On Friday, September 19, 2025, the United Kingdom marked a controversial milestone in its ongoing efforts to curb irregular migration across the English Channel. Under a new “one in, one out” agreement with France, the UK removed an Eritrean man and an Iranian man, sending them back to France after their attempts to remain in Britain failed in court. The moves came as more than 1,000 people crossed the Channel in small boats that same day, highlighting the scale of the challenge facing Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s government.
The removals are part of a year-long pilot scheme, agreed between the UK and France and set in motion at the start of August 2025. The arrangement is simple in theory: for every migrant the UK returns to France, France will allow a migrant with a strong asylum claim to enter Britain through a safe and legal route. The hope, ministers say, is that this reciprocal system will act as a deterrent to would-be Channel crossers and disrupt the business model of criminal smuggling gangs.
But the events of Friday underscored just how daunting that task remains. According to Home Office figures reported by The Irish News, 1,072 people made the perilous journey in 13 small boats, bringing the total number of Channel crossings in 2025 to a record 32,103. Despite the high-profile removals, three more boats were seen departing the northern French coast as winds eased, a stark reminder that the flow of migrants shows little sign of abating.
The Eritrean man, who had arrived in England by small boat in August, was accompanied by Home Office officials on an Air France flight from Heathrow to Paris. Once in France, he was handed over to French police. He told BBC News he felt “very bad” to be back in France and was unsure what he would do next. French officials confirmed he would be taken to a migrant accommodation centre and, under French law, would have eight days to either claim asylum or return to his home country.
His journey to this point had been arduous. He fled Eritrea in 2019 to escape forced conscription, then spent time in Ethiopia, South Sudan, and Libya before making his way to Europe. He slept rough in France before heading to Dunkirk, where he eventually boarded a small boat bound for the UK. According to court documents cited by the BBC, his removal was legally significant: it was the first time ministers had won a legal challenge that led to an immediate removal under the new scheme.
The Home Office had tightened rules around human trafficking claims to secure this outcome. The High Court judge, Mr Justice Sheldon, ruled that France was a safe country, citing its adherence to the European Convention of Human Rights. “There was no evidence that a migrant sent there would be treated unfairly,” the judge concluded, adding that those removed could continue their claims from France if necessary. He also emphasized the public interest in disrupting criminal smuggling operations, which he said posed a “serious risk to life.”
The ruling contrasted sharply with the failed £700 million Rwanda plan advanced by the previous government. That scheme was ultimately blocked by the Supreme Court, which found that Rwanda could not be considered safe due to human rights concerns. The new arrangement with France, by comparison, has so far withstood legal scrutiny, bolstering the Home Office’s strategy.
On the same day, an Iranian man was also returned to France after crossing the Channel in a small boat. Earlier in the week, an Indian national became the first person sent to France under the pilot scheme, though his case did not face a legal challenge. The removals, though few in number, represent the government’s first tangible steps under the agreement.
Trade Secretary Peter Kyle told BBC Breakfast that these were “the first steps and we will be ramping up from here.” He declined to specify how many people the government hoped to remove, saying, “We’re not going to put a number that would cap our ability to get a grip on this situation.” Home Office sources, quoted by The Irish News, said they expected the number of arrivals and removals to be “at or close to parity” as the scheme progresses, given its reciprocal nature.
Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy praised the returns, insisting they provided an “immediate deterrent” to those considering the dangerous Channel crossing. Ministers have pledged to increase the number of removals under the pilot deal in the coming months, aiming to demonstrate that making the journey by small boat carries the real risk of being sent back.
Yet the policy has its detractors. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp was withering in his criticism, calling the removal of two migrants “pathetic” and describing government boasts as “absurd.” He pointed out, “Hundreds of illegal immigrants crossed the Channel today alone and Labour want applause for removing just two – both of whom will be replaced.” Philp argued that the deal provided “no deterrent effect whatsoever.”
The government, for its part, drew comparisons with the previous administration’s Rwanda plan, which over two years saw only four volunteers sent to the East African nation. The Home Office stressed that these were forcible returns, not voluntary relocations, and suggested this marked a more robust approach.
Currently, around 100 men are detained in immigration removal centres near Heathrow under the scheme, all of whom arrived in the UK by small boat and were deemed potentially eligible for return to France. Since the start of the agreement on August 7, 2025, approximately 5,590 migrants have reached Britain under these circumstances, according to official data.
The reciprocal aspect of the deal is set to kick in soon, with the UK expecting to receive its first asylum seekers from France in the coming week. Home Office sources would not comment on precise numbers, but the expectation is that the exchange will remain balanced, at least in principle.
As the government prepares for the next phase of the scheme, the political debate shows no signs of cooling. During a press conference with Sir Keir Starmer, former US President Donald Trump suggested deploying the military to combat small boat crossings. Starmer responded that the UK had “a number of cooperation deals with other countries” and was taking the issue “incredibly seriously.” Trade Secretary Peter Kyle added that the military’s primary focus was defending the nation, not policing asylum seekers in the Channel.
Neither London nor Paris has claimed that the “one in, one out” plan will, on its own, end the flow of small boats. The numbers crossing the Channel remain stubbornly high, and the policy’s ultimate effectiveness is still an open question. For now, the removals mark a new chapter in Britain’s long-running struggle to control its borders, but the road ahead looks just as choppy as the waters between Dover and Calais.