If the immigrants are genuinely in fear of their lives, they could have claimed asylum in any of the countries they passed through to get to the UK, but they don't. That makes them economic migrants, and if they want to live and work in the uk, there is a perfectly legal and accessible process they can go through to gain the right to live and work in the UK that doesn't involve getting in a small boat, crossing the channel and then claiming asylum.
a) they are exercising their perfectly legal right to choose which country they prefer to claim asylum. There's nothing illegal nor immoral about that.
The hard decision was leaving their own country, after that it's just a matter of determination, to continue to their country of choice. Most fail and claim asylum at earlier opportunities ( a fact that RWR always gloss over).
b) It doesn't make them economic migrants, they're still refugees. Just because they choose to continue to their preferred country, does not alter their status.
c) the perfectly legal and accessible process that you refer to requires the cooperation of the country of origin and access to a passport, and access to a processing centre. All of which are invariably absent. If you apply for a visa, you need a passport, and you need to meet strict criteria, and you need the cooperation of the country of origin. If they had that they wouldn't be at risk of death or persecution.
d) the only way to claim asylum in UK, is to arrive in UK and surrender to the authorities.
However, they know that the legal application route has a much lower chance of success than claiming asylum, so they pay criminals to help them cross the channel and then claim asylum. Once here, there is a whole network of charities to help them with their asylum claim.
You are demonstrating your total lack of understanding of the situation. If they don't have access to a 'legal route' of obtaining a visa, there is only the other option of arriving in UK by any means possible. And arriving by any means possible, and claiming asylum is perfectly legal.
So lets not peddle the myth that crossing the channel illegally and claiming asylum is the only legal way to gain the right to live and work in the UK.
That is exactly what you are doing, peddling myths.
It's not illegal to cross the channel, undesirable, unsafe, yes, but illegal, no!.
No-one is claiming that the only legal way to live and work in UK is to claim asylum. That's a total fabrication by you. Many thousands do arrive with a visa, live work and study in UK. Many also overstay their visa, and there are far more overstayers than refugees claiming asylum. Another fact the RWR conveniently gloss over.
As for the RNLI, i personally don't think that the RNLI should be being used as a lifeboat service for migrants crossing the channel. The government should have set up its own fleet of border patrol boats to deal with migrants and the criminal gangs that are facilitating the crossings, and not relied on a charity and volunteers to pick up these migrants who are using the RNLI as a taxi service.
It's not the RNLI's fault, they are only doing what the charity was set up to do in the first place, ie rescue people in trouble at sea.
If the government provided a safe route, then crossing the channel would not be necessary, and the charitable RNLI would not be placed in such a predicament.
If the government provided a safe route, then there would be a vastly reduced market for criminal people smugglers.
