say emphatically not. Government materials issued as part of Prevent training programmes give a less clear answer. The Prime Minister's warning that uncontrolled migration risks turning Britain into an 'island of strangers' would appear to risk falling foul of the definitions used in a Prevent course taken by thousands of public sector professionals with a duty to make referrals to the scheme. This defines 'cultural nationalism' as a type of extreme Right-wing terrorist ideology, including the belief that 'Western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups'. Sir Keir is no more an extremist than any other writer who has expressed concern over the unprecedented scale and pace of migration and cultural change in recent years. Why, then, has the Government risked labelling him as such? The short answer is that, riddled with political anxieties over the composition of terrorism in Britain – 80 per cent of the Counter Terrorism Police network's live investigations involved Islamism in 2023, compared with 10 per cent for the extreme Right – Prevent has given the appearance of loosening the definition of the latter in order to provide an artificial 'balance' to its work. As the Shawcross Review found in 2023, the programme has adopted a 'double standard' when dealing with Islamists and the extreme Right. The results have been farcical, with an 'expansive' definition of Right-wing extremism capturing 'mildly controversial or provocative forms of mainstream, Right-wing leaning commentary that have no meaningful connection to terrorism or radicalisation' even while Prevent funded organisations whose leaders have publicly made statements 'sympathetic to the Taliban' and referred to militant Islamists as 'so-called 'terrorists' of the legitimate resistance groups'. Such absurdities might be overlooked if Prevent had also proved ruthlessly effective at preventing atrocities. It has not. Prevent has failed to identify dangerous and violent suspects on multiple occasions, including Southport killer Axel Rudakubana, who was referred and dismissed on three occasions before carrying out his attack. A deradicalisation programme that seems to show less interest in deradicalising potential terrorists than in policing Right-wing thought is unfit for purpose. It beggars belief that two years after the Shawcross Review we are once again having the same conversations. Prevent must be reformed – or if incapable of change, dismantled entirely. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What Washington can learn from a legendary London meltdown
In a city where allegiance and proximity to power is everything, the leader's closest adviser portrayed himself as an outsider. He began the year by hiring a bunch of 'weirdos and misfits' and ordering them to rip up the entire 'rotten' system of government. The adviser loved to put noses out of joint and 'own the libs,' while building up his profile in the media as the real power behind the throne. Then, having realized that his easily-distracted and impulsive politician boss wasn't actually committed to building a tech-heavy, libertarian future, the disillusioned adviser quit — dedicating himself to publicly destroying his former employer. If you're British, watching the collapse of Donald Trump and Elon Musk's uncomfortable marriage has echoes of the end of the relationship between Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Chief Adviser Dominic Cummings in 2020. How that psychodrama played out in the UK could have lessons for the US — not least because Cummings eventually succeeded in undermining Johnson's political career, ultimately defenestrating the prime minister through relentless briefings and leaks. When someone who was inside the room and was perceived to be central to a political project says it's all a sham, the damage can be significant. For those who don't know, Cummings was the chief strategist of the successful Brexit campaign in 2016 but then largely disappeared from view when it came to actually defining what Brexit should look like. Unlike Musk, Cummings was a lifelong political operative, albeit one who cultivated a reputation for actually reading books. Three years later, with his political standing inflated by a film in which he was portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch as an insane genius, Cummings returned to maneuver Johnson into Downing Street. Once inside government, Cummings broke all the standard operating procedures of the British state to finally 'get Brexit done' and sever the UK's relationship with the EU in January 2020. When I look back at my occasional text exchanges with Cummings from that era, usually while trying to check stories about the funding of the Brexit campaign or his desire to defund the BBC, they mirror what he said in public. He held a seemingly sincere belief that most of the British media was fake news, that the British state was not fit for purpose, and that the political party he was nominally working for, the Conservatives, was little more than a helpful vehicle for an insurrection. One ally approvingly described the chief of staff of a Conservative government to the BBC as a 'Leninist.' Ultimately, both Musk and Cummings believed that you can run the government as a high-performance start-up and that the defining failure of past civil service reforms was that they hadn't smashed enough things quickly enough. Both also have the fatal flaws of being undisciplined, delighting in picking public fights and getting bored easily. Their independent means also meant they were not as beholden to their political masters as other advisers. Cummings might not have Musk levels of money but he was wealthy in British terms (his father-in-law Sir Humphry Tyrrell Wakefield, owner of a 13th century castle, would write letters in support of his proto-DOGE policies) and connected (his wife was deputy editor of the right-wing Spectator magazine). The overwhelming impression Cummings gave was that politicians were the useful idiots who should give him the runway to remake the state. Iconoclasm was the point. When Cummings quit he took to publishing lengthy Substack posts portraying Johnson as a broken supermarket 'trolley' who veered all over the place based on the last thing someone said to him. Even more effectively, Cummings helped to leak stories about Johnson's pandemic lockdown-busting in a scandal known as Partygate. In an echo of what's happened with Musk, left-wingers who previously thought Cummings was the devil incarnate began cheering him on as he stuck the knife into Johnson. The attacks rang true among Tory MPs and Johnson's ratings never recovered, ultimately leading to his early departure from politics. Many people leaked against Johnson and his circle, but when Cummings did, the pair's previous closeness gave it the ring of truth. Musk and Cummings got opportunities because they went in to bat for fundamentally untrustworthy but opportunistic politicians, in the hope that they would be given the freedom to enact policies with limited scrutiny. The two men have even exchanged notes and acknowledged the similarity of their programs. Ultimately, these were political shotgun marriages — the very thing that made the attachments so powerful at a particular moment in time was ultimately their undoing: In each case, the leader learned that there was no real love there. As Cummings and Musk found, if you hitch yourself to an anti-establishment hero who eschews patronage and loyalty then it's only a matter of time before you find yourself the target. There is a case that a less bellicose, less in-your-face flavour of DOGE could work better — and that such changes are easier when they're not associated with a controversial figure. In the UK, Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour government, elected last year, is pinning its hopes on widespread use of AI technology to improve productivity, for person. And there are even people in Downing Street who quite envies the idea of taking a Musk-style wrecking ball to parts of the state; Health Secretary Wes Streeting recently abolished one of the main administrative levels of the National Health Service in an overnight raid. Attempts by the insurgent, right-wing populist Reform party — headed by Nigel Farage, who has courted Musk's funds — to launch a 'British DOGE' and find excess spending in local government have hit the rocks. Announced on Monday, the program's first leader had quit by Thursday. Cummings said in November that he was hopeful Musk could make the US government operate like Silicon Valley. Cummings was long on diagnosis but short on prescription, the London-based Institute for Government think tank wrote in November 2021. It sought to fill the gap with ideas of its own for civil service reform.
