When the United Kingdom and France shook hands on a new migrant-swap deal in July 2025, government officials hailed it as a breakthrough in managing the ongoing crisis of small boat crossings across the English Channel. But just a few months later, the results are far more modest than the fanfare suggested—leaving critics, migrants, and politicians on both sides of the Channel questioning whether the so-called “one-in-one-out” agreement is a meaningful solution or simply a symbolic gesture amid mounting political pressure.
The deal, signed in London by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron, aimed to stem the flow of migrants risking their lives to reach the UK by exchanging up to 50 individuals each week. For every migrant France agreed to take back—someone who had crossed into the UK without family ties—Britain would accept one vetted asylum-seeker from France with established family connections in the UK. The logic was straightforward: offer a legal, safer path for those with family in Britain, and deter others from making the perilous journey.
Yet, as of September 24, 2025, the numbers tell a different story. According to the Associated Press and Al Jazeera, only four men who crossed the Channel by small boat have actually been deported back to France under the agreement. Meanwhile, the first family sent to the UK by France—a group of three, including a small child—arrived just this week, marking what the Home Office described as “critical first steps” in the much-heralded program.
The context for this agreement is not hard to grasp. Over 32,000 migrants have crossed the Channel to the UK in 2025 alone, with a staggering 1,072 people making the journey in 13 boats on a single day, September 19. The average weekly arrival rate remains around 700, dwarfing the government’s initial target of 50 deportations per week. Even if the scheme achieved its full target, only about one in 14 migrants would be returned to France, leaving the vast majority in the UK.
“Even if the government reaches its initial target of swapping 50 migrants a week, it looks negligible compared with the thousands making the journey in the same period. In that sense, it risks being a symbolic gesture rather than a meaningful deterrent,” Apurav Yash Bhatiya, an assistant professor at the University of Birmingham who researches small-boat crossings, told Al Jazeera.
The details of the agreement are precise, if not always practical. France will accept the return of asylum seekers who crossed to the UK but lack family connections there. In exchange, the UK grants asylum to vetted migrants from France with family in Britain. The hope, at least from the UK’s perspective, is that those with connections will wait for legal transfer rather than risk the Channel, while those without ties will be dissuaded from attempting the crossing altogether.
But the reality on the ground is more complicated. Legal challenges have already disrupted the process. On September 23, a 25-year-old Eritrean man won a High Court ruling temporarily blocking his deportation so he could present evidence that he is a victim of modern slavery. The UK Home Office’s attempt to appeal was denied by the Court of Appeal. Another Eritrean man, who was successfully deported, told the BBC he felt “very bad” about being sent to France, where French officials said he would be taken to a migrant accommodation center and given eight days to claim asylum or return to his home country.
For those wishing to claim asylum in France, the process is anything but simple. Applicants must first visit the Initial Reception Establishment for Asylum Seekers (SPADA) to book an appointment at the Dedicated Asylum Application Service Centre (GUDA), before their application is registered and sent to the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (Ofpra) for a final decision.
Political fallout has been swift and fierce. Prime Minister Starmer’s Labour Party, which swept into power in July 2024, has seen its popularity tumble—by 19 percentage points between July 2024 and August 2025, according to YouGov. Much of the blame has landed on the government’s inability to halt the small boat crossings. The far-right Reform UK party, which promises to detain and deport all illegal migrants and even return small boats directly to France, has surged in support. In an August poll, 38 percent of respondents said Reform would handle immigration best, compared to just 9 percent for Labour.
From the opposition benches, frustration is palpable. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp of the Conservative Party declared, “Yet again the courts have stepped in to block a deportation, proving what we warned from the start, unless you tackle the lawfare strangling Britain’s borders, nothing will change. This is nothing but a gimmick. Even if by some miracle it worked, it would still be no deterrent, as 94 percent of arrivals would still stay.”
Human rights advocates are no less critical. Steve Valdez-Symonds, the migrant rights director for Amnesty International UK, condemned the scheme in August as “yet another cruel, costly failure dressed up as policy,” adding, “Once again, refugees are treated like parcels, not people, while the public is left to pay the price.”
Despite the criticism, the UK government remains outwardly optimistic. When asked in mid-September whether the deal was “in shambles” after delays in deportations, the prime minister’s spokesperson simply replied, “No.”
But even French officials appear wary. Earlier this month, the AFP news agency quoted an unnamed French interior ministry source as calling the deal “experimental” and warning, “We may terminate the agreement if we do not find it satisfactory.”
For experts like Bhatiya, the solution lies elsewhere. He argues that expanding safe and legal migration routes would be far more effective in reducing dangerous crossings. He points to the example of Ukrainians, who have largely avoided small boat journeys thanks to legal alternatives like the UK’s Homes for Ukraine scheme. Bhatiya also notes that since Brexit, the UK lost access to Eurodac—the EU’s asylum database—making it harder to return migrants who have already applied for asylum elsewhere in Europe. “Without it, the UK struggles to return people who have applied in other countries, weakening enforcement and encouraging repeat attempts. The current one-in-one-out scheme is a much narrower arrangement,” he explained.
So, will the scheme endure? That remains to be seen. For now, it stands as a microcosm of the broader migration debate: a policy crafted under immense political pressure, tested by legal and humanitarian challenges, and watched closely by both its critics and its supposed beneficiaries. As the Channel crossings continue and the political stakes rise, the fate of the one-in-one-out deal may well hinge on whether it can deliver more than just symbolism.
