Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
UK home secretary Shabana Mahmood has outlined plans for new asylum measures designed to drive down the number of people seeking to become refugees in the UK.
The plans are based on measures introduced in Denmark over the past decade and UK ministers have credited the country’s tougher approach with driving down the number of people seeking asylum to record lows. Denmark received just 2,280 asylum applications during 2024, down from a high of 20,935 in 2015.
What was Denmark’s main policy change?
The core of Denmark’s policy, introduced in 2015 and 2019, has been that people granted refugee status — those found to have a well-founded fear of persecution — receive only temporary leave to remain in the country. The status generally has to be renewed every two years and the status can be revoked and the person ordered to return home if their country is deemed safe again.
The UK plans to review residence every 30 months. Under the proposals, refugees might have to wait as long as 20 years before being granted settled status. In Denmark, refugees can apply for permanent residency after eight years.
What else did Denmark do?
Denmark introduced some other proposals that the UK is seeking to emulate. It limited the right to family reunification for some categories of people — something the UK is seeking to achieve by narrowing the definition of “family” under the European Convention on Human Rights. It also introduced a “jewellery law” under which assets worth more than £1,200 can be seized to defray the costs of asylum support. The UK has said it will introduce similar provisions, while insisting “sentimental jewellery” such as wedding rings will not be taken.
Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Denmark’s prime minister at the time the rule was introduced, on Sunday told the BBC the provision had been “too much”.
“From an international standpoint . . . it sounded crazy,” said Løkke Rasmussen, who is currently Denmark’s foreign minister.
Denmark also sought, as the previous UK government did, to sign a deal to send applicants for asylum to Rwanda for processing — so far unsuccessfully. The UK’s policy paper on Monday indicated the country was still trying to introduce “offshore” processing, while Copenhagen and other EU capitals are working on plans to outsource parts of their asylum system.
Among Denmark’s most contentious policies has been a so-called ghetto law targeting areas where more than half the population are “immigrants and their descendants from non-western countries”, and where social housing is to be limited, for instance through the demolition of buildings.
The law has been challenged in the European Court of Justice, and the court’s advocate general has argued that it results in direct discrimination. However, a final ruling is still pending.
The UK has not announced an equivalent of the “ghetto” law among its new measures.
What about the European Convention on Human Rights?
Denmark, like the UK, remains a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore subject to rulings by the convention’s court in Strasbourg. However, Denmark was among nine EU member states that in May wrote a letter criticising the European Court of Human Rights’ interpretation of the convention on points regarding immigrants.
Løkke Rasmussen said Denmark had sent a “very clear” instruction to its judges: “If it’s not contrary to international law, you must rule in favour of expelling criminals.”
The UK has also said it intends to remain within the ECHR but will instruct judges to change the interpretation of some points, particularly the right to a family life.
Did Denmark’s policies work?
The policy of reviewing asylum protection has led to relatively few people being removed from Denmark. The country’s returns agency in 2023 suspended publication of figures. But for the three months to March 2023, revocations or refusals of extensions accounted for only 44 of the 1,390 removals of asylum seekers.
Kristina Bakkær Simonsen, an associate professor of political science at Denmark’s University of Aarhus, said there was evidence that the harsher social security rules introduced as part of the country’s policies had had a deterrent effect on potential asylum seekers.
However, reducing welfare benefits meant that more people who have asylum fell into poverty, Bakkær Simonsen said. “It’s led to an increase in crime and poor social outcomes for the children of those refugees.”
She added that the introduction of temporary status had led “to reduced political trust among immigrants and the second generation”.
Have the policies proved popular?
Denmark’s Social Democrats — the main authors of the policy changes — are on 21 per cent in opinion polls, eight points above their nearest competitors, the Green Left, on 13 points.
However, Bakkær Simonsen said the policies had proved a “zero-sum game”, attracting some voters but sending others off to smaller left-wing parties, such as the Green Left.
“It’s a very risky political strategy, you could say,” she said. “It’s not always the case that the median voter is anti-immigrant.”
