Thirty asylum seekers held in UK immigration detention have launched a hunger strike to protest their planned deportation to France under the government’s controversial reciprocal removals policy. The protest, confirmed on 26 November, comes days before the group are due to be put on a charter flight as part of the ‘one-in, one-out’ agreement designed to deter small-boat Channel crossings.
Introduced earlier this year, the scheme sees roughly one person removed to France for every refugee transferred to the UK through official resettlement channels. Lawyers and NGOs argue the policy violates the 1951 Refugee Convention by forcing claimants to a country they may have passed through only briefly and without giving them full access to UK asylum procedures.
![Detained asylum seekers begin hunger strike over UK–France ‘one-in, one-out’ removals scheme]()
Hunger strikers told The Guardian that they feel “dehumanised” and have been denied clear information about their cases. Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) warns that access to legal advice inside detention centres has fallen to record lows, raising due-process concerns. The Home Office counters that nearly 50,000 people with no right to remain have already been removed this year and insists removals are conducted “with dignity and respect.”
While the policy targets irregular migration rather than business travellers, global-mobility teams should note the reputational and duty-of-care ramifications: corporate sponsors could face employee activism or negative publicity if removals expand to cover rejected skilled-worker dependants. The episode also underscores the government’s harder line on enforcement that sits alongside its digitisation agenda (ETA, eVisa, earned-settlement proposals) and signals a more adversarial operating environment for immigration practitioners.
The hunger-strike may intensify parliamentary scrutiny of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill currently nearing Royal Assent, particularly clauses that broaden detention powers and accelerate removals.
Introduced earlier this year, the scheme sees roughly one person removed to France for every refugee transferred to the UK through official resettlement channels. Lawyers and NGOs argue the policy violates the 1951 Refugee Convention by forcing claimants to a country they may have passed through only briefly and without giving them full access to UK asylum procedures.
Hunger strikers told The Guardian that they feel “dehumanised” and have been denied clear information about their cases. Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) warns that access to legal advice inside detention centres has fallen to record lows, raising due-process concerns. The Home Office counters that nearly 50,000 people with no right to remain have already been removed this year and insists removals are conducted “with dignity and respect.”
While the policy targets irregular migration rather than business travellers, global-mobility teams should note the reputational and duty-of-care ramifications: corporate sponsors could face employee activism or negative publicity if removals expand to cover rejected skilled-worker dependants. The episode also underscores the government’s harder line on enforcement that sits alongside its digitisation agenda (ETA, eVisa, earned-settlement proposals) and signals a more adversarial operating environment for immigration practitioners.
The hunger-strike may intensify parliamentary scrutiny of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill currently nearing Royal Assent, particularly clauses that broaden detention powers and accelerate removals.
