The upcoming Franco-British summit will review a system for regulating migration flows
The World Analytical Center for Immigration Issues developed a migration concept titled «One In — One Out». In reality, the center does not formally exist. It is more of a «cloud-based» coalition of various think tanks, though it claims to have a headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Back in 2023, under President Biden, this structure proposed the concept for migrants from Central and South America to the U.S. The program applied to potential migrants from Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador, and Guatemala. Applicants submitted documents to a refugee processing center, where they would be reviewed. If accepted, they might even be offered a job locally, without entering the U.S. But if the U.S. decided to accept the applicant, in return it would deport a previously detained illegal migrant.
Thus, migrants were encouraged to try the legal route — what if it works? Why risk climbing fences or swimming across the Rio Grande, where (at least at one time) circular saw blades famously hung on wires? And strangely enough, the system worked. It didn’t solve the problem, but it made a difference.
The Franco-British summit will be held July 8–10, and this system will be discussed there. Specifically, France proposes creating several hubs where all migrants voluntarily attempting to enter the UK will be sent. There, asylum seekers will be checked to see if they meet British requirements. If everything is in order, they’ll cross the Channel officially. In return, France will take in someone deemed unfit to live in Manchester or Liverpool. Then the EU deportation mechanism will kick in.
How will this casting for future UK residents work? Priority will be given to people who already have ties — preferably family ties — in the UK. Also included will be people from countries with a high asylum approval rate. Sudan, for example — 98% get through. Eritrea — 86%.
At first glance, it seems unworkable. The makeshift migrant camps along France’s Channel coast have already annoyed more than one generation of French citizens. In Paris, for example, the refugee center can only accommodate a limited number of people. Around it, in tents or even without them, live a few hundred more, who simply need water, some food, and the hope that someone will notice them. There’s nothing there, not even crumbs — for the rats, even. And that’s the capital. The picture along the Channel coast is the same or worse. And now more hubs? One can already imagine the local protests.
Of course, France will charge the UK good money for this scheme. That’s the second point. First of all, this condition is always presented by the British side as a «sine qua non» — take it or leave it. Third, the French genuinely believe that this approach will discourage many asylum seekers. Fourth, as soon as French border guards get access to a person’s data and deny them entry, they’re automatically blocked from entering the UK.
Over there — on the other side — French and British border guards will sit together, tablets in hand, connected to the Eurodac system (European Data Protection Supervisor). All the data is already in there: fingerprints, iris scans. If you were rejected in a French hub, you won’t sneak in the second time.
Why was all this invented? The European and American liberal bureaucracies, who recommended this to the French and British, believe it’s the safest alternative to smugglers who for years have ferried rafts of migrants to England. This way, they argue, the number of migrants crossing the Channel to the UK will drop.
The UK government primarily wants to demonstrate that there is a Plan — a mechanism for keeping migration under control. That means, in theory, no more extreme pressure on infrastructure, overcrowding, etc. In their view, the public’s fears about increasing migration are, if not resolved, at least minimized. We’ve found a compromise between the influx of migrants and preserving jobs for our citizens. Labour market balance — under control.
Another point emphasized by the plan’s authors: why should an asylum seeker take their chances on a boat with an uncertain outcome when they can legally apply in France and move forward? Maybe it will work: they’ll apply, the documents will be accepted, and a positive decision will be issued. But now they’ll have to wait until someone already in the UK is deported under the «one-for-one» system — a process that takes a long time. Still, they’ll stay alive, and the public — especially those distressed by weekly reports of migrant deaths in the Channel — will breathe easier. And perhaps vote Labour.
What happens in a crisis, like the «Syrian refugee» wave that started in March 2011? (In quotes because at most one-third were actual Syrians — the rest threw away their passports and posed as refugees.) How will Europe handle that number of people? And how many hubs and camps will it take? Back then, Hungary played it smart: «Dear refugees», Budapest announced, «we have no benefits, no jobs, no housing — and snow in winter. With sympathy, we can only take you to the Austrian border».
The economic logic of this system is also unclear. Sometimes you urgently need a lot of labor — for example, for construction projects — but without leaving them in the UK afterward, collecting benefits. So, what do we do with the 7,000 Sudanese we let in? Trade them for 7,000 Eritreans?
Another suggestion included in the summit’s report is to expand or create joint charter flights so that migrants cross by plane instead of by sea. Upon arrival, UK border services would process them and return them to their home countries, with a corresponding note in Eurodac. A second attempt via charter flight won’t work — they won’t be allowed on board. If they do manage to arrive by boat next time, they’ll be officially listed as deported, with all the consequences that entails. Until the next document check, that is.
In short, the whole «One In — One Out» system aims to register as many people as possible, collect as much personal data as possible, and have more grounds for refusal.
If this system is adopted, it will likely be challenged in court by NGOs such as Care4Calais. This organization previously blocked the UK’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. They have already said that they are considering a lawsuit. However, such threats rarely have any real impact on summits.