On the morning of September 18, 2025, a landmark flight touched down in Paris, carrying with it the first migrant returned under the United Kingdom and France's new 'one in, one out' agreement. The man, an Indian national, had been removed from the UK aboard an Air France plane, marking the debut of a pilot scheme aimed at deterring small boat crossings across the English Channel, according to The Telegraph and the BBC.
This agreement, hammered out just over a month before, sets out a year-long pilot plan: for every migrant returned to France after crossing the Channel illegally, the UK will accept a migrant from France who has a strong case for asylum and ties to Britain. The idea is simple but bold—disrupt the business of people smugglers and send a clear message to would-be Channel crossers that risky journeys may end with a ticket right back where they started.
But as with most things in modern migration policy, nothing is ever quite so straightforward. The very next day, September 19, saw the scheme's second deportation flight: an Eritrean man, who arrived in the UK by small boat in August, was flown to Paris after a last-minute legal challenge failed. This removal, closely watched by the media and legal observers, underscored both the determination of the government to enforce the new rules and the fierce resistance such policies can face in the courts.
The Eritrean national’s story is emblematic of the tangled paths many migrants travel. He fled Eritrea in 2019 to escape forced conscription, then passed through Ethiopia, South Sudan, Libya, and France before finally reaching Dunkirk and making the dangerous crossing to the UK. After his arrival on August 6, he claimed asylum, citing victimhood of trafficking and slavery. But officials were unconvinced, noting inconsistencies in his accounts and ultimately rejecting his claim. As Sky News reported, his lawyers argued he had medical needs and that his case had been rushed: “They have just simply expedited a decision, for the purposes of trying to rush to maintain a removal.”
Despite these arguments, Mr Justice Sheldon of the High Court sided with the Home Office, stating in his ruling, “There is significant public interest in favour of the claimant’s removal.” He further noted that the man’s credibility was “severely damaged” by his changing stories and that “his account of trafficking could not reasonably be believed.”
The government’s resolve to push ahead with the deportations has not gone unnoticed. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, speaking after the first removal, declared, “This is an important first step to securing our borders. It sends a message to people crossing in small boats: if you enter the UK illegally, we will seek to remove you.” Mahmood also criticized last-minute legal claims, saying such actions made a “mockery” of the UK’s modern slavery laws.
Yet not everyone is convinced by the government’s approach. Eleanor Lyons, the UK’s independent anti-slavery commissioner, voiced her unease on BBC Radio 4, warning that characterizing trafficking claims as mere legal maneuvers “created a tool for traffickers to use with those victims that they are exploiting.” The tension between swift border enforcement and the complexity of individual cases—especially those involving trafficking or modern slavery—remains a live wire in the debate.
Behind the scenes, the scale of the operation is significant. Around 100 men were being held in immigration removal centers near Heathrow by mid-September, all detained after small boat arrivals and told they might be eligible for return to France. However, many faced uncertainty, with less than a fifth having received formal notification of their departure dates, according to the BBC. Meanwhile, about 5,590 migrants crossed the Channel into the UK since the scheme’s launch at the start of August, highlighting the ongoing challenge.
Legal challenges are frequent and often last-minute. In the Eritrean man’s case, his lawyers argued that the Home Office’s process was rushed and that his medical and trafficking claims warranted further scrutiny. The Home Office, represented by Sian Reeves, countered that “his rights are protected” in France and that any trafficking claims could be investigated there. The judge agreed, allowing the deportation to proceed and reinforcing the government’s revised policy: migrants now must challenge modern slavery decisions from abroad after removal, rather than before.
Notably, the policy change was prompted by a previous case where a different Eritrean man managed to temporarily halt his removal on modern slavery grounds. The government has since appealed that decision, reflecting the high stakes and evolving legal landscape.
Political reactions have been swift and varied. During a press conference at Chequers, former US President Donald Trump, in the UK on a state visit, advised Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to use all means necessary, including the military, to stop illegal crossings. Starmer, for his part, emphasized the importance of international cooperation, highlighting deals struck with other countries and reaffirming the government’s commitment to tackling the issue “incredibly seriously.”
For all the headlines, the government is careful not to oversell the scheme’s impact. As BBC News noted, neither London nor Paris claims the deal will single-handedly end Channel crossings. The plan’s main aim is deterrence—make would-be migrants think twice before putting themselves in the hands of smugglers, knowing they could be sent right back. The Home Office has said more flights are planned in the coming days and weeks, but the number of passengers per flight remains uncertain due to ongoing and anticipated legal challenges.
Meanwhile, the reciprocal aspect of the deal is set to begin, with the first arrivals from France—those with strong asylum claims and ties to the UK—expected soon. “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 Home Office stated.
Yet, for many of those detained, the process is fraught with anxiety and confusion. Some are lobbying for reconsideration of their cases, arguing they are victims of trafficking or slavery, regardless of the government’s assessment. Charities supporting refugees say that the uncertainty and the speed of removals make it difficult for migrants to understand or effectively challenge their fate.
As the scheme unfolds, its effectiveness and fairness will be closely scrutinized. With thousands still risking the crossing and legal battles ongoing, the UK-France ‘one in, one out’ deal represents both a new chapter in border enforcement and a fresh battleground in the wider debate over migration, security, and human rights. The coming weeks are likely to bring more flights, more legal wrangling, and more stories of individuals caught in the crossfire of policy and politics.
In the end, the new agreement stands as a bold experiment—one that will test the limits of deterrence, the resilience of legal safeguards, and the capacity for international cooperation in the face of a problem that shows no signs of abating.
