“They treat us like criminals”: racism at the France-UK border

I spent a week in Calais conducting interviews with people on the move as part of Refugee Action’s new research on asylum and racial justice. What I heard and saw from refugees camped in informal living sites is a testament to the centrality of racialisation to immigration practices.

The dehumanising conditions facing refugees and asylum seekers in Calais, northern France, expose how racialised border practices including surveillance, criminalisation and detention continue to shape the UK’s asylum system. This article explores how systemic racism and hostile policies shape the journeys of people seeking asylum at multiple points, from pre-entry policies like the UK-France ‘one in, one out’ migrant deal to the criminalisation and detention of migrants upon arrival, particularly those crossing by small boats.

For immigration lawyers, understanding how these racialised practices manifest on the ground is crucial for building stronger asylum and bail cases that expose discriminatory treatment and breaches of refugee protection law. The data in this article paints a clear picture of the restrictive immigration policies that are developed to deter irregular migrants and limit their access to rights. It also enables us to understand the impact of these hostile border practices on the lives of those who are their main target.

The UK’s hostile environment

The hostile environment began with the introduction of a set of policies in 2012 by the then-Home Secretary Theresa May who stated that her goal was “to create, here in Britain, a really hostile environment for illegal immigrants”. Those words marked the start of a decade of policies that normalised racial discrimination against forced migrants and ethnic minorities in the UK. From the outset, these policies were intended to make it difficult for ethnic minorities and forced migrants without legal paperwork to enjoy fundamental rights without discrimination. Racism can be traced back to the Windrush scandal where hundreds of Commonwealth citizens were denied the right to work, access to healthcare and even faced detention and deportation.

Recently, the UK has become increasingly fixated on the securitisation and fortification of its external borders. The immigration white paper claims that “the UK has rightly done its bit in recent years to help those fleeing persecution and conflict”, citing schemes for refugees from Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan. Despite government claims of compassion, only 45,084 people were granted refugee protection or other forms of leave at the initial asylum decision stage out of 109,343 asylum claims in the year ending March 2025, according to Home Office statistics.

Not all refugees are welcome: criminalisation at the UK-France border 

In Calais, conflict, oppression and serious human rights violations are the primary drivers of refugees from Sudan, Syria, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Somalia, and some West and North African nations who arrived from former colonial territories. Thousands of them are based in makeshift camps with no access to food, shelter, working toilets or running water. The main humanitarian intervention is not provided by the state but rather by non-governmental organisations and local charities such as Secours Catholique, Utopia 56, Channel Info Project, Project Play, Care4Calais and Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières who offer food, water, clothing, medical help, free Wi-Fi, English lessons and phone charging stations.

The racialised border practices at the UK-France border have turned public fear of “illegal” Channel crossings into political currency. The UK-France border apparatus operates to target racially minoritised refugees through systemic and discursive practices. Yousef, from Egypt, who has lived at an informal camp in central Calais for six months while he tries to cross the Channel states:

The way the French state is treating us feels like we are treated as animals and not as human beings. We are not allowed to work, and we are looked at as if we cannot contribute to society or have any skills or education.

Contrary to the UK government’s treatment of France as a safe country for people seeking asylum, refugees there reported police violence and brutality, constant evictions, confiscation or destruction of sleeping tents, inhuman treatment and terrible living conditions. A Somali refugee describes the daily harassment he faces by French police: “There is nowhere to sleep. Every time I buy a sleeping tent, the French police destroy it.”

These practices stem from France’s policy of “zéro point de fixation” which is orchestrated to prevent forced migrants from establishing any form of permanent settlement in northern France, particularly around Calais and Dunkirk. This policy has been described by French human‐rights advisory body, the Commission nationale consultative des droits de l’homme, as “an attack on human dignity”.

In addition, people were unable to exercise their right to apply for asylum. Speaking to refugees in Calais, many have said that they had intended to stay in Calais without plans to leave for the UK. A Palestinian refugee who risked his life at sea fleeing persecution looked to France as a safe haven after arriving from Libya, where he had faced further human rights abuses. However, the French police rejected his asylum claim:

As refugees, we’re affected by the immigration issues in France. I’ve applied for asylum in France and after 6 months, they withdrew my asylum application and said that I’ve been around suspicious individuals. This statement came without any proof, and those suspicious individuals were French citizens. How can you consider your own citizens “suspicious”?

Article 33 (1) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol affirm the right to seek asylum through its prohibition of refoulement, which includes non-rejection at the frontier. This obligation requires states to ensure access to asylum procedures for the determination of refugee status. However, the number of individuals denied the right to asylum is staggering.

As set out in Article 31 (1) of the Refugee Convention, states “shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened”. Yet this core protection is routinely disregarded in both UK and French asylum policy. By treating irregular entry as a basis for punishment, detention or removal, the UK and French governments weaponise the mode of arrival to delegitimise asylum claims.

A Syrian refugee described being arrested by French police and detained for 24 hours, during which he was handed a deportation notice giving him three days to leave the country. After taking his details, he was forced to sign paperwork in French, a language he does not understand. “They told me that if I was arrested again, I would be deported”. The French police target and detain refugees, the overwhelming majority of whom are black and brown, believed to be in the country without legal status despite committing no criminal act. Such practices are rife with racial profiling, putatively criminalising practices and harassment towards people seeking sanctuary.

In light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the UK government rightly offered safe and legal routes for Ukrainians to come to the UK, including the Ukraine Family Scheme and Homes for Ukraine Scheme, through which 267,200 people had arrived as of 17 December 2024. The treatment of white refugees serves as an important reminder that the racialised exclusion of refugees can operate through overtly racist treatment. The disproportionate treatment of non-white refugees reveals the relation between race, rights and legal status where certain refugees are treated as deportable and others as deserving humanitarian protection.

Outsourcing asylum with the France-UK’s refugee exchange policy

The UK-France ‘one in, one out’ migrant deal is designed to return some refugees who crossed the Channel in small boats to France. In exchange, the UK will accept a number of refugees with “legitimate” grounds for asylum who can show family connection in the UK and who have not entered the UK “illegally”. Since the agreement was enforced in August 2025, a total of 42 refugees have been returned to France while the UK allowed the entry of 23 asylum applicants.

In a research briefing, the UK government allocated over £232 million to the French government for border control measures between the 2014/2015 financial year and the end of 2022/2023. Under the Sandhurst Treaty, the UK funded a militarised response to small boats including the use of border patrols, helicopters, surveillance drones, binoculars and hunting cameras in November 2023.

Ibrahim, from Syria, expressed his worries about the UK-France agreement: “I feel very depressed, and there is a lack of stability. You do not know if you are going to arrive safely, go back to your country, die, drown, be returned to France or deported.”

When asked if he fears the crossing, he said: “I am more scared of being sent back to France than the sea. I have no other way but to get to the UK. It is better to die in the sea than die in my home country.” Deterrence policies are not stopping movement; they are pushing vulnerable people onto ever more dangerous journeys. This racialised logic is clearly visible at the UK-French border, where black and brown asylum seekers are illegalised due to their lack of legal documents or their perceived racial background.

Conclusion

Through exclusionary immigration policies and agreements with other countries such as France, the UK is producing a racialised refugee system in which refugees of colour are positioned as “illegal” and “criminal” rather than as people fleeing persecution or war. This underscores the prevalence of racism and the negative discursive framings of migrants from African, Middle Eastern and South Asian backgrounds crossing the Channel in small boats.

With the number of Channel crossers in the UK at an all-time high, the main question remains as whether tightening border control will be an effective deterrent for refugee movement. The lack of safe routes will only push people to embark on those deadly crossings. The UK is actively outsourcing its responsibilities by promoting “safe third country” narratives and externalising border controls, particularly around northern France. In France, however, refugee testimonies reveal routine police harassment and violence including tear gas use, differential treatment, surveillance and detention.

Legal representatives should continue to challenge the UK’s punitive immigration system including racially discriminatory policies such as the ‘one in, one out’ scheme with France. Such policies and practices not only expose people seeking sanctuary to ongoing human rights violations but also pose a risk of removal for people fleeing war and persecution without access to legal assistance or safe hearings. Removing people in genuine need of protection to France undermines confidence in the UK’s commitment to upholding its obligations to protecting the rights of migrants under international law.

Lawyers and legal advisers should also be alert to how recent legislation may perpetuate systemic racism within the immigration system. For example, Clause 41 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill grants powers to detain individuals pending deportation. When a client is detained under these provisions, practitioners might examine whether the decision reflects racialised patterns of enforcement. Asking clients whether they were singled out on the basis of racial or ethnic appearance and comparing these accounts with available data on Home Office detention practices can help to substantiate claims of discriminatory treatment.

Keeping the racialised practices and policies of the immigration system in mind when assisting in drafting witness statements can add another layer and make for stronger evidence overall. Resources such as Free Movement’s analysis of racial discrimination and bias in the immigration system offer further context on how racial bias operates within immigration law and decision-making. Recognising how “race” is embedded in the UK immigration system, through powers to detain, collect biometric data and deport people seeking asylum, is crucial for highlighting how these practices exacerbate the stereotypical criminality of people seeking sanctuary.