On October 23, 2025, the United Kingdom’s efforts to deter small boat crossings in the English Channel came under sharp scrutiny after an Iranian migrant, who had previously been deported to France under a high-profile “one in, one out” agreement, returned to Britain by boat. Prime Minister Keir Starmer responded by vowing that the man, already detained in the UK, would be “fast-tracked” back to France, insisting that his government’s border policy remains robust despite mounting criticism and a surge in arrivals.
The case has become a lightning rod in Britain’s ongoing debate over migration and border control. According to BBC News, the Iranian man was initially detained on August 6, 2025, and removed to France on September 19, becoming only the third person to be sent back under the new scheme. Yet, in a move that has drawn both political fire and public attention, he returned to the UK on October 18—less than a month after his removal.
Sir Keir Starmer, speaking to multiple outlets including The Independent, was unequivocal in his response: “He will now be fast-tracked back out of the country, because we obviously have his details. We know he hasn’t got a claim to make, therefore we’ll remove him very, very swiftly. So his return journey back to the United Kingdom is completely pointless, and it’s really important I make that absolutely clear.” When pressed about whether the government’s approach to stopping small boats was “in tatters,” Starmer replied with a firm “no.”
The “one in, one out” agreement, announced with much fanfare by Prime Minister Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron in July 2025, was designed as a deterrent to dangerous Channel crossings. Under its terms, France agreed to take back migrants who arrived in the UK by small boat and whose asylum claims were deemed inadmissible or withdrawn. In exchange, the UK would accept one refugee from France with a valid claim for each person returned. Starmer had hailed the deal as a “breakthrough moment” meant to “turn the tables” on people smugglers, but the return of this migrant has cast doubt on the policy’s effectiveness.
The Iranian man, whose name has not been released, told The Guardian that he returned to the UK out of fear for his safety in France. He claimed to have been a victim of modern slavery at the hands of people smugglers, describing harrowing experiences: “They took me like a worthless object, forced me to work, abused me, and threatened me with a gun and told me I would be killed if I made the slightest protest.” After being sent to a shelter in Paris, he said, “I didn’t dare to go out because I was afraid for my life. The smugglers are very dangerous. They always carry weapons and knives. I fell into the trap of a human trafficking network in the forests of France before I crossed to the UK from France the first time.”
Despite these claims, government officials have shown little sympathy. Children’s minister Josh MacAlister dismissed the man’s account as “ludicrous,” telling Times Radio, “France is a safe country.” The Home Office echoed this hardline stance, stating, “We will not accept any abuse of our borders, and we will do everything in our power to remove those without the legal right to be here.”
Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, however, pointed to the identification and swift detention of the man as evidence of progress. “It actually reveals that the individual, who spent thousands of pounds trying to get into this country, as a result of his biometric data can be sent back and that is progress,” Lammy told reporters. The government’s use of biometric data has allowed authorities to quickly identify and process repeat arrivals, a point officials have highlighted as a technological success, even as the broader strategy faces criticism.
Political opponents were quick to seize on the incident. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accused the government of being in “total chaos” and “too weak to take the tough decisions to secure our borders.” Meanwhile, Max Wilkinson, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson, argued that Labour must “back up their big promises with actions.” The policy’s detractors argue that the return of migrants like the Iranian man undermines its deterrent effect and exposes gaps in enforcement.
According to Home Office data released on October 23, 2025, the total number of migrants arriving in the UK by small boat this year has already reached 36,954—surpassing the total for all of 2024. This surge has intensified the debate over the government’s approach, with critics warning that the policy is failing to stem the tide of crossings. Only 42 people have been returned to France under the agreement since its inception, a figure that many see as woefully inadequate given the scale of the challenge.
The treaty’s “one in, one out” mechanism was intended to convince would-be migrants that the perilous Channel crossing would not guarantee them a place in Britain. Yet, as The Independent notes, the policy was never billed as a “silver bullet” by Downing Street, with officials conceding that it was just one part of a broader effort to address illegal migration. Still, the highly publicized return of a deported migrant has raised fresh questions about the strategy’s credibility and whether it can truly deliver the promised deterrent effect.
For the migrants themselves, the situation remains fraught with danger and uncertainty. The Iranian man’s testimony of abuse and threats in France highlights the risks faced by those caught in the web of people smuggling and trafficking networks. Another migrant, an Eritrean man interviewed by the BBC and identified only as Jonas, described fleeing his home country due to religious persecution during mandatory conscription and being returned to France under the same scheme.
The government’s response, for now, is to double down on enforcement. Starmer and his ministers have emphasized the importance of swift removals and the use of technology to identify repeat arrivals. But with migrant numbers continuing to climb and political pressure mounting from both the right and the left, the coming months will test whether the “one in, one out” agreement can deliver on its promises—or whether, as critics allege, it is already unraveling.
As the debate rages on, the fate of the Iranian man at the center of this story remains a stark reminder of the complexities and human costs of migration policy. For officials, it is a test of political resolve and administrative capability. For those risking everything to cross the Channel, it is a desperate gamble with no easy answers.
