Migrant Deal Set to Fail as Human Rights Lawyers Exploit Its Unworkability

Migrant Deal Set to Fail as Human Rights Lawyers Exploit Its Unworkability

What the UK‑France “One‑In, One‑Out” Deal Really Means

In a bold move, the UK and France signed a pact that lets France refuse to return any migrants it thinks may pose a security, health or diplomatic risk. In practice, that sounds pretty much like a magic trick—if the UK can’t prove a threat exists, French officials hand the migrants over without a second thought.

Key Points of the Agreement

  • No “threat” document is required: France can deny sending anyone they deem risky.
  • Zero data sharing: Personal details never cross the border, so the UK gets a mystery box of migrants.
  • Legal loophole: People said to have “unfounded human‑rights claims” are omitted right from the start.

Critics Call It a “Bureaucratic Nightmare”

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp slammed the plan, saying it “will be ruthlessly exploited by human‑rights lawyers to prevent people being returned to France.” He added, “Even a clearly unfounded claim can halt a return while it skirts the courts.” That’s pretty amusing—and a bit alarming.

Why the Deal’s Numbers Are Problematic

  • Only about 6% of illegal migrants are supposed to be sent back. The rest? Peacefully staying in the UK.
  • In reality, 94% of these “returned” migrants will linger on mainland Irland, making the deterrent virtually nonexistent.

What the Agreement Says, Straight‑Up

It’s written in legalese: “The United Kingdom confirms that at the time of their transfer that person will not have an outstanding human‑rights claim (and that such a claim is deemed ‘clearly unfounded’).” And it stresses that France will not provide any background info on the migrants, meaning the UK could be dealing with potential criminals or even threats without knowing.

The Bottom Line

Honest? A few fragile numbers, no data sharing, and a massive fear that the UK will be handed a bag of unverified migrants. Gone are the days of a tidy, passive solution. Instead, we’re staring at a bureaucratic maze that both human‑rights groups and the public are furious about. If this keeps going, the Channel’s melting pot of hopefuls might still grow—and we’re left wondering: why is Ireland now a no‑eliminate zone?