A deported Iranian migrant has returned to the UK on a small boat, raising questions about the effectiveness of Keir Starmer’s one-in-one-out deal with France. The individual, who fled a Paris shelter, cited threats from people smugglers and a lack of safety in France. This incident exemplifies ongoing challenges, as the number of migrant arrivals in the UK has exceeded the total for 2024, surpassing 36,816 with two months remaining in 2025.

 

The Home Office faced criticism as these figures emerged, with Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood describing the situation as "shameful" and calling for improved border management. Critics, including Nigel Farage, labeled the policy ineffective, highlighting that only a small percentage of deported migrants have been successfully retained in France. Questions have arisen over the efficacy and enforcement of the agreement, stressing the need for a more robust strategy.

 

Prime Minister Keir Starmer hosted Balkan leaders in London to discuss measures to curb migrant routes through Europe, though only Kosovo expressed readiness to accept a limited number of failed asylum seekers. This move highlights the urgent need for international cooperation and novel solutions to address migration challenges. Efforts are underway to address systemic issues within the UK’s immigration system and improve overall border security measures.

 

Despite the return of the deported migrant, Commander Martin Hewitt of Border Security emphasized the early stage of the pilot program, underscoring the necessity of refining and expanding the system. The government continues to face pressure to implement effective solutions and policies that can manage and reduce irregular migration while ensuring safety and compliance with international standards.

 

The situation has reaffirmed concerns about the current government's handling of migration, as well as the broader complexities of international migration dynamics. As the UK navigates these challenges, the focus remains on strengthening partnerships and enhancing security measures to mitigate future incidents and improve immigration policies.

 

 

Key Takeaways

• Migrant's return to UK highlights flaws in deportation agreement.
• Criticism mounts over the "one-in-one-out" deal's effectiveness with France.
• UK seeks international cooperation to address migration routes and security.

 

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Express 2025-10-22

 

 

This is beyond ludicrous.

They need people with the cojones to enforce their laws.

Surely if the British government stopped all the freebies, like free Hotels, free food, free medical etc, they would stop coming.?

 

43 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Surely if the British government stopped all the freebies, like free Hotels, free food, free medical etc, they would stop coming.?

 

If the government processed them quicker they wouldn't have to give any freebies. 

19 hours ago, AnnaBanana said:

This is beyond ludicrous.

They need people with the cojones to enforce their laws.

 

Allegedly, the incumbent's reluctance to rock the boat, stems from the fact that his cojones are normally finding abode in the mouths of such young men, easily slipping in through the back door.

 

One in - one out, as it were.

1 hour ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Surely if the British government stopped all the freebies, like free Hotels, free food, free medical etc, they would stop coming.?

 

Are you sure or could it be that people would come anyhow just to escape persecution

Seems this forum is mostly laughing about the UK too. Sick.

10 minutes ago, willi2006 said:

Are you sure or could it be that people would come anyhow just to escape persecution

Persecution in France!

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣☻🤔

21 minutes ago, gravity101 said:

If the government processed them quicker they wouldn't have to give any freebies. 

I agree that the processing is way too slow, but my point was if the message got out no more free stuff, they would stop coming in the first place.

If you are say a young male Somalian and you got no job in Somalia, no money/savings, no prospects, the UK would look to be a good move?

 

7 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

I agree that the processing is way too slow, but my point was if the message got out no more free stuff, they would stop coming in the first place.

If you are say a young male Somalian and you got no job in Somalia, no money/savings, no prospects, the UK would look to be a good move?

 

It's called 'the law'.

The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, mandates the Home Office to provide accommodation and subsistence to destitute asylum seekers while their claim is being processed. This is further supported by the UK's obligations under the UN refugee convention. This is also true of the vast majority of Europe who have the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum which also ensures asylum seekers have access to adequate living conditions, including housing, food, and healthcare, from the moment an application is made. 

 

 

1 hour ago, willi2006 said:

Are you sure or could it be that people would come anyhow just to escape persecution

If we pay the French more money then they may stop 'persecuting' these terrified migrants? 

"Illegals are laughing at us' - migrant farce continues"

 

Its not just the "illegals", our own government is, frankly, openly taking the piss!

7 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

It's called 'the law'.

The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, mandates the Home Office to provide accommodation and subsistence to destitute asylum seekers while their claim is being processed. This is further supported by the UK's obligations under the UN refugee convention. This is also true of the vast majority of Europe who have the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum which also ensures asylum seekers have access to adequate living conditions, including housing, food, and healthcare, from the moment an application is made. 

 

 

The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (specifically Section 95) only provides Home Office support (accommodation + subsistence) to destitute asylum seekers who:

Have made a formal asylum claim (or human rights claim) at the earliest possible opportunity, and

Are genuinely destitute (no money, no assets, no support from others).

 

The problem is many do abuse the system (e.g., destroy documents, lie about age/nationality).

 

The real issue is:-

Enforcement gaps

Abuse of the system

Safe-country nationals gaming it

 

 

15 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

It's called 'the law'.

The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, mandates the Home Office to provide accommodation and subsistence to destitute asylum seekers while their claim is being processed. This is further supported by the UK's obligations under the UN refugee convention. This is also true of the vast majority of Europe who have the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum which also ensures asylum seekers have access to adequate living conditions, including housing, food, and healthcare, from the moment an application is made. 

 

Almost none are real asylum seekers, which is why they ditch passports and id before they get to the beaches. My friend in the UK used to process asylum claims, she said 95% were fake, and that was years ago. Asylum used to be for spies and ballet dancers, now it's used as a scam by anyone from anywhere who fancies living in the UK to live on benefits and get their rent paid.

 

1 hour ago, willi2006 said:

Are you sure or could it be that people would come anyhow just to escape persecution

Economic migrants are not fleeing persecution!

13 minutes ago, proton said:

 

Almost none are real asylum seekers, which is why they ditch passports and id before they get to the beaches. My friend in the UK used to process asylum claims, she said 95% were fake, and that was years ago. Asylum used to be for spies and ballet dancers, now it's used as a scam by anyone from anywhere who fancies living in the UK to live on benefits and get their rent paid.

 

Absolutely correct and its costing the UK taxpayer over 6 BILLION POUNDS per year, that's around 100-150 pounds per taxpayer!

2 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Absolutely correct and its costing the UK taxpayer over 6 BILLION POUNDS per year, that's around 100-150 pounds per taxpayer!

 

Daily Telegraph said last week it's 10 billion a year paid in benefits to foreigners, they are not a benefit to the UK but are dragging the country down.

1 hour ago, cowellandrew said:

Persecution in France!

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣☻🤔

Yeah, force-fed snails.

 

But even that wouldn't make me want to go to the UK...

 

🤭

These people are only do the jobs that fat, lazy Brits refuse to do. 

1 hour ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (specifically Section 95) only provides Home Office support (accommodation + subsistence) to destitute asylum seekers who:

Have made a formal asylum claim (or human rights claim) at the earliest possible opportunity, and

Are genuinely destitute (no money, no assets, no support from others).

 

The problem is many do abuse the system (e.g., destroy documents, lie about age/nationality).

 

The real issue is:-

Enforcement gaps

Abuse of the system

Safe-country nationals gaming it

 

 

No one is denying that there is of course those that game the system but that's what immigration/asylum courst are for and it's hardly the fault of the asylum seeker if that system is fundamamentally broke. The UK has an asylum backlog of around 91,000 applications awaiting a decision, with 55% of those waiting for more than six months. Fix the system and you reduce an awful lot of problems.

 

P.S. Much of the UK's problem stems from Brexit (you know, the one that was supposed to sort the problem out) and the UK coming away from the Dublin Agreement that stated that asylum seekers had to claim asylum in the first country they entered.  

1 hour ago, proton said:

 

Almost none are real asylum seekers, which is why they ditch passports and id before they get to the beaches. My friend in the UK used to process asylum claims, she said 95% were fake, and that was years ago. Asylum used to be for spies and ballet dancers, now it's used as a scam by anyone from anywhere who fancies living in the UK to live on benefits and get their rent paid.

 

Your anecdotal evidence of your 'freind in the UK' doesn't support the stats that say in 2024, the initial grant rate was 47%. This has been as high as 76% in 2022 and as low as 12% in 2004 (AI).

 

And again, no-one is denying there are scammers, but if the system worked correctly and the back-log was handled in a timely manner and people where allowed to work whilst claiming asylum, you wouldn't have nearly as many problems or indeed the expense with looking after them all. 

 

And the big question is did you support Brexit? If you did, then you and Mr. Farage are to blame for most of the problems.

The most effective thing Starmer can do is to leave office.

1 hour ago, mikeymike100 said:

Absolutely correct and its costing the UK taxpayer over 6 BILLION POUNDS per year, that's around 100-150 pounds per taxpayer!

Incorrect. The UK spent £2.8 billion, or 20% of its aid budget, supporting refugees in the UK in 2024.   https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9663/

 

If you are going to quote (incorrect) figures then I suggest doing a little more homework.

6 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Incorrect. The UK spent £2.8 billion, or 20% of its aid budget, supporting refugees in the UK in 2024.   https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9663/

 

If you are going to quote (incorrect) figures then I suggest doing a little more homework.

 

 

You quote 'budget' figures.

 

 

Tell me one year when the UK has come in on/under the refugee budget.

 

 

I will give you a clue..............they haven't.

 

 

How much UK aid is spent in the UK?

Spending on in-donor refugee costs rose from £410 million in 2016 to £4,273 million in 2023 (rising from 3% of the aid budget to 28%). It has subsequently fallen to £2,827 million in 2024, but remains at 20% of aid spending. Most is spent by the Home Office, and while overall in-donor refugee spending fell 34% from 2023 to 2024, Home Office spend fell the least, by 19%.

3 minutes ago, hotandsticky said:

 

 

You quote 'budget' figures.

 

 

Tell me one year when the UK has come in on/under the refugee budget.

 

 

I will give you a clue..............they haven't.

No I quote actual figures. The UK's aid budget for 2024 was approximately £14.07 billion. The £2.8 billion was the ACTUAL figure used out of this budget on asylum seekers. It's an audited, actual number so not sure what you are not understanding. From AI:-

 

'The UK's aid budget for 2024 was approximately £14.07 billion. This was a decrease of about 8% from 2023, bringing the Official Development Assistance (ODA) to Gross National Income (GNI) ratio to 0.50%, as the government committed to spending 0.5% of GNI on ODA for the year. 

 

Total Spend: The total ODA spend was £14,066 million (£14.07 billion). ODA:GNI Ratio: The ratio was 0.50% of GNI. 

 

In-Donor Refugee Costs: A significant portion of the budget, approximately £2.8 billion (20% of total ODA), was spent on supporting refugees and asylum seekers within the UK. This was a decrease of £1.44 billion from 2023. 

 

Humanitarian Aid: Spending on humanitarian assistance increased by 60% to £1.416 billion in 2024, up from £882 million in 2023. 

 

Bilateral vs. Multilateral: Bilateral ODA was £11.261 billion, while multilateral ODA was £2.806 billion'

The only way to save the US is with open borders and mass migration. 

37 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Your anecdotal evidence of your 'freind in the UK' doesn't support the stats that say in 2024, the initial grant rate was 47%. This has been as high as 76% in 2022 and as low as 12% in 2004 (AI).

 

And again, no-one is denying there are scammers, but if the system worked correctly and the back-log was handled in a timely manner and people where allowed to work whilst claiming asylum, you wouldn't have nearly as many problems or indeed the expense with looking after them all. 

 

And the big question is did you support Brexit? If you did, then you and Mr. Farage are to blame for most of the problems.

 

Granting asylum does not mean they were genuine cases, are you really so naive?

17 minutes ago, proton said:

 

Granting asylum does not mean they were genuine cases, are you really so naive?

I'm definately not naive but neither do I have an agenda that claims ''95% were fake'. 

 

I've provided you with the verified stats. If you choose not to believe them because they don't fit into your extremely biased and obviously slanted agenda then that's more YOUR naiviety than mine.

2 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

I'm definately not naive but neither do I have an agenda that claims ''95% were fake'. 

 

I've provided you with the verified stats. If you choose not to believe them because they don't fit into your extremely biased and obviously slanted agenda then that's more YOUR naiviety than mine.

More like 99.9% are fake. Have you seen what is coming in on those dingies? 

4 hours ago, gravity101 said:

If the government processed them quicker they wouldn't have to give any freebies. 

Yes, They come in today ,process them tomorrow and send them Back the day After tomorrow  . Perfect No excuses.