The UK wants to emulate Denmark’s hardline asylum model – but what does it actually look like? | Migration

Of all the measures introduced over the last decade to deter people from seeking asylum in Denmark, the most effective is that refugee status is not permanent.

Before 2015, refugees in Denmark were initially allowed to stay for five to seven years; After this period, residence permits automatically became permanent. But 10 years ago, when more than a million people arrived in Europe fleeing conflict and oppression, mostly from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Eritrea, the Danish government changed the rules dramatically.

Since then, temporary residence permits are only issued for one to two years, and there is no longer any guarantee of obtaining a permanent visa. To gain permanent status, refugees must be fluent in Danish and must also have held a full-time job for several years.

“It’s about the attitude and the feeling of being here temporarily as a visitor. You don’t know where your future will be,” he said. Michala Clante Bendixen runs the refugee advisory group Refugees Welcome Denmark and is the Danish country coordinator of the European Commission’s Migrant Integration Centre.

“Even a speeding ticket can push that permanent stay back years.”

Denmark’s immigration policies have come into focus again after it emerged that Britain’s Labor government was trying to emulate Denmark’s approach in a bid to make the UK a less attractive destination for people seeking asylum.

Despite criticism from the UN and human rights organisations, the restrictions, which are among the harshest in Europe, appear to have had the impact politicians had hoped for.

A total of 14,792 refugees arrived in Denmark in 2014; the largest numbers came from Syria and Eritrea. While this figure decreased to 2,099 in 2021, this number became 2,333 in 2024. It was noted that only 1% of approximately 100,000 residence permits issued in Denmark last year went to refugees. 99 percent of them included 9,623 refugees from Ukraine, who were divided into separate categories, immigrants from other parts of the European Economic Area, family reunification, and people with work and study permits.

But critics say this reduction comes at a cost to Denmark’s reputation and self-confidence. They argue that the incorporation of populist right-wing ideas into so-called centre-left politics has eroded some of the ideals for which Denmark is best known internationally.

“The argument against this is that extremism is at the centre; you don’t have a strong position from which to legitimize human rights and the protection of minorities,” said Rune Lykkeberg, editor-in-chief of Information newspaper.

When Denmark’s Social Democratic prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, came to power in 2019, ousting a centre-right government amid a collapse in support for the far-right Danish People’s Party (DPP) and the Liberal Alliance, she said she wanted to reduce the number of asylum seekers in Denmark to zero.

Frederiksen’s path was paved by his predecessor Lars Løkke Rasmussen, then leader of the center-right Venstre party and now foreign minister. The 2015 change to temporary residence permits and the 2019 “paradigm shift” — a set of rules that focused official efforts and rhetoric on repatriation rather than integration — occurred under his watch.

Six years later, Frederiksen is still in office as a center-left leader who draws on an uncompromising approach to immigration and doubles down on the idea that Denmark is no place for refugees. “What Denmark is doing is a policy of deterrence that scares people from choosing Denmark,” Bendixen said.

Denmark faces regular criticism from the UN high commissioner for refugees over its asylum practices, but many of its integration policies also face international criticism.

The most controversial is the law against “ghettos” (now known as “parallel societies”), which allows the state to demolish blocks of flats in areas where at least half of the residents are from a “non-western” background. In February, a senior counsel to the EU top court concluded that the law constituted direct discrimination based on ethnicity.

But the criticisms did nothing to change the political agenda; in fact, family arguments have become even more extreme lately. The far-right DPP, which is not in the government but has seen an increase in support, is calling for “return”, which means mass deportation of people with immigrant background living in Denmark.

Eva Singer, Director of Asylum and Refugee Rights at the Danish Refugee Council, said it was politicians, not the public, who were driving anti-immigrant sentiment: “Politicians say they are following the popular mood, but maybe the popular mood is driven by what the politicians say and that is not based on reality.”

Next year’s general elections may provide a clue as to whether the Social Democrats’ approach is still popular with voters. Immigration will likely be one of many major issues. Others include Donald Trump’s threats to Greenland, a former Danish colony that remains part of the Danish nation, unrest at two of Denmark’s largest companies, and the threat of hybrid warfare from Russia.

Lykkeberg said the Social Democrats’ handling of immigration followed Denmark’s playbook, which dates back more than half a century. “Politics Part of this is part of what you might call the Danish model: you’re not trying to burn the so-called populists, you’re trying to steal their fire. “You are defending the old political order by keeping so-called extremists away from the center of power.”

Critics say the reality on the ground is that the government’s hard-line policies are often at odds. “We hear from municipalities that it is quite frustrating that they have to tell refugees everything they need to do to integrate, while at the same time reminding them how temporary this is. They act in opposition to each other,” Singer said.

Bendixen said the temporary nature of refugee status was “poison for integration” because it did not give people time to change language careers and establish their lives in a new country.

Martin Lidegaard, leader of the Social Liberal party and Denmark’s former foreign minister, believes some elements of the country’s integration policies are worth emulating, such as helping newcomers access education, find work and “ensure they become full members of Danish society”. “I’m not very proud of other aspects of our politics,” he said.

Lidegaard added that all European countries, including the UK, face a growing dilemma as their populations age: “We don’t have a workforce; we don’t have people. Our fertility is decreasing because we’re having fewer children. Our economy and labor market urgently need some immigration. On the other hand, it’s clear that we have populist right-wing parties who want to fight against this, and people coming to countries with different ethnic backgrounds.”

“We all need to balance this wisely. No one can afford to walk into the future without effort.”

The Danish Ministry of Immigration and Integration declined to comment.