Tomorrow, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is set to unveil what she will undoubtedly describe as a groundbreaking approach to immigration.
According to Labour insiders, the plan will claim to slash illegal migration without the UK needing to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The inspiration comes from Denmark, where a centre-Left coalition has dramatically cut asylum applications over the past decade. But as always, the devil is in the details.
Denmark’s ‘Secret Sauce’ Isn’t So Secret
Denmark’s asylum applications have fallen from a peak of 37 per 10,000 residents in 2015 to just four per 10,000 last year—one-fifth of the EU average.
The Danes did this by introducing temporary residence permits, meaning refugees can stay only while their home country is considered unsafe.
Mahmood’s plan reportedly mirrors this, but critics argue it may not have the same effect in Britain, given our generous system of housing, healthcare, and weekly allowances for asylum seekers.
The Policies Labour Won’t Copy
While Denmark goes further with “anti-ghetto” laws, Labour seems unlikely to follow suit.
In Denmark, migrants can be rehoused away from areas where non-Western populations dominate, and existing estates can be broken up to avoid parallel communities.
Wealthier migrants may also have to surrender valuables to help cover their stay—something that has been enforced sparingly but still exists as a deterrent.
Labour backbenchers, wary of controversial welfare reforms, would almost certainly balk at similar measures in cities like Birmingham, Bradford, or Tower Hamlets.
Language and Family Barriers
Another key Danish strategy involves language.
Migrants must learn Danish, and spouses need to pass language tests before joining them.
The UK faces a tougher challenge: English is a global language, meaning the deterrent effect would be minimal, although more than a million UK residents still struggle with English, according to census data.
Denmark also imposes strict age and benefit-history requirements on spouses, as well as clean criminal records—a high bar that Labour is unlikely to replicate.
Rising Costs and Welfare Pressures
The financial burden of asylum accommodation in the UK is staggering: £15.3 billion over the past ten years. At the same time, 1.2 million foreign-born residents claim Universal Credit, costing taxpayers £7.5 billion annually.
Migrants from countries like Congo, Iraq, and Afghanistan are four times more likely than UK nationals to claim benefits.
High-profile crimes involving asylum seekers, such as the case of Iranian Amin Abedi Mofrad, have only heightened public concern.
Labour’s Political Constraints
Even if Mahmood wanted to implement hardline Danish policies, political reality is a barrier.
Labour backbenchers have already expressed horror at the idea, calling Denmark’s policies “undeniably racist.”
Starmer has a history of retreating when faced with rebellion on taxes or welfare, so the likelihood of bold enforcement is low.
Denmark’s Own Limitations
Denmark’s record is not flawless. Many asylum seekers are redirected to other European countries, and challenges under the ECHR still arise.
Refugees sometimes remain in limbo, unable to work, rent, or send children to school, yet continue to be supported by Danish taxpayers.
Even deportations of criminal migrants are blocked if family life is at stake, mirroring the challenges the UK faces under human rights law.
Why ‘Danish Lite’ May Fail
Labour’s version of Danish policy is unlikely to achieve the dramatic reductions seen in Copenhagen.
Critics argue it will resemble previous headline-grabbing but ineffective schemes, such as the “One In, One Out” deal with France.
Without tougher measures—including, some argue, withdrawing from the ECHR and reforming the Human Rights Act—Britain’s migration challenges will remain largely unaddressed.
A Hard Reality
Mahmood and Starmer may hope for a quick fix, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
Denmark’s approach is highly controlled, legally complex, and politically controversial even at home.
Attempting a watered-down version in the UK, without the political will to enforce it, risks being little more than a talking point rather than a solution.
Share on Facebook «||» Share on Twitter «||» Share on Reddit «||» Share on LinkedIn