It is a humanitarian crisis wrapped within a political hot potato – but the issue of the desperate making the perilous journey across the Channel continues.

While the government is stepping up increasingly desperate attempts to thwart the desire of both people to reach our shores and the gangs profiteering by facilitating the journeys, on Sunday alone, more than 100 people took to small boats to make the crossing.

The method and means of the crossing splits opinion – some embrace those seeking a better life, others doubt their motives and fear for pressure on our services.

So just what is the latest situation and is the government's hugely controversial plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda proving a successful deterrent? We take a look at some of the key questions:

How many people are making the crossing?

By the very nature of the crossings, an entirely accurate picture of the numbers involved is almost impossible to gauge.

For every boat spotted and intercepted, there may be other people who avoided surveillance. Often the only sign of their efforts are abandoned boats on our beaches – stretching from Dungeness up to the north Kent coast.

According to the latest figures from the Home Office, in 2021, some 28,256 people made the crossing. By way of contrast, in 2018 the figure was just 299.

From May 1 this year, to June 5, the numbers making the crossing stood at 3,248. That's the equivalent of almost 100 a day.

On Sunday, June 12, 111 people on just three boats were detected.

Who is making the crossings and why?

To properly understand the reasons thousands of people are still making the crossing you need to be alert to the wider geopolitical issues.

While it's easy to simplify people's problems when living in the relative calm of Britain, many nations have chaotic political situations where persecution on ethnic or political views are commonplace – with frequently brutal consequences.

In addition, many nations have been ripped apart by wars.

Little wonder, then, that the nationalities of those making the crossings are primarily from the likes of Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan, Syria and Eritrea. As refugees, they are unable to apply for visas so travel through mainland Europe – the vast majority settling elsewhere.

Many want to join family members who have already settled in the UK. Others simply seek a calm life away from the upheavals in their homeland and believe they will find it here.

What's more, they pay a high price. It is estimated gangs charge at least £2,000 per person for a place on one of the small boats crossing the Channel.

But they are entering illegally aren't they?

The aim of those arriving is not to disperse into the country and live under the radar. They instead report to the authorities in order to claim asylum. And it's not illegal to seek asylum under international law.

However, the government's Nationality and Borders Act was passed into law in April which aims to make anyone using such a method less likely than those using an official channel to successfully achieve their asylum status.

Previously, the asylum laws were applicable for those arriving in the UK who could legitimately claim returning to their homeland would pose a risk through persecution. This can be due to political, gender or race and where protection from persecution does not exist.

Also worth noting, is that according to Amnesty International, there is no legal requirement for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they enter, despite the commonly-held belief.

"Italy, Greece, Bulgaria and Hungary are among those far more affected than the UK."

Nor, the organisation says, is the UK receiving the lion's share of claims, adding: "Within the EU, Sweden and Germany have consistently led the combined EU effort in receiving asylum claims and providing protection.

"France lags behind but for years has still received more than twice the number of asylum claims received by the UK.

"Now Italy, Greece, Bulgaria and Hungary are among those far more affected than the UK." And all, it should be said, have concerns over the numbers.

However, it is certainly illegal for the gangs who demand large sums of money to facilitate crossings – most frequently on over-loaded and unsuitable boats for what is, after all, a busy shipping lane.

In addition, if you are simply coming into the UK as an economic migrant – in other words one seeking work here – then that is not permitted without going through the regular channels and they face likely deportation.

What is the Rwanda plan?

On April 14, Home Secretary Priti Patel signed a deal with the government of Rwanda, in central Africa, which would see those entering the UK seeking asylum flown there instead.

The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, who travelled to Lydd to announce the scheme, said he anticipated tens of thousands being sent there – some 4,000 miles away from the UK.

The one-way ticket would see those flown out encouraged to start a new life there instead as part of an overhaul of the UK's immigration policies.

Described as the world's first "migration and economic development policy", the PM said an initial £120 million would be paid to Rwanda.

"Rwanda is one of the safest countries in the world, globally recognised for its record of welcoming and integrating migrants," said Mr Johnson

It was designed to act as a deterrent to both those taking the risky crossings and to undermine the trade behind it.

Speaking this week, the PM said: “What we’re trying to do is stop the business model of criminal gangs who are preying on people moving them across the Channel in unseaworthy vessels, risking their lives and sometimes costing their lives.”

Once in Rwanda, "there is a generous support package, including up to five years of training, accommodation, and healthcare on arrival", insists the Home Office.

While lauded by some, it was widely and fiercely criticised by others.

Rwanda has a chequered history after all. In 1994 a genocide took place which saw the deaths of more than 800,000 people in the space of just 100 days.

While things have certainly improved subsequently, a report by Human Rights Watch last year said: "The ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) continued to stifle dissenting and critical voices and to target those perceived as a threat to the government and their family members. The space for political opposition, civil society, and media remained closed."

The first flight is due to leave the UK this week but has been dogged by legal challenges.

What are the legal challenges so far?

Amid a chorus of criticism over the proposal – among them Prince Charles and the Archbishop of Canterbury – a number of legal challenges have been made in a bid to thwart the plans.

Reasons for doing so cite a breach of human rights, the rationality of Priti Patel's claim Rwanda is a "safe third country" and her right to carry out such removals.

Asylum Aid, which offers legal support to those seeking asylum, has applied for an interim injunction to stop the flights.

Additionally, a judicial review spearheaded by the charity Care4Calais, the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) – which represents Border Force staff – and pressure group Detention Action, along with four asylum seekers facing removal, was heard by the High Court in London on Friday.

They were applying for an interim injunction preventing any flights from leaving until after its application for a judicial review can be heard.

However, the High Court did not block the flight, saying there was no legal grounds to do so.

It did, however, allow for an appeal to be heard yesterday. By this point, the number of people expected to catch the flight had dropped from around 150 to just 10 as legal challenges delayed their exit. But the court did not block the flight. Given the numbers involved it remains to be seen if the flight will take off - given the costs - with such small numbers. It is due to leave tonight.

Boris Johnson said this week: "I always said that it will begin with a lot of teething problems and you will have a lot of legal action against it and they will try and delay it – that’s inevitable."

He will, however, be under political pressure to deliver on his policy.

While that's on-going what will the Navy's role be in protecting the Channel?

When Boris Johnson announced the Rwanda deportation scheme, he also said the Navy would takeover from Border Force in patrolling the waters of the Channel to ensure "no boat makes it to the UK undetected".

The Navy took over control – working alongside Border Force patrols – immediately, with the PM pledging £50m to fund new boats and surveillance tools.

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said last night: "Defence took full operational control of the government’s response to small boat crossings in the English Channel, including Border Force and military assets and staff, on April 14. A new command structure has been established comprising Home Office and Border Force personnel, alongside military planners and maritime experts, which is co-ordinating the operational response.”

It is understood a range of Royal Navy surveillance and surface gear has been lent to the Border Force until "longer-term capabilities have been contracted" - these include a number of patrol vessels and a Wildcat helicopter - and this before the bulk of the £50m has been spent.

What happened to pushback?

In September last year, Home Secretary Priti Patel approved the use of 'pushback' tactics to prevent asylum seekers reaching Kent from France.

Ms Patel ordered officials to rewrite maritime law to allow boats carrying asylum seekers to be intercepted in the Channel, and said Border Force officers were to be trained in the new tactics. Jet skis were touted as one possible method.

After turning the boats around, the plan would see officials contact the French coastguard to inform it that vessels in French territorial waters were in need of rescue.

It was said there would be a "limited legal window" to deploy the tactics, which could only be used if "certain conditions were met".

These were to include ensuring the vessel was not in danger of sinking and was able to safely make it back to the French coast.

The measure was expected to only be used in "very limited circumstances" and would target sturdier boats rather than dinghies.

It proved an unpopular plan, with charities branding it "cruel" and questions were raised over whether it was even legal.

In April, the government dropped the proposal.

What is the Home Office's current stance?

For years now, the issue of tackling boats making the journey to Kent's shores have perplexed those in the corridors of power at Whitehall.

How do you clampdown on a people smuggling operation operated from a neighbouring nation's shores fuelled by a desperate desire of people prepared to risk their lives reaching our land?

Brexit, Covid and now the Rwanda plans have all, so far, failed to stem the flow of people making the trip - much to the chagrin on the Home Office which is acutely aware of the negative headlines it generates. Not to mention the costs involved in housing and caring for those who need to be accommodated while their asylum claims are processed.

However, it should be said, many supporters claim only when the first Rwanda flights start taking off, will the message be sent to those considering the journey - and thus lessen the demand of the people traffickers.

"The rise in dangerous Channel crossings is unacceptable..."

The Home Office says the current asylum system costs the taxpayer some £1.5billion – and it hopes its new package of measures will go some way to reducing that and deterring those looking to make the journey.

However, it has come at a political cost.

A war of words between the UK and France has long since raged over the issue, with both blaming one another for shortcomings and creating a political rift when Priti Patel was uninvited from a meeting to discuss the crisis after Boris Johnson wrote a letter to President Macron – which he also published on Twitter – saying France should take back all those asylum seekers landing here.

MP Tom Pursglove, the Minister for Justice and Tackling Illegal Migration, said recently: "The rise in dangerous Channel crossings is unacceptable.

"Not only are they an overt abuse of our immigration laws but they also impact on the UK taxpayer, risk lives and our ability to help refugees come to the UK via safe and legal routes. Rightly, the British public has had enough.

"Through our Nationality and Borders Bill, we're cracking down on people smugglers and fixing the broken system by making it a criminal offence to knowingly arrive in the UK illegally and introducing a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for those who facilitate illegal entry into our country."

The Nationality and Borders Bill, which passed into law in April, will, says the Home Office, "crack down on the evil people-smuggling gangs who are abusing our immigration laws, risking lives and hindering our ability to help people come through safe and legal routes”.

In short, it aims to make it harder for those crossing into the UK through routes such as the Channel and tightening up the asylum system.

It criminalises those who arrange illegal entry into the country and ushers in new powers to have asylum claims processed outside the UK and cut down the number of appeals permitted.

Critics, however, voiced considerable opposition, with the Refugee Council calling it a "cruel law".

We have closed the ability to comment on this story due to the number of abusive and racist posts received on this topic.

We appreciate it is a very divisive issue but must ensure our comments adhere to house rules.