maddyone
Those who choose to arrive on a dingy, presumably because they wouldn’t be eligible to arrive via a visa, obviously have money. At around £4000 - £5000 (as has been reported) for a ‘ticket’ it’s hardly cheap.
But in many cases these people have not paid this money fromtheir own resources. Often families, even villages, living in direst poverty, circumstances of frightening insecurity, will collect the money among themselves to give one person a chance to go because of the benefits the village/family will get from the money they get back.
And even if they can afford the fare to cross the channel, why would they want to pay it, if their home conditions were even slightly liveable.
Let me turn the story round. Supposing that South East Asia was economically booming (which it is) and had high welfare and justice systems, how bad would things have to be here for you to embark on an illegal journey there. First smuggling yourself across the Channel in a leaky inflatable, then travelling across Europe, avoiding passport controls and any bureacracy, walking, climbing mountains, often short of food, relying on people smugglers to hide you in lorries, warehouses, entirely at their mercy while they gradually, spending nights sleeping in forests and hills. Travelling for three or four months, to then get to a country where, because you are there illegally you can only work in the black economy, at well below approved wages, struggling to get by.
If someone is prepared to undego all that, whether they ahve the money or not, doesn't is suggest that the conditions they are leaving behind are almost unliveable?