The Political and Social Impact of the New "One in One Out" Migrant Scheme
A second migrant has been successfully removed from the UK to France under the government's new "one in one out" returns scheme after a last minute legal challenge failed. The Eritrean man, who arrived in the UK via small boat, was put on a commercial flight to Paris following a High Court ruling that refused to grant him an interim injunction. This removal follows the first deportation under the pilot scheme a day earlier, marking a significant step for the government's efforts to deter illegal Channel crossings. The case centered on the man's claim that he was a victim of trafficking, an argument that was ultimately not accepted by the judge. The Home Office has hailed the removals as a crucial development in its strategy to secure the UK's borders and send a clear message to those considering the dangerous journey.
The High Court hearing on Thursday examined the man's claim that he was a victim of modern slavery and that his deportation would be procedurally unfair due to the speed of the Home Office's decision. Mr Justice Sheldon, who presided over the case, sided with the Home Office. He stated that the man's account of being trafficked "couldn't reasonably be believed" and that the Home Secretary had sufficient information to make her decision. This ruling stands in contrast to a separate case earlier in the week where another Eritrean man successfully secured a temporary block on his deportation based on a similar trafficking claim. The contrasting outcomes highlight the legal complexities and individual circumstances that can influence these cases.
The "one in one out" deal, which was agreed to by the UK and France in July, is a pilot scheme designed to return asylum seekers who crossed the Channel back to France. In exchange, the UK will accept a similar number of migrants from France who have valid reasons, such as family ties, to come to Britain. The scheme's implementation has been met with both support and criticism. Supporters, including Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, view the deportations as a necessary deterrent and an important step toward controlling the flow of illegal migration. Opponents, including some legal professionals and human rights charities, have raised concerns about the fairness of the legal process and the potential risks faced by vulnerable individuals, particularly those who are victims of modern slavery or trafficking.
The success of the second removal, despite a legal challenge, provides a boost to the government's migration policy. It demonstrates that the new scheme can function and withstand legal scrutiny, at least on a case by case basis. However, the legal and political battles are far from over. The Home Office has already faced a number of injunctions and has responded by amending its modern slavery guidance to make it harder for asylum seekers to challenge removal decisions. This legal back and forth is expected to continue as the government works to implement its policy more broadly. The fate of the "one in one out" deal and its long term impact will likely depend on its ability to navigate these ongoing challenges while addressing the humanitarian concerns raised by charities and legal groups.