Why does UK government want to copy Denmark’s immigration system?

 

Explainer

Why does UK government want to copy Denmark’s immigration system?

 

Some say Denmark’s rigid rules are key to Social Democrats’ power, but critical Labour MPs think model echoes far-right themes

 

Geraldine McKelvie

Sat 8 Nov 2025 15.01 GMT

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/08/home-office-want-copy-denmark-immigration-system

 

The UK government is expected to announce changes to the country’s immigration rules, modelled on a controversial system used in Denmark which is widely seen as one of the most stringent in Europe.

 

Why does the UK government want to change its immigration system?

Concerns about immigration have risen steadily over the past five years, fuelled in part by the number of migrants arriving in Britain via small boat crossings. A recent YouGov poll suggested voters were more worried about migration than the state of economy.

 

The Labour government also faces significant challenges from Nigel Farage’s Reform party, which is ahead in the polls. Reform promises to radically overhaul the immigration system if it gains power, most notably scrapping the right of migrants to qualify for permanent settlement in the UK after five years.

 

Who is granted asylum in Denmark?

After excluding data from 2020, when significant travel restrictions were in place because of the pandemic, the number of people granted asylum in Denmark is at a 40-year low.

 

People targeted personally by foreign regimes are normally given protection by Denmark but this is often on a temporary basis, with the government reserving the right to return an asylum seeker to their home country when it is deemed safe.

 

For example, in 2022, the Danish government told about 1,200 refugees from Damascus, Syria, that they would be returned after it judged there was no longer a risk to them in the region. This decision was at odds with the positions taken by the UN and the EU.

 

Can refugees bring family members to Denmark?

This is permitted under certain circumstances, but the rules are very tight. Refugees normally have to demonstrate they can’t live safely with their partner or children in another country.

 

There are various criteria a refugee must meet to bring their partner to Denmark, which the government says were designed in part to guard against forced marriages. Both must be at least 24 and have passed a Danish language test. The refugee in Denmark must not have claimed benefits for three years and be in a position to put up a financial guarantee.

 

Why have Denmark’s immigration rules attracted controversy?

Some feel Danish laws penalise people from certain ethnic groups. Refugees who live in housing estates earmarked as “parallel societies”, where more than half of the people are from “non-western” backgrounds, are not eligible for family reunion.

 

The law also enables the state to demolish apartment blocks within these estates. Although the Danish government says this is designed to encourage integration, an EU official recently raised concerns about potential discrimination.

 

How is the Danish approach viewed by the left of the Labour party?

Although Denmark’s immigration policies were designed by the centre-left Social Democrats, and are seen as key to the party maintaining power, they have faced vehement criticism from the left of the British Labour party.

 

The Norwich South MP, Clive Lewis, said the Social Democrats had “adopted many of the talking points of what we would call the far right”. Nadia Whittome, the MP for Nottingham East, said copying the Danish system would be “a dead end – morally, politically and electorally”.

 

Do any Labour MPs support the plans?

Some Labour MPs, particularly in “red wall” seats where support for Reform is strong, have welcomed the possibility of moving closer to a Danish model. The Bassetlaw MP Jo White, who is chair of the Red Wall Caucus, said the party would be “annihilated” by Reform if it failed to tighten immigration rules. Gareth Snell, the MP for Stoke-on-Trent, said the plans were “worth exploring”, and that his constituents found the current system “inherently unfair”.