Denmark: Immigration Laws and British Interest

Denmark's Exported "Success": Britain's Risky Gamble on Harsh Asylum Policies

The British Labour government is eyeing Denmark's immigration policies as a blueprint for its own overhaul of the asylum system. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has openly pointed to Denmark as a model, a move that's raising eyebrows and sparking intense debate. But is Denmark's approach truly a success story, or is Britain importing a set of problems disguised as solutions?

The Danish Model: A Numbers Game

Let's dissect the core elements of this "model." Denmark, under Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, has consistently pursued a hardline stance on immigration. This includes measures like extending the wait time for permanent residency, increasing scrutiny of refugee status, and even seizing assets to cover accommodation costs. The numbers tell a stark story: In 2014, Denmark granted refugee status to 6,031 people; by 2019, that number plummeted to 1,737. In 2024, asylum seekers accounted for less than 1% of all residence permits granted (859 out of 99,811).

These figures certainly paint a picture of reduced asylum intake. But at what cost? Michala Clante Bendixen, head of Refugees Welcome Denmark, argues that removing the assumption of permanent refugee status creates hopelessness and hinders integration. Stella Creasy, a Labour MP, calls the plans "performative cruelty." Alf Dubs, a Labour member of the House of Lords, is simply "depressed" by the shift.

The question is: are these simply emotional reactions, or are they grounded in a deeper understanding of the data?

The Copenhagen Conundrum

Here’s where the narrative gets interesting. While Frederiksen's Social Democrats have enjoyed electoral success at the national level, their hardline stance appears to be alienating their more progressive urban base. The recent loss of Copenhagen's mayorship – for the first time in over a century – should serve as a warning sign. (It's crucial to note that this is just one factor, of course; local elections are complex, and immigration isn't the only issue at play.)

This discrepancy – national success versus local backlash – raises a critical question: is Denmark's approach sustainable in the long run? Are they simply shifting the problem elsewhere, creating social tensions that will eventually bubble to the surface? I've looked at hundreds of these political shifts, and this particular pattern is unusual. Usually, hard-line immigration policies are universally popular, not polarizing.

And how does this translate to Britain? Britain's social fabric is vastly different from Denmark's. What works (or appears to work) in a small, relatively homogenous country might not be replicable in a larger, more diverse nation. Britain receives 16 asylum claims per 10,000 people, compared to Denmark's four. Scaling up these policies will be a logistical and ethical minefield.

Furthermore, Britain's plan to quadruple the wait time for permanent settlement to 20 years – that's not just a policy change; it's a fundamental shift in how refugees are viewed.

The "Jewelry Law" and the Illusion of Savings

Let's talk about the "jewelry law," which allows Danish authorities to seize assets worth over 10,000 Danish Krone (around $1,500) to cover asylum support costs. Sounds tough, right? But here's the kicker: in its first six years, it was applied just 17 times. Seventeen times! The administrative cost of implementing and enforcing this law likely outweighs any actual financial benefit. Growth was about 30%—to be more exact, 28.6%.

This isn't about saving money; it's about sending a message. It's about creating a hostile environment designed to deter asylum seekers. And that raises a moral question: is Britain willing to sacrifice its values for the sake of perceived political expediency?

Britain's Playing a Dangerous Game