In the South China Sea, China's navy patrols with iron resolve, intercepting vessels and asserting control to prevent unauthorised crossings into its waters. This aggressive stance, rooted in territorial sovereignty, has effectively deterred illegal maritime incursions. Meanwhile, the UK faces a spiralling crisis in the English Channel, with over 23,500 migrants crossing in small boats in 2025 alone, a 50% surge from last year. A recent poll reveals 69% of Britons support deploying the Royal Navy to stop this illegal migration, yet the government hesitates, entangled in diplomatic deals and domestic politics. If China uses its navy to secure its borders, why can't the UK, or any nation, adopt a similar approach to protect its sovereignty? This blog piece explores the contrast, the UK's faltering response, and the case for decisive naval action to address the Channel migrant crisis.
China's maritime strategy in the South China Sea offers a stark example of using naval power to deter illegal crossings. The People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) conducts regular patrols, intercepts foreign vessels, and enforces strict control over disputed waters, often with military-grade ships and surveillance. For instance, in 2023, China expelled Philippine fishing boats from Scarborough Shoal, citing territorial violations, and has consistently blocked unauthorised entries near the Spratly Islands. These actions, while controversial, have slashed illegal incursions, ensuring China's maritime borders remain secure.
The PLAN's success stems from clear priorities: sovereignty, deterrence, and rapid response. By deploying naval assets, China signals that unauthorised crossings will face immediate consequences, whether interception or forced redirection. This approach, backed by robust surveillance and a willingness to act, contrasts sharply with the UK's passive stance on its own border crisis.
The English Channel has become a flashpoint for illegal migration, with 23,500 migrants arriving in 2025, up from 15,500 in 2024. These crossings, facilitated by people-smuggling gangs, exploit the UK's lax asylum policies and France's apparent inability, or unwillingness, to stop boats launching from its shores. A More in Common poll found 69% of Britons favour deploying the Royal Navy to halt these crossings, with only 18% opposed, reflecting public frustration with the government's inaction.
Current UK policy allows most boat migrants, predominantly young men, to claim asylum upon arrival, housing them in hotels at taxpayer expense (£41,000 per migrant annually, up from £17,000 in 2020). This has fuelled public anger, especially after incidents like the alleged sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl by an Ethiopian migrant in Epping, days after his arrival. The government's response, a £478 million deal with France in 2023 and a "one in, one out" agreement with President Emmanuel Macron, has been derided as ineffective, with experts estimating only 50 returns per week and France retaining veto power over deportations. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage called it a "farce," arguing Britain should demand a refund for the £800 million paid to France over a decade.
China's use of its navy to secure maritime borders raises a provocative question: why doesn't the UK deploy the Royal Navy to intercept migrant boats? Critics argue it's a matter of political will and misplaced priorities. Unlike China, the UK operates under international pressures, including human rights obligations and strained relations with France. A 2022 plan to use the Royal Navy was rejected, with the Ministry of Defence stating it would not employ "push back" tactics, citing legal and reputational risks. Naval veterans warned that such a role could damage the Navy's prestige, turning it into a "migrant ferry service" without clear authority to act decisively.
Yet, the public's support for naval intervention aligns with successful models elsewhere. Australia's Operation Sovereign Borders, launched in 2013 under Tony Abbott, virtually eliminated illegal boat arrivals by turning boats back to Indonesia or detaining migrants in offshore centres like Nauru. Nigel Farage has long championed this approach, arguing the Royal Navy could tow boats back to France, leveraging Britain's maritime strength to deter smugglers. The policy's success in Australia, reducing arrivals from 20,587 in 2013 to near zero by 2015, shows what decisive action can achieve.
Deploying the Royal Navy could address the Channel crisis by targeting its root causes: weak deterrence and pull factors like easy asylum access. The More in Common poll reveals 54% of Britons believe migrants are drawn by the UK's welfare system, with 49% seeing it as easier to exploit than other countries. Only 37% think migrants are fleeing conflict, challenging the narrative of humanitarian motives. A naval strategy could:
Deter Smugglers: Visible naval patrols, as in China's model, would signal that crossings face interception, discouraging gangs who profit from vulnerable migrants.
Secure Borders: Turning boats back to France, as Australia did, would uphold international law requiring asylum seekers to claim refuge in the first safe country (France), not the UK.
Reduce Costs: Housing 32,000 migrants in hotels and dispersal accommodations costs £920,000 daily. Naval intervention could stem arrivals, saving billions and freeing resources for citizens.
Restore Trust: Public anger, produced by crimes linked to migrants (e.g., 700 alleged offenses in 70 hotels, including rapes), demands action. A naval response would address the "social fabric" fraying under mass migration, as noted by Downing Street.
Opponents argue that naval intervention risks escalating tensions with France, violating human rights laws, or endangering migrants in overcrowded dinghies. The 2022 sinking of a migrant boat, killing 27, underscored the dangers of interception without robust safety protocols. Others claim it could tarnish the Royal Navy's reputation, turning a symbol of national pride into a political tool. Legal constraints, like the European Court of Human Rights' rulings against push-back policies, further complicate action, as seen in the failed Rwanda deportation scheme.
However, these concerns are not insurmountable. Australia's model shows that safe, lawful turn backs are possible with trained personnel and international cooperation. Withdrawing from the ECHR, as Farage suggests, could free the UK from legal shackles, while negotiations with France could prioritise mutual border security over financial handouts. China's disregard for international criticism in the South China Sea suggests that sovereignty can trump external pressures when national interests are at stake.
The UK's crisis is not unique. Mediterranean nations like Italy face similar migrant flows, with 49 rescued migrants transferred to Albania for processing in 2025. If China's navy can secure its waters, other nations, Italy, Greece, or even the U.S. in the Gulf of America, could adopt naval strategies to deter illegal crossings. The U.S. Navy's 2025 deployment to secure the southern border shows growing recognition of maritime solutions. The principle is simple: borders are not just land but sea, and navies exist to protect them. Failing to act empowers smugglers and erodes sovereignty, as seen in the UK's record 23,500 crossings.
China's navy stops illegal invasions with unyielding resolve, valuing sovereignty over diplomatic niceties. The UK, facing a migrant crisis costing billions and fuelling public unrest, has a clear mandate from 69% of its citizens to deploy the Royal Navy. Australia's success proves it's possible to halt illegal crossings without compromising safety or ethics. Yet, political inertia, fear of international backlash, and a broken asylum system keep Britain paralysed. The Channel crisis is not just a policy failure, it's a test of national will. If China can protect its waters, the UK and others must find the courage to do the same, restoring security and trust before the "tinderbox" of public anger ignites further.
"The overwhelming majority of Britons believe that the government should deploy the Royal Navy to stem the tide of the illegal boat migrant crisis in the English Channel, a poll has found.
According to a survey from the More in Common polling firm, seven in ten voters, or 69 per cent, agreed that the Royal Navy should be dispatched to the English Channel to stop the migrant boats from France. In contrast, only 18 per cent opposed using the Navy to protect Britain's maritime borders from illegal migration, the Times of London reported.
This puts the public broadly in line with the position of Nigel Farage and his Reform UK party, which has advocated for using the Royal Navy if the French continue to fail to stop people smuggling networks operating on their beaches from sending illegals across the Channel.
Under the previous Tory government of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Britain agreed to pay France £478 million (€541 million) in 2023 to step up border protection and even construct a detention centre for the French. This came on top of other migration payoffs totalling over £300 million over the past decade.
Despite this, the migrant crisis has only grown, with around 20,000 illegals crossing the English Channel during the first half of this year, an increase of over 50 per cent compared to last year.
Earlier this month, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and President Emmanuel Macron announced a "one in, one out" deal on the border. However, experts believe that this will result in at most around 50 people being returned to France per week, and Paris will reportedly have veto power over who is returned.
Mr Farage described the deal as a "farce" and said Britain should be "demanding a refund" for the £800 million given to France, given their failures, and that the French Navy often escorts illegals into UK waters.
The Reform leader has long advocated for a similar approach to that of former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott's Operation Sovereign Borders, which all but eliminated illegal migration by turning the boats back and holding alleged asylum seekers in third-party countries rather than allowing them on Australian shores to claim asylum.
The current British policy allows for almost all illegal boat migrants — the vast majority of whom are military age males — to immediately claim asylum, after which they are put up at taxpayer expense in hotels across the country. This policy has sparked a growing protest movement in recent weeks following accusations that an Ethiopian hotel migrant sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl in Epping just days after landing on British soil.
In addition to using the Royal Navy, the More in Common poll suggested that other reforms are needed to eliminate the pull factors for illegal immigration. The survey found that 54 per cent believe migrants are coming to the UK to take advantage of the British welfare system, while 49 per cent said that they think migrants see British benefits as being easier to game than those in other countries. Just 37 per cent said that they thought migrants were motivated by fleeing conflict."