In a week marked by legal battles, political posturing, and public debate, the United Kingdom has deported a second migrant to France under its controversial "one in, one out" agreement—a move hailed by the government as a step toward regaining control over Channel crossings, but fiercely criticized by opponents as insufficient and inhumane.
The latest deportation, carried out on the morning of September 19, 2025, involved an Eritrean man who had arrived in the UK on a small boat in August. According to BBC News, the man’s removal followed a failed last-minute legal challenge in the High Court, where he argued that he was a victim of human trafficking and sought to delay his deportation. His plea was dismissed by Mr Justice Sheldon, who concluded, “there is no serious issue to be tried in this case,” adding that the man's credibility was "severely damaged" due to inconsistent accounts of his alleged trafficking. The judge further noted, “there was significant public interest in favour of the claimant’s removal.”
This deportation marks the second under the UK’s new pilot scheme with France, which began in August 2025. The policy, as outlined by the Home Office, is designed to deter migrants from making dangerous crossings in small boats by ensuring that those who arrive illegally are promptly returned to France. In exchange, the UK will accept an equal number of asylum seekers from France who have legitimate claims or family ties to Britain. The first deportation, involving an Indian national, took place just a day earlier on September 18.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood praised the removal, stating, “if you enter the UK illegally, we will seek to remove you.” She emphasized her commitment to challenging “any last-minute, vexatious attempts to frustrate a removal in the courts.” Speaking to MPs, Mahmood reiterated, “The UK will always play its part in helping those genuinely fleeing persecution, but this must be done through safe, legal and managed routes—not dangerous crossings.”
The government’s resolve has been tested by a series of legal challenges. Earlier in the week, another Eritrean man succeeded in temporarily blocking his removal after the High Court found a "serious issue to be tried" regarding his claims of trafficking. However, the Home Office responded by tightening rules around such claims, clarifying that rejected applicants could continue their cases after being sent to a safe country, such as France. This clarification was pivotal in the court’s decision to permit Friday’s deportation.
Upon arrival at Paris’s Charles de Gaulle Airport, the Eritrean man told BBC News he felt “very bad” to be back in France and was uncertain about his future. French officials indicated he would be taken to a migrant accommodation centre, where, under French law, he has eight days to either claim asylum or return to his home country.
The removals come amid heightened political pressure. During a state visit to the UK on September 18, US President Donald Trump weighed in on the issue, urging Prime Minister Keir Starmer to “take a very strong stand on immigration.” At a joint press conference, Trump asserted, “You have people coming in, and I told the prime minister I would stop it, and it doesn’t matter if you call out the military, it doesn’t matter what means you use. It destroys countries from within and we’re actually now removing a lot of the people that came into our country.” He later reiterated to Fox News, “It’s really hurting him badly.”
Starmer, for his part, defended his government’s approach, highlighting ongoing cooperation with other countries and insisting the issue is being taken “incredibly seriously.” Trade Secretary Peter Kyle described the removals as “the first steps and we will be ramping up from here,” though he declined to specify targets. “We’re not going to put a number that would cap our ability to get a grip on this situation,” he told BBC Breakfast.
Critics, however, remain unconvinced. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp lambasted the government’s actions as “pathetic,” stating, “Hundreds of illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today alone and Labour want applause for removing just two—both of whom will be replaced.” He called boasting about the removals “absurd.”
The pilot scheme is set to run until June 2026 and is modeled in part on a US approach that, according to a report by the think tank British Future, reduced irregular border crossings by 81 percent at the US-Mexico border between December 2023 and December 2024. The report argues that scaling up the UK-France deal—by combining swift returns with expanded, legal asylum routes—could cut Channel crossings by up to 75 percent in three years. Sunder Katwala, director of British Future, argued, “The public would support this: they want action on Channel crossings but still want Britain to protect refugees in need. Most people would prefer an orderly, controlled and humane system to the populist threat to tear everything up, which appeals only to a vocal minority.”
Polling commissioned by British Future found that 55 percent of Britons support a capped system of accepting asylum seekers via authorized routes in exchange for France taking back those who cross without permission. Support was strong across party lines, with majorities of Conservative, Labour, Reform UK, and Lib Dem voters in favor.
For those on the ground, the reality remains fraught. STV News reported that as the removals took place, three more boats were seen leaving France for the UK, taking advantage of calmer weather. Since the scheme’s inception in August, approximately 5,590 migrants have reached the UK by small boat. Around 100 men are currently held in immigration removal centers near Heathrow, awaiting possible return to France.
The removals have also reignited debate over the safety and fairness of deporting migrants to France. The High Court’s ruling, however, was unambiguous: France is a “safe country abiding by the same safeguards as the UK under the European Convention of Human Rights.” The judge noted there was “no evidence that a migrant sent there would be treated unfairly,” and, if necessary, he could continue his legal claim from France.
The government’s actions are being closely watched, especially after the collapse of the previous administration’s £700 million Rwanda plan, which was struck down by the Supreme Court over human rights concerns. In contrast, the current pilot with France has so far weathered legal scrutiny, with proponents arguing it offers a more realistic and humane solution.
Yet the path forward remains anything but clear. As hundreds of migrants continue to risk their lives crossing the Channel and political rhetoric intensifies—both domestically and from international figures like Trump—the UK finds itself at a crossroads. The question now is whether the "one in, one out" deal can deliver on its promise to deter dangerous crossings, disrupt smuggling operations, and restore public confidence, or whether it will merely become another flashpoint in Britain’s long-running immigration debate.
For now, the government presses ahead, determined to prove that its approach can work. But with legal challenges, political opposition, and human stories unfolding daily, the true test of the scheme—and the country’s values—has only just begun.
