Picture courtesy of UK Government

 

The UK's controversial "one in, one out" agreement with France has led to the detention of several dozen migrants in a new crackdown. This groundbreaking pilot scheme aims to swiftly return those arriving illegally across the English Channel. To the dismay of critics, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has confirmed that the first migrants could return in the coming weeks.

 

Earlier this week, images surfaced showing the migrants disembarking from Border Force boats in Dover, marking Day 1 of the scheme. The Home Office released footage with claims of demonstrating the inaugural stages of the pilot, including biometric checks and initial relocation procedures. Curiously, independent journalists were absent from filming, raising eyebrows among media outlets.

 

In a Thursday interview, Cooper reiterated the government’s stern stance but refused to disclose specific numbers of detainees to avoid aiding criminal operations. “This is a strong message: illegal arrivals will be detained and returned,” she stated, while promising to counter any legal challenges robustly.

 

According to Home Office figures, 155 migrants made the perilous crossing on the scheme's first day alone, reported the BBC.

 

A stark poster, distributed in France, forewarns potential crossers of the new removals. Displaying a person being escorted to a plane, it reads, "YOU NOW FACE BEING DETAINED AND RETURNED TO FRANCE IF YOU ARRIVE IN THE UK ON A SMALL BOAT," in both English and French. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, during the announcement with French President Emmanuel Macron, emphasised the repercussions for illegal entry: "You will face being sent back."

 

Scheduled to run for 11 months, the pilot will allow just as many vetted asylum seekers from France to enter the UK through a secure channel. British officials strive to refer returns to France within three days of arrival, with the French providing feedback in two weeks. Meanwhile, asylum seekers in France can apply online, undergoing rigorous checks before potential UK travel.

 

The influx of Channel-crossers has risen sharply, with over 25,000 in 2025 alone, a 49% surge from last year. Current laws prevent repatriation to homelands before an asylum claim is rejected, yet transfers to safe nations like France remain permissible. Critics, however, cast doubt on the initiative’s efficacy, with some calling it inadequate compared to the now-scrapped Rwanda plan.

 

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp lamented the decision to abandon the Rwanda scheme, labelling it a "foolish error". Meanwhile, the refugee charity Care4Calais condemned the new deal as "morally repugnant," stating that genuine sanctuary should not be at the expense of others. They have mobilised a team of legal experts to defend detainees’ rights.

 

With opinions divided and stakes high, the UK’s latest effort to manage the migrant influx faces scrutiny from all quarters as the action unfolds in the coming months.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-08-09

 

The only controversy is that the Home Secretary refused to say out of 155 arrivals, how many had been detained.

 

248 arrived yesterday, how many were detained ?
 

The silence speaks for itself. If they were serious, the numbers would have been 155 & 248, and trumpeted loudly, so that the hordes awaiting on French beaches received the message loud and clear.

 

More garbage coming from the Government, than an overflowing  landfill site.

Entering the UK without authorization is illegal and punishable by imprisonment and fines. Use the unemployed to build  detention camps to house the illegals and deport them back where they came from. If this cannot be determined just keep them in detention. 

1 hour ago, Dionigi said:

deport them back where they came from. If

That would be where?

23 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

That would be where?

 

Their home country where ever that is.  Illegally entering a country does not give that person a right to stay there.  Supposing you overstayed your Visa in Thailand.  What do you think would happen if you didn't reveal where you were from.  

 

A)  Thailand will accept this, give you free accommodation in a hotel, 3 meals a day, medical and dental treatment, spending money, and freedom to work illegally as a Grab delivery driver.

 

OR...

  

B)  Detain you in horrendous conditions until you beg to go back to your home country which will be funded by yourself.

 

Do you ever criticize Thailand for this or do you think as a sovereign country Thailand should have the right to determine who should or should not stay in the country?  If you do then why do you think the UK should have to accept this?  

27 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

Their home country where ever that is.  Illegally entering a country does not give that person a right to stay there.  Supposing you overstayed your Visa in Thailand.  What do you think would happen if you didn't reveal where you were from.  

 

A)  Thailand will accept this, give you free accommodation in a hotel, 3 meals a day, medical and dental treatment, spending money, and freedom to work illegally as a Grab delivery driver.

 

OR...

  

B)  Detain you in horrendous conditions until you beg to go back to your home country which will be funded by yourself.

 

Do you ever criticize Thailand for this or do you think as a sovereign country Thailand should have the right to determine who should or should not stay in the country?  If you do then why do you think the UK should have to accept this?  

It's about UK and France, isn't it?

Sending "back" someone is only possible if the receiving country will accept this person. That's law.

4 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

It's about UK and France, isn't it?

Sending "back" someone is only possible if the receiving country will accept this person. That's law.

 

Whose law?  Who is the person in charge of the planet who made this law you speak of?  The planet I live on allows sovereign countries to make their own laws and the UK should have the same right as Thailand to deal with illegal immigrants.   If not, why not?  Do they answer to a different planet leader or something?  

Just now, James105 said:

 

Whose law?  Who is the person in charge of the planet who made this law you speak of?  The planet I live on allows sovereign countries to make their own laws and the UK should have the same right as Thailand to deal with illegal immigrants.   If not, why not?  Do they answer to a different planet leader or something?  

Well, British people sometimes see themselves as the center of the planet.

However, please no deflections again.

The thread is about UK and France. So only laws in those 2 countries are here to be considered.

The reason they come is the generous welfare state. They are limited in terms of its generosity at the outset but as their asylum claims are accepted or their appeals go on for decades they get into the benefits system. 

 

The question is how many more benefit claimants with increasingly fewer taxpayers before the Ponzi scheme collapses.

 

They are coming for the free stuff. Except it is not free it is paid for by the working population who get nothing out of it.

 

The one in / one out scheme is just a red herring, a drop in the ocean. Virtually nobody will get shipped out. 

17 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Well, British people sometimes see themselves as the center of the planet.

However, please no deflections again.

The thread is about UK and France. So only laws in those 2 countries are here to be considered.

 

So don't send them back.  Put them in perpetual detention, breaking rocks into gravel for public works projects.  You don't work, you don't  eat.  Like in the Bible.

5 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

So don't send them back.  Put them in perpetual detention, breaking rocks into gravel for public works projects.  You don't work, you don't  eat.  Like in the Bible.

Yeah, the Bible is always right 😃😂🤗🤣

1 minute ago, newbee2022 said:

Yeah, the Bible is always right

 

Of course not.  It's just that a huge majority of western culture and law has been written around it.  So when the lefties stomp their tiny little feet and screech that you can't force prisoners to work, there's precedent.  Sure you can.  It's in the Bible.  No work, no food.

 

3 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Of course not.  It's just that a huge majority of western culture and law has been written around it.  So when the lefties stomp their tiny little feet and screech that you can't force prisoners to work, there's precedent.  Sure you can.  It's in the Bible.  No work, no food.

 

I didn't know supporters on the left of the political divide all had tiny little feet.......

Learn something new every day on here......🤗

1 hour ago, newbee2022 said:

It's about UK and France, isn't it?

Sending "back" someone is only possible if the receiving country will accept this person. That's law.

 

Nice deflection. Who cares if they want to accept them or not. After they are sent on a plane it matters not. 

 

That's law. How simple minded. The idea of law was broken when one tries to enter a foreign country illegally. 

13 hours ago, webfact said:

To the dismay of critics,

 

that's what critics do, they criticize. in this case who cares what they think. the world is being submerged by illegals who cant respect the very first law to abide by in regards to immigratiom. arrive legally and follow the proper chain for legalization. those who immigrate illegally in thailand are arrested and deported, as it should be.

6 minutes ago, blaze master said:

 

Nice deflection. Who cares if they want to accept them or not. After they are sent on a plane it matters not. 

 

That's law. How simple minded. The idea of law was broken when one tries to enter a foreign country illegally. 

It always amazed me what nonsense someone (and especially you) can talk. 

You are not in the position to change laws, are you? 

You're not a lawmaker for France or UK, are you?

Of course with lack or obviously no knowledge it's possible to manoeuvre through life. But if it comes to law and jurisdiction you should better be quiet.

Once again (and no reply necessary);

You can't send anybody "back" if the receiver won't take this person back.

That's fact, no fake fact.

1 minute ago, newbee2022 said:

It always amazed me what nonsense someone (and especially you) can talk. 

You are not in the position to change laws, are you? 

You're not a lawmaker for France or UK, are you?

Of course with lack or obviously no knowledge it's possible to manoeuvre through life. But if it comes to law and jurisdiction you should better be quiet.

Once again (and no reply necessary);

You can't send anybody "back" if the receiver won't take this person back.

That's fact, no fake fact.

 

If you say so big fella. 

The only policy which will stop the illegals crossing from France to the UK is for the UK government to cease giving them any benefits.

5 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

It's about UK and France, isn't it?

Sending "back" someone is only possible if the receiving country will accept this person. That's law.

The answer is not to let them cross our border in the first place. if you enter at a ferry terminal or airport without passport and valid visa, you're turned back, why not at the border mid-channel? Ensure they don't leave French waters, then it's a French problem. Instead, the Border Force or RNLI meet them and ferry them into Dover where they begin their life of luxury at taxpayer's expense.

How awful. Criminals being detained. 

 

Someone pass me some pearls to clutch.

 

Should be 1 in 1000 out. 

23 hours ago, webfact said:

Picture courtesy of UK Government

 

The UK's controversial "one in, one out" agreement with France has led to the detention of several dozen migrants in a new crackdown. This groundbreaking pilot scheme aims to swiftly return those arriving illegally across the English Channel. To the dismay of critics, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has confirmed that the first migrants could return in the coming weeks.

 

Earlier this week, images surfaced showing the migrants disembarking from Border Force boats in Dover, marking Day 1 of the scheme. The Home Office released footage with claims of demonstrating the inaugural stages of the pilot, including biometric checks and initial relocation procedures. Curiously, independent journalists were absent from filming, raising eyebrows among media outlets.

 

In a Thursday interview, Cooper reiterated the government’s stern stance but refused to disclose specific numbers of detainees to avoid aiding criminal operations. “This is a strong message: illegal arrivals will be detained and returned,” she stated, while promising to counter any legal challenges robustly.

 

According to Home Office figures, 155 migrants made the perilous crossing on the scheme's first day alone, reported the BBC.

 

A stark poster, distributed in France, forewarns potential crossers of the new removals. Displaying a person being escorted to a plane, it reads, "YOU NOW FACE BEING DETAINED AND RETURNED TO FRANCE IF YOU ARRIVE IN THE UK ON A SMALL BOAT," in both English and French. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, during the announcement with French President Emmanuel Macron, emphasised the repercussions for illegal entry: "You will face being sent back."

 

Scheduled to run for 11 months, the pilot will allow just as many vetted asylum seekers from France to enter the UK through a secure channel. British officials strive to refer returns to France within three days of arrival, with the French providing feedback in two weeks. Meanwhile, asylum seekers in France can apply online, undergoing rigorous checks before potential UK travel.

 

The influx of Channel-crossers has risen sharply, with over 25,000 in 2025 alone, a 49% surge from last year. Current laws prevent repatriation to homelands before an asylum claim is rejected, yet transfers to safe nations like France remain permissible. Critics, however, cast doubt on the initiative’s efficacy, with some calling it inadequate compared to the now-scrapped Rwanda plan.

 

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp lamented the decision to abandon the Rwanda scheme, labelling it a "foolish error". Meanwhile, the refugee charity Care4Calais condemned the new deal as "morally repugnant," stating that genuine sanctuary should not be at the expense of others. They have mobilised a team of legal experts to defend detainees’ rights.

 

With opinions divided and stakes high, the UK’s latest effort to manage the migrant influx faces scrutiny from all quarters as the action unfolds in the coming months.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-08-09

 

Only in Europe. 

I see that this ground-breaking deal has been celebrated with the introduction a new £20 banknote, in a plastic laminate so that it doesn't get damaged by water during "ad-hoc" channel crossings!

 

10 hours ago, boloaf said:

life of luxury at taxpayer's expense.

Really?

Go and join them. What are you waiting for ???👍

On 8/9/2025 at 4:07 AM, webfact said:

In a Thursday interview, Cooper reiterated the government’s stern stance

A really stern stance would be the confiscation/destruction of any boat involved in people smuggling.  No boats = no illegal immigrants.

7 hours ago, JonnyF said:

How awful. Criminals being detained. 

 

Here come the next howls of Racism, xenophobia and various ists and isms 😀😀

 

Quote

Most foreign criminals convicted by a UK court will be deported immediately, instead of 30% of the way through their prison sentences, under plans announced by the government.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/aug/09/foreign-criminals-tried-uk-deported-immediately-new-plans

 

 I think this now applies 😀😀

 

 

15 hours ago, Briggsy said:

The reason they come is the generous welfare state. They are limited in terms of its generosity at the outset but as their asylum claims are accepted or their appeals go on for decades they get into the benefits system. 

 

The question is how many more benefit claimants with increasingly fewer taxpayers before the Ponzi scheme collapses.

 

They are coming for the free stuff. Except it is not free it is paid for by the working population who get nothing out of it.

 

The one in / one out scheme is just a red herring, a drop in the ocean. Virtually nobody will get shipped out. 

This is payback for colonization.  

15 hours ago, impulse said:

 

So don't send them back.  Put them in perpetual detention, breaking rocks into gravel for public works projects.  You don't work, you don't  eat.  Like in the Bible.

Would you allow the slave labors more calories than the Nazis or the Japanese did during ww2?perhaps you could stage public flogging for extra money by selling tickets or tickets for the gawkers to see your slaves…..hummm??obviously I’m being sarcastic but look at your statement.thats ugly and wrong.😑 

On 8/9/2025 at 5:07 AM, webfact said:

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has confirmed that the first migrants could return in the coming weeks.

Meaningless twaddle.  The word 'could' shows zero commitment.  

 

16 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

That would be where?

You have deliberately cut this comment to enable your reply, this is shown by the fact that the last word was cut off. The original comment answered your question.

 

Entering the UK without authorization is illegal and punishable by imprisonment and fines. Use the unemployed to build detention camps to house the illegals and deport them back where they came from. If this cannot be determined just keep them in detention.

5 minutes ago, Dionigi said:

You have deliberately cut this comment to enable your reply, this is shown by the fact that the last word was cut off. The original comment answered your question.

 

Entering the UK without authorization is illegal and punishable by imprisonment and fines. Use the unemployed to build detention camps to house the illegals and deport them back where they came from. If this cannot be determined just keep them in detention.

That's hardly any answer to my question.

Again: where you want to send arriving/arrived illegal migrants?