Share this post:

For the first time in years, a British government has taken a step toward a migration policy that’s not built on cruelty or chaos.

Last week, in the shadow of record Channel crossings and rising political pressure, the UK signed a deal with France that does something radical in its simplicity: it opens a safe, legal route for some asylum-seekers to come to Britain.

Let’s say that again — a safe route, negotiated with France, designed to offer a real alternative to smuggling gangs and deadly dinghies.

It may be small, it may be bureaucratic, and it may come with strings attached.

But it’s a breakthrough — and if we build on it, it might just be the lifeline that shifts the Channel crisis away from deaths, desperation and division.

What the deal actually does

Under the so-called “one in, one out” agreement, up to 50 people per week will be returned from the UK to France — people who arrived in small boats and are deemed inadmissible under current asylum rules.

In exchange, France will send the UK an equal number of asylum-seekers from French territory, selected in cooperation with British officials.

Those eligible to come will be:

• People with family or historical ties to the UK,

• Vulnerable individuals most in need of protection,

• Or others selected through agreed humanitarian criteria.

It’s not an open door.

It’s not automatic.

And it’s capped at just 50 per week — about 2,600 people a year — and only if an equal number are returned.

But for the first time in over a decade, the UK is recognising in policy what human rights advocates have said all along: if you want fewer people risking their lives in the Channel, you have to give them another way.

This is the carrot we’ve been missing

Much of the British approach to Channel crossings has focused on deterrence — punishment, deportation, imprisonment, and hostile headlines. Rwanda flights. Barges. Bans. The stick.

Yet the crossings have continued to rise. In fact, 2025 has already seen record numbers, with several tragic deaths including children.

Why? Because when there is no safe route, people will take the unsafe one.

This new deal offers something else: a rational, predictable, legal alternative.

It’s modest, yes — but it introduces the very thing campaigners have demanded: a safe path for legitimate asylum-seekers who would otherwise risk the Channel. The carrot.

And if that path becomes known, trusted, and even modestly expanded, it can pull people away from the smugglers.

It can give hope to those who qualify — and make the case for rejecting dangerous crossings more morally coherent.

Critics are missing the point

Already, the deal has its critics.

Some on the right say it’s a “backdoor scheme” or “too soft”.

Some on the left call it a distraction — a PR gesture too limited to matter.

Both miss the bigger picture.

No one thinks this deal alone will end the crisis.

But this is the first sign of a strategy that doesn’t rely on cruelty or chaos.

For years, we’ve been told safe routes encourage more crossings — yet the opposite is true. E

vidence from previous UK resettlement schemes (for Syrians, Afghans, Ukrainians) shows that when people are given a real option, they take it.

Would you rather wait in France to be considered for legal resettlement — or spend your family’s last £5,000 on a dinghy?

The answer isn’t theoretical. It’s life or death.

What happens next matters most

This deal should not be the end — it should be the beginning.

Campaigners, unions, mayors and parliamentarians should now press for:

• An uncapped version of this scheme for vulnerable people with family in the UK that may establish how many legitimate claims for asylum there might be,

• A transparent application process with NGO support,

• Real-time information sharing with asylum-seekers in France,

• And an end to tying safe routes to removals — a person’s life shouldn’t depend on someone else being kicked out.

This is also a chance to reframe the debate.

If the UK wants to cut illegal migration and meet its humanitarian obligations, this is how you do it: not with cruelty, but with clarity and compassion.

A quiet breakthrough — if we don’t waste it

This agreement won’t grab headlines the way Rwanda did.

It doesn’t come with triumphant soundbites or Daily Mail photo ops.

But that’s exactly why it matters.

For once, a government has moved toward a policy that works for everyone: the state, the refugee, and the public.

It’s small.

It’s imperfect.

But it saves lives.

And it could — just maybe — shift the entire conversation.

We’ve had enough deterrence.

Enough death.

Enough dehumanisation.

This might just be the beginning of something better.

Let’s not waste it.

Share this post: