The ECHR and EU are not related; this is well noted. I say this because many Brexit supporters were surprised immigration was still an issue well after the UK left the European Union.
For background purposes, the ECHR is part of The Council of Europe, formed in 1949. The ECHR is an international treaty, 46 countries are part of it. Russia was kicked out after invading Ukraine. The ECHR is enforced by the European Court of Human Rights.
The United Kingdom has the authority to reform its immigration policy, but the sticking point is that the ECHR applies to everyone within the jurisdiction of a member state, including immigrants, both illegal and undocumented.
If an immigrant - legal, illegal or undocumented - is dissatisfied with their immigration outcome at the domestic or national level, they can apply to the European Court of Human Rights. If tens of thousands of individuals apply to the European Court of Human Rights, a legal kerfuffle would occur, and the court would be inclined to hear every case.
Immigration activists aside, most agree that the Western world is stuck in a chaotic situation with mass migration. While organized migration can be a net positive to a countries bottom line, illegal immigration is a serious problem. The UK needs to make changes to best handle immigration issues domestically / nationally, so they do not fall into an infinite backlog with the ECHR, and potentially render UK immigration laws powerless. As it stands, the ECHR has the last word.
Reform is complicated, but not impossible. Take for instance, the recently passed, “Illegal Migration Act.”
From The Hill: “Though the Commons has just passed a bill declaring Rwanda a safe enough place for the government to approve a treaty with the landlocked East African country, the House of Lords, under Labor Party pressure, is delaying action at least until March.”
The Illegal Migration Act: “The Illegal Migration Act changes the law so that those who arrive in the UK illegally will not be able to stay here and will instead be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or a safe third country.
The act aims to:
put a stop to illegal migration into the UK by removing the incentive to make dangerous small boat crossings
speed up the removal of those with no right to be here - in turn this will free up capacity so that the UK can better support those in genuine need of asylum through safe and legal routes
prevent people who come to the UK through illegal and dangerous journeys from misusing modern slavery safeguards to block their removal
ensure that the UK continues to support those in genuine need by committing to resettle a specific number of the most vulnerable refugees in the UK every year”
Below, a few statements on UK immigration and the ECHR.
Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee: Termination or suspension of Part Three of the TCA would have extremely serious consequences for UK-EU security cooperation, curtailing our ability to combat cross-border criminal activity. Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights would, in all probability, end the UK’s membership of the Council of Europe. This, in turn, would cease the UK’s participation in the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, making any extraditions between the UK and the 45 other members of the Council of Europe virtually impossible, resulting in the impunity of criminals.
Link to Lords Committee
Reuters: Sunak has ruled out leaving the ECHR, a treaty agreed by almost every nation in Europe after World War Two, saying Britain could curb the arrival of illegal migrants without having to quit.
Kingsley Napley LLP (UK law firm): While the Illegal Migration Act 2023 received royal assent on 20 July, it was not accompanied by a declaration under the Human Rights Act 2003 that its provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the ECHR’), but with an “ECHR memorandum” stating that the government was of the view that Convention rights were not infringed. Nonetheless, the Prime Minister has acknowledged that the provisions “[push] the boundaries of what is legally possible while staying within the ECHR” and that the government would be “willing to reconsider whether being part of the ECHR is in the UK’s long-term interests”. Link to Kingsley Napley