UK’s ‘one in, one out’ policy: deterrence over protection

In July 2025, the UK announced a new agreement with France, quickly dubbed the “one in, one out” policy. Under this scheme, for each asylum seeker returned to France after crossing the Channel illegally, one asylum seeker in France with a verified family link to the UK may enter through an official route.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer described the policy as:

“For the first time, illegal migrants will be sent back to France ... targeting the heart of these gangs’ business model and sending a clear message that these life-threatening journeys are pointless. This is about grip, not gimmicks.”

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper framed it as “a new and stronger approach,” pairing returns with joint enforcement measures such as seizing boats, shutting down smuggler social media accounts, and targeting their finances.

Historical context: deterrence as policy

The UK has tried to control Channel crossings through deterrence before. In its Rwanda scheme, which was ruled unsafe by the Supreme Court. Critics argued that such measures often close off legitimate claims, displace people into systems outside UK oversight, and treat deterrence as a policy goal rather than a safeguard.

The “one in, one out” policy avoids Rwanda’s safety issues but raises similar questions about human rights and practical outcomes. While intended to reduce smuggling and manage arrivals, it may unintentionally create uncertainty for those returned to France and limit access for those fleeing life-threatening situations.

These policies are implemented against a backdrop of rising anti-immigrant rhetoric and public hostility, exemplified by protests in Epping and statements by political figures such as Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, who said:

“Nobody who crosses the English Channel illegally in a boat should ever be given refugee status, should ever be given leave to remain and should be deported. And if we did that, it would stop within a fortnight.”

One in out: deterrence in practice

The “one in, one out” policy reflects a logic of deterrence, but the consequences are stark. The UK already funds French border operations, including patrols, equipment, and training, but these interventions have often been punitive. In 2024, France used tear gas on asylum seekers, including children, and Project Play (French NGO) documented record fatalities at the UK-France border:

• Crossings rose by 25%

• Deaths rose by 242%

• Child fatalities surged by 1,500%

The policy’s stated goal is to make the journey dangerous and discourage attempts. Yet in practice, it frames deaths and suffering as the fault of smugglers, ignoring the role of government enforcement and legal inaccessibility. 

Rhetoric vs reality

Starmer and Cooper emphasise “breaking the business model” of smugglers. This language risks painting all boat arrivals as opportunists, overlooking that many are fleeing war, persecution, or systemic collapse. The UK’s narrative reinforces harmful distinctions about who “deserves” protection.

While the policy promises “safe and legal routes,” access is extremely limited:

• Only people who have not previously tried to enter illegally qualify.

• Those arriving by boat can be declared inadmissible without an asylum interview or consideration of their personal circumstances.

• Individuals returned under the scheme face legal limbo, while others, those who meet the narrow family-link criteria, take their place.

Many Channel arrivals come from former British colonies, such as Sudan, where ongoing violence is tied to legacies of colonialism, which Britain had a hand in. They often speak English, have cultural ties to the UK, and expect safety here. Decreasing overseas aid and global conflict ensure people will continue to flee. This policy does not stop that flow; it will likely push them into more dangerous routes.

Political and public response

The “one in, one out” policy illustrates a difficult balance: managing public concerns about borders and smuggling while fulfilling the UK’s humanitarian obligations. Critics argue that policies focused primarily on deterrence risk undermining safety and fairness for those asylum seekers who are most in need, while supporters maintain that a strong, orderly system is necessary for security.

Racist attacks on asylum seekers are rising, and without a humane, scalable approach that addresses root causes and expands genuinely safe routes, deterrence strategies risk fuelling hostility rather than dismantling it.