On the morning of September 19, 2025, an Eritrean man boarded a flight from Heathrow to Paris, becoming the second person removed under the United Kingdom’s new “one in, one out” migrant exchange deal with France. His deportation, following the rejection of his High Court appeal claiming he had previously been trafficked, marks a pivotal moment in the UK’s evolving migration policy—a policy that has drawn both praise and criticism as the government seeks to stem the tide of small boat crossings across the English Channel.
According to the Home Office, this latest removal comes hot on the heels of the first return under the pilot agreement, which took place just a day earlier. The scheme, implemented by Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government, is designed to deter unauthorized arrivals by swiftly sending back those who enter the UK illegally via small boats, while accepting the same number of migrants from France through newly authorized routes. The government hopes this approach will demonstrate control and compassion—two qualities often demanded by the British public in the ongoing debate over migration.
“This is an important first step to securing our borders,” Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood stated, as reported by BBC. “It sends a message to people crossing in small boats: if you enter the UK illegally, we will seek to remove you.”
Yet, as the second deportation was carried out, the policy’s effectiveness and ethical standing came under intense scrutiny. A major new report, How we can actually stop the boats, published by the London-based think tank British Future, argues that the government’s current approach is far too limited in scale to make a real dent in Channel crossings. The report, released on the same day as the second deportation, urges Labour to dramatically expand the UK–France asylum scheme, contending that only a much larger “routes and returns” strategy—one that offers more safe, regularized pathways—can reduce irregular crossings at scale.
Steve Ballinger, editor of the report, explained to InfoMigrants, “It’s not just swapping irregular migration for regular migration. By offering a credible alternative, you undermine the smugglers’ business model. That’s what happened in the US, where irregular border crossings fell by more than 80 percent in a year once safe routes were expanded.”
The British Future report draws heavily on US experience under President Biden, where a similar mix of diplomatic cooperation, expanded legal migration routes, and stricter border enforcement led to a dramatic reduction in irregular crossings. The report claims that if the UK–France deal were expanded ten- or twenty-fold, Channel crossings could fall by up to 75 percent within three years. Specifically, it proposes admitting between 25,000 and 50,000 people annually through regularized routes, while swiftly returning those who arrive by boat to France.
Polling conducted by Ipsos for British Future found strong public support for such an approach. According to the report, 55 percent of respondents favored a capped deal with France that would admit authorized asylum seekers while returning boat arrivals, with only 15 percent opposed. Even when the number of authorized arrivals was set as high as 50,000 a year, support still outweighed opposition by 48 percent to 18 percent. Notably, majorities of Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democrat voters backed the policy, as did 38 percent of Reform UK voters.
“A lot of the anxiety about immigration isn’t about numbers, it’s about control,” Ballinger told InfoMigrants. “People see small boats as a very visible symbol of a system that’s not under control. When there are regular, safe routes, that anxiety falls because people feel the government is managing migration fairly.”
But the road ahead is far from smooth. The government has insisted that the UK–France deal will be expanded only if the pilot proves workable. Critics, however, argue that the current scale—about 50 returns a week, or just one in 17 arrivals—is too small to shift behavior among migrants or the criminal gangs facilitating their journeys. Former Labour Home Secretary Charles Clarke called the British Future proposal “constructive, creative and realistic,” while US strategist and co-author Frank Sharry added that “a humane and workable solution to the small boats crisis is essential.”
Still, not everyone is convinced that deterrence-focused policies can deliver the desired results. Daniel Sohege, director of the human rights organization Stand For All and a specialist in international refugee law, cautioned in The Big Issue that expanding the ‘one in, one out’ model could backfire. “Expanding it would be the biggest benefit to human trafficking gangs that they could imagine. Deterrence just does not work. We’ve seen deterrent policies for years now—they are counterproductive on every single level.” Sohege emphasized that without addressing the reasons people come to the UK in the first place—often due to family or community ties—such schemes risk failure. “Making it safer and simpler removes the supply element for gangs. That is the only way you can combat them.”
Meanwhile, the numbers continue to tell a stark story. Since August, 5,590 migrants have arrived in the UK, with about 100 men currently in detention under the scheme and more flights planned despite ongoing legal challenges. Earlier in the week, another Eritrean man’s deportation was temporarily halted by the High Court, which granted him two weeks to present evidence supporting his claim of having been a victim of modern slavery during his journey—a reminder of the complex human stories behind the headlines.
The political stakes for Labour are high. With the party trailing in opinion polls and facing criticism from both the right and the left, Prime Minister Starmer is under pressure to demonstrate that his government can succeed where previous Conservative administrations failed. During a recent state visit to the UK, US President Donald Trump suggested using the military to stop small boat crossings, but Starmer instead emphasized existing cooperation deals with France and the importance of upholding Britain’s international obligations.
Labour has sought to distance itself from the failed Conservative Rwanda plan, which cost £700 million but never got off the ground. Starmer has pledged to “smash the gangs” while maintaining Britain’s commitments under the Refugee Convention. Yet, as anti-immigrant protests erupted over the summer outside hotels housing asylum seekers, the government finds itself walking a political tightrope—balancing the demands for border security with the need to protect vulnerable refugees and maintain public trust.
As the pilot scheme continues and the French government prepares to send migrants to Britain under the reciprocal arrangement, all eyes are on whether the UK will opt for a gradual expansion or a bold scaling-up of the initiative. The next few months will be critical in determining whether the government’s strategy can truly “bring back control,” as promised, or whether it will be forced to rethink its approach in the face of persistent challenges and mounting public scrutiny.
For now, the fate of the UK’s migration policy—and the lives of thousands seeking refuge—hangs in the balance, as policymakers, advocates, and the public alike await the results of this high-stakes experiment.