Immigration Deal Branded a ‘Political Bargain on Lives’ as French-UK Pact Faces Widespread Criticism

The Franco-British agreement, finalised in July, intended to curtail irregular crossings of the Channel, has sparked a torrent of condemnation. An editorial in the French newspaper Le Monde, backed by activists and citizens, described the accord as a “shameless bargain over human lives” and an undermining of the right to asylum. The new measures officially took effect on 6 August, with the first deportations beginning in September.
Signatories of the Le Monde article, including officials from British and French migrant rights associations, argued that the agreement fundamentally erodes international law and human rights principles. They characterised the transformation of asylum applications into an “inhumane and selective process” as a move that “defies international law.”
Stella Busc, communications director and spokesperson for Auberge des Migrants in northern France, told the Migrannews website that the deal strips the right to asylum of its essence, reducing it to a “political lottery.” She clarified that the right to asylum should be based on an individual assessment of each case, noting that turning it into a “system of quotas and specific nationalities” violates this core principle.
Busc asserted that the understanding effectively reduces migrants to “pawns being exchanged between two states,” stressing that this process dehumanises them and transforms their destinies into tools for political negotiation. The associations that signed the editorial also denounced what they called the “political hypocrisy” of exploiting the suffering of migrants for diplomatic gain.
Activists highlighted the view that the deal is primarily a “political bargain” aimed at placating public opinion, rather than an effective plan for managing migration. They suggested it serves the domestic political interests of both leaders: French President Emmanuel Macron seeks to demonstrate international cooperation and secure British funding for border management. In contrast, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer aims to boost his internal standing.
Busc added that the agreement is “unenforceable” and will not halt migration, as migrants will continue to attempt the crossing despite the risks of detention or deportation. She insisted that deportations do not stop migration flows, but merely push people to “risk their lives again.”
The activist also pointed out that the agreement criminalises crossing the Channel in small boats, treating migrants who arrive in the UK by this means as lawbreakers. Busc noted that while 70% of asylum applications are typically accepted after applicants arrive on British soil, they are now being immediately deported to France without their cases being reviewed. She sharply criticised the British Home Office’s conditions for accepting asylum claims, such as the requirement of not entering by “illegal methods” or via a small boat, deeming them “completely contradictory to the reality of migrants” fleeing persecution and danger.
The associations concluded by emphasising that 35 years of deterrent policies have failed to reduce crossing attempts and have instead “increased the tragedies and deaths in the Channel