Why Britain Is Studying Denmark’s Tough Asylum Model — and What’s at Stake

Denmark’s shift to a stricter asylum and migration regime has attracted attention across Europe — and now Britain is studying whether a similar approach could reduce irregular arrivals while blunting support for the far right. The Danish model combines temporary refugee status, tougher family-reunification rules, measures aimed at so-called "parallel societies," and limited seizure of assets to offset asylum costs. Proponents point to falling asylum claims and political stability; critics warn of damaged integration and social exclusion.

What Denmark changed

Beginning in the mid-2010s, Denmark tightened multiple aspects of its asylum system. Residence permits that once converted to permanent status after five years are now temporary (one to two years), with refugees required to wait eight years before applying for permanence and meet strict conditions such as Danish-language fluency and several years of full-time employment. Family reunification was tightened: both sponsor and relative generally must be at least 24, pass language tests, and meet income and benefit-related conditions.

Denmark also adopted policies targeting neighborhoods labelled as "parallel societies" — allowing authorities to refurbish, sell or demolish housing estates where a high share of residents are from non-Western backgrounds — and a rule allowing authorities to seize valuables over a fixed threshold to help cover asylum-related costs.

Arguments for and against

Supporters argue these measures reduced asylum applications to multi-decade lows. Official figures show substantial declines in asylum grants from around 6,000 in 2014 to fewer than 2,000 by 2019, and asylum-related residence permits now account for a very small share of overall permits issued. Analysts say Denmark has shifted toward a migration mix dominated by students and labor migrants, while maintaining popular support for mainstream parties.

"Attachment to the labour market, learning the language and understanding society are important for integration," said Michala Clante Bendixen of Refugees Welcome Denmark, while warning that removing the expectation of permanence can discourage newcomers and create hopelessness among those who struggle to meet high thresholds.

Human-rights advocates and some politicians warn the policies risk creating marginalised communities. Critics say long waits for permanent status, barriers to family reunification, demolition policies tied to ethnic composition, and asset-seizure rules undermine the sense of belonging necessary for successful integration, and may foster long-term social problems.

What Britain is proposing

Britain has proposed an even stricter timetable in some respects: extending the path to permanent settlement from five years to up to 20 years, reviewing refugee status periodically with the possibility of return if a claimant’s country of origin is judged safe, and enabling seizure of assets to offset accommodation costs. Supporters frame these steps as necessary to deter dangerous journeys and regain public confidence; opponents call them cruel and counterproductive to integration and economic contribution.

Politicians in Britain are divided. Some argue a tougher system can coexist with progressive values, while others — including MPs, civil-society organisations and historical refugees — say prolonged uncertainty and restricted rights will damage social cohesion and the economy.

Bottom line

Denmark’s policies demonstrate that stricter asylum rules can reduce claims and shift migration composition, but they also carry trade-offs in terms of integration, social cohesion and human-rights concerns. Whether other countries can replicate Denmark’s outcomes without similar social costs depends on policy design, implementation, and political context — and remains the subject of an intense domestic debate in Britain and across Europe.