In continental Europe, Denmark is a prominent case of a government led by a centre-left party whose hardline stance on asylum policy borrows from the political right. Britain’s Labour government, under huge pressure to tackle illegal immigration and counter the surge of Nigel Farage’s rightwing populist Reform party, is understandably looking for approaches that might work. Home secretary Shabana Mahmood’s tough policy paper several times cites measures embraced by the government of Denmark’s social democratic prime minister Mette Frederiksen. The result is the biggest change in UK immigration policy for decades, decried by some on the left as “un-British”. But Denmark is an imperfect model for the UK.
Danish policies are credited with cutting asylum applications last year to a 40-year low outside the Covid period; in the UK, applications hit a new high, about four times the level per capita of Denmark. Mahmood’s plan follows the spirit of the Danish model. It shifts from an assumption of permanent protection for those granted refugee status, based on a well-founded fear of persecution at home, to offering only short-term leave to remain. That right must be renewed every 30 months. Those granted asylum can be ordered to return home if their country is deemed “safe” again. Instead of applying for permanent UK residency after five years, refugees may now have to wait 20 years.
Denmark in 2016 passed a much-criticised “jewellery law” allowing high-value assets to be seized to help pay for asylum claimants’ support. Though the UK has proposed a version of this, officials say “sentimental jewellery” will not be taken. It plans no equivalent of the Danish “ghetto” law, special rules for public housing where a high proportion of residents have “non-western” backgrounds, which has been challenged in the European Court of Justice.