Unpicking the ‘Danish Model’: an answer to Europe’s immigration problems?

Deporting Syrian asylum seekers, imposing tougher citizenship requirements, confiscating valuables to help pay for asylum seekers’ stay, and dismantling so-called ‘ghettos’ by redeveloping neighbourhoods with high concentrations of non-Western immigrants to reduce ethnic segregation. No, this is not a Reform UK wish list, but a series of policies implemented by Denmark’s centre-left Social Democratic government on immigration and integration. And the UK’s Labour government is said to have modelled its more recent tougher approach on aspects of the Danish model.

Denmark has long been an outlier in Europe, maintaining stable centre-left governments while largely withstanding the surge of populist parties that has reshaped politics across much of the continent. This resilience has been driven, in part, by a deliberate effort to stem the rise of populist parties through a more restrictive immigration policy under Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen. The Social Democratic government has argued that tighter asylum rules and stronger integration requirements are essential to preserving Denmark’s generous welfare state, high levels of social trust, and shared sense of national identity.

For many across Europe, on both the left and the right, the ‘Danish model’ has become synonymous with a tougher, electorally successful approach to immigration. It has attracted growing attention from politicians seeking to prevent further electoral gains by populist parties. In the UK, the home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has reportedly drawn inspiration from aspects of the Danish approach, including proposals to extend the qualifying period before migrants can obtain indefinite leave to remain and to restrict visa routes from countries with high rates of asylum claims.

Yet is the Danish government’s policy package desirable – or even achievable – in the UK? Government attempts to designate certain neighbourhoods as ‘ghettos’ and forcibly dismantle established communities would be sure to face a backlash. Would we be comfortable empowering the state to relocate thousands of residents from Birmingham, Luton or Leicester in the name of integration? The same might be true when it comes to restricting mass public prayer, creating criticism of encroaching on individual liberty and religious freedom in the pursuit of greater social cohesion.

Why did Denmark pursue such a different strategy from its European neighbours? With populism finally on the rise in Denmark, is the model beginning to lose its electoral potency? Can Denmark’s approach be copied in the UK, or do we need to chart our own path on immigration and integration?