The UK political landscape is bracing for a significant shift as the new Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, signals a plan to overhaul the UK’s immigration system, taking direct inspiration from Denmark, a country internationally known for having one of Europe’s most stringent regimes. This move, aimed at drastically slashing the “pull factors” that draw migrants to the UK and restoring public trust in border control, marks a definitive turn away from traditional approaches to asylum and settlement.
The Core of the Danish Model
A delegation of senior Home Office officials was recently dispatched to Copenhagen to study the interventions that have helped the Danish government achieve a “historically” low number of asylum applications. The UK is primarily looking to adopt two controversial, yet highly effective, planks of this model:
- Temporary Protection, Not Permanent Settlement: In Denmark, most individuals granted asylum are only given temporary residency. Full settlement rights are not a given; they are conditional on meeting strict requirements, such as prolonged periods of full-time employment and freedom from claiming state benefits for up to three years. The goal is clear: offer protection to those targeted by a regime, but not a pathway to permanent integration unless stringent criteria are met.
- Strict Family Reunion Rules: The Danish system imposes significantly tighter rules on family migration. This includes requiring a refugee to be 24 years old or older before they can apply for a spouse or partner to join them—a rule Denmark defends as a measure to guard against forced marriages. Partners must also pass a Danish language test and the sponsoring refugee must provide a financial guarantee.
Analysis: A Shift Towards Deterrence
For a major UK party like Labour to openly embrace this model, it signifies the political pressure the government is under to be seen as tough on borders, particularly in the face of persistent high numbers of Channel crossings.
The essence of the Danish approach is deterrence and the prioritization of temporary protection over long-term integration. This philosophy is part of a broader European trend that seeks to “externalize” the asylum process, exemplified by the UK’s own Rwanda policy, which aims to process asylum claims outside its borders. The UK’s consideration of the Danish model shows a desire to use domestic law to make the country a less attractive ultimate destination.
However, adopting this model is fraught with legal and ethical perils. Denmark’s system has drawn international scrutiny, particularly for its tough integration measures, including a law that allows the state to demolish residential blocks in areas with a high concentration of residents from “non-Western” backgrounds—a measure a senior EU legal advisor deemed discriminatory. Any move by the UK to emulate such policies would inevitably face fierce challenges in domestic and international courts and risks alienating progressive voters, as some left-wing Labour MPs have already warned. For the UK, which has a long history of multicultural integration, importing such a rigid, temporary-status model represents a fundamental re-evaluation of its humanitarian obligations and its national identity.
