Yvette Cooper Told Migrants Must Face Tough New Rules to Solve Border Crisis

Foreign criminals and failed asylum seekers are dodging deportation by taking advantage of “vaguely worded” human rights laws, according to Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp. He warned that Parliament’s authority is being “circumvented” by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), with UK judges making decisions that, in his view, defy common sense.

His comments come in the wake of several high-profile cases, including an Albanian criminal who avoided deportation after claiming his son disliked foreign chicken nuggets and a convicted Pakistani pedophile who was allowed to stay in the UK because his removal was deemed “unduly harsh” on his children, reported the Express.

The Conservatives are now pushing for a tougher stance on immigration, proposing amendments to Labour’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. They want stricter rules to stop what they call “mass low-skilled, low-wage immigration.” One of their key proposals is that migrants should not be allowed to bring their partners to the UK for at least two years. Additionally, foreign workers would have to earn at least £38,700 to qualify for a visa, ensuring they are financially independent.

Another major amendment would see asylum claims revoked if an applicant returns to their home country for a visit—arguing that if it’s safe enough for a holiday, it’s safe enough to stay.

Speaking on Sky News, Philp didn’t hold back: “We think the way UK judges are applying the ECHR in our domestic courts has become out of control. They’ve stretched these definitions so far. Some of these ECHR articles are very vaguely worded. Things like a ‘right to a family life’ or ‘freedom from degrading treatment.’ Now, what do those mean in practice? Well, they mean whatever a judge says they mean.”

He added: “If judges interpret those reasonably, that’s fine, but what we’ve seen in the last few years in the UK courts is judges have expanded these definitions wider and wider.”

The Conservative Party wants to make sure the Human Rights Act, which incorporates the ECHR, cannot be used to block deportations or other immigration decisions. This move, they argue, would prevent legal loopholes from interfering with the government’s ability to remove illegal migrants.

However, the issue has sparked further debate, with Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch recently hinting that the UK may have to leave the ECHR if it prevents the country from enforcing its immigration policies. Philp echoed this concern, stating: “Parliament has essentially been circumvented and trumped by the way these ECHR rights are being interpreted.”

The Tories are also calling for an annual cap on family visas, ensuring no single country can take up more than 7% of the total allocation. In 2024, the UK issued 86,049 family visas—a 7% increase from the previous year. They argue this new rule would ensure migrants are “self-sufficient and do not rely on the state.”

Other proposed changes include banning anyone on a work visa from claiming government benefits, including housing support. The party is also pushing to extend the wait time for indefinite leave to remain from five to ten years, doubling the current threshold.

Philp reinforced the party’s position, saying: “For too long we have seen mass low-skilled, low-wage immigration into the UK. We now know that actually costs the taxpayer money, puts pressure on services, and undermines social cohesion.”

Not everyone is on board with these proposed changes. A Home Office source dismissed the Tory plan, claiming: “The Tories’ nonsense amendment means completely bypassing British courts and handing all decision-making on asylum cases to Europe. They left the asylum system in utter chaos, and now, instead of putting forward viable plans to clear up the mess they made, they’re proposing outsourcing control of our asylum system to EU courts.”

With immigration set to be a key issue in the next election, the battle over Britain’s border policies is only heating up.