Highlighting a Critical Flaw in the UK Government’s One-In, One-Out Migration Policy
–
The Unintended Consequence of Repeated Channel Crossings
–
The UK government’s “one in, one out” migration policy has been presented as a balanced approach to controlling immigration, aiming to deter unauthorized arrivals by stipulating that for each migrant arriving by irregular means – such as crossing the Channel – another will be deported, and in their place, the UK will take a migrant from a designated safe country. While this approach might, at first glance, appear to be a pragmatic solution, it contains a significant and problematic loophole that undermines its intended purpose.
–
The Issue of Recurring Channel Crossings
–
One of the fundamental flaws lies in the policy’s inability to address repeat attempts by the same individuals. Under the current framework, a migrant who is intercepted crossing the Channel is subject to deportation under the one in, one out scheme. However, once deported, there is little to prevent that individual from attempting to cross again. If they succeed, they once more qualify for deportation, and the cycle repeats.
–
Each instance is treated as a separate “in”, and so the UK agrees to take another individual from abroad in exchange. In effect, a single determined migrant could, through multiple crossings and subsequent removals, trigger the acceptance of several other migrants into the UK – all while the original individual continues to reattempt entry.
–
A Policy That Multiplies, Rather Than Resolves, the Problem
–
The main intention behind the one in, one out policy is to create a disincentive for irregular migration and to keep numbers controlled. However, by allowing the same person to be counted multiple times, the policy risks inflating the number of migrants accepted into the UK in exchange for a single individual’s repeated actions. Instead of dealing with “one migrant, one solution”, the net result is a multiplication of arrivals.
–
This loophole could be exploited not just by individuals, but by smuggling networks, who may encourage repeat attempts knowing that each new crossing has broader implications on accepted numbers. The UK’s willingness to take new arrivals in exchange for every individual intercepted, without addressing repeat offenders, creates a perverse incentive: the more times an individual tries, the more people are ultimately granted entry.
–
So What would I do
–
I would abandon this policy of one in, one out.
–
We need a policy that covers all aspects of Illegal Immigration, including specialised detention, clear rules on immediate deportation, specialist courts for quick processing of those working illegally or immigrants caught carrying out criminal offences.
–
We need robust and quick deportation rules for immigrants that break our laws, with no appeal. If they are in our country, they should obey our laws.
–
I believe which ever political party comes up with the most robust policy for the next election will win the next election. I know who is winning this one at the moment!
If it was up 2 me 
Leave a comment