Denmark offers lessons as Europe toughens up on immigration

People cast their vote at Gentofte Town Hall, north of Copenhagen, Denmark, Nov. 18, 2025. Local issues like parking and housing costs were at play, as was migration policy. (Charlotte de la Fuente/The New York Times)

By JEANNA SMIALEK and AMELIA NIERENBERG

Britain’s government is joining the rest of Europe in taking a stricter stance on asylum, turning to the country that has become something of a migration role model: Denmark.

Right-wing parties across Europe have sought for years to limit migration, often arguing that too many migrants could overwhelm public services and fracture social cohesion. Denmark stands out, though, because here it was a center-left government that doubled down on strict rules. Asylum flows have steadily fallen, and the Danish Social Democrats have retained national power.

But as Keir Starmer’s Labour government in London takes notes, unveiling a plan this month that openly borrows elements of Denmark’s policy, the way the Danish approach has worked on the ground offers reasons to proceed carefully. The political gains that the approach seemed to offer now show some signs of cracking, and policies meant to limit the entry of asylum-seekers may come at a social cost.

Lars Lokke Rasmussen, the moderate politician who was prime minister when Denmark adopted many of its strictest policies, said immigration policy was about both limiting big flows of potential refugees and welcoming needed foreigners.

“They should just recall that we need this balanced approach,” said Rasmussen, who is now the Danish foreign minister. “It’s not black and white. It’s a colorful world, and it comes with a lot of nuances.”

‘Unwelcoming Country’

Over the years, but especially since the Syrian refugee crisis of 2015 sent a flood of newcomers into Europe, the Danish government has enacted policies to make life challenging for asylum-seekers, trying to discourage them from coming.

Danish officials say the country wants to slow the flow of new asylum-seekers so it can adjudicate their cases carefully, and thoroughly integrate the people whom it does accept, even as it still takes a large number of documented migrants. The point, they say, is to avoid pressures that rapid migration has put on other societies, including homelessness, while maintaining public support in a society with high taxes and generous welfare policies.

Copenhagen pioneered a number of policies that Britain hopes to emulate. Some were largely symbolic, like threatening to confiscate the jewelry and valuables of would-be refugees to pay for their expenses. It also has made the process to gain permanent residence longer and subject to review. And it houses would-be refugees in conditions that it hopes discourages them from remaining.

That’s the case at Avnstrup return center, a former sanitarium filled with sparse, dormitory-like rooms in the countryside about an hour outside of Copenhagen. The Danish government sends some asylum-seekers there, including people who are waiting on decisions and others who have been rejected but who cannot be returned to their home countries.

Some human rights experts argue that even as governments make asylum processes more difficult, people in danger will still seek refuge, but they will be caught in worse conditions.

It is a “race to the bottom,” said Michala Clante Bendixen, who runs the refugee advisory group Refugees Welcome Denmark, which creates a “constant atmosphere of stress and insecurity.”

And migration researchers say the policies could have a long-run social cost, making even legal migrants and their descendants feel unwanted in Danish society.

“We’ve really branded ourselves as a more unwelcoming country,” said Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, a professor of migration law at the University of Copenhagen.

‘Open and Closed at the Same Time’

Denmark is not alone in restricting asylum. The Biden administration progressively tightened American rules over its time in office and in some cases went further, turning away potential asylum-seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. And countries across Europe are becoming steadily stricter about who enters and stays.

But Denmark’s tough stance on asylum came early. Its policies began to tighten notably after 2015 and continued after 2019, when Mette Frederiksen, the prime minister, came into office. At the time, the policies made her Social Democrats an outlier on the left.

Rasmussen, the prime minister who oversaw the early shift toward a stricter approach, pointed out that Denmark still welcomes many legal migrants. But, he added, with its high taxes and generous welfare state, it also needed to limit asylum flows.

“If we can’t solve that dilemma, being open and closed at the same time, then we will lose our people’s support,” he said.

The Danish approach seemed to work. Denmark has not experienced some of the acute migration-related strains of nearby nations like Germany, Sweden and Belgium. In 2015, about 21,000 people sought asylum in Denmark, with the largest numbers coming from Syria and Eritrea. That figure fell to just over 2,000 last year, based on Eurostat data.

Asylum numbers have dropped across Europe, making it hard to say exactly how much of it owes to Danish policy. Still, today Denmark ranks toward the bottom of the pack in applications among the European Union’s 27 nations.

The approach also seemed to pay political dividends. As far-right European parties rose in response to concerns about migration, Frederiksen retained power.

Political Warning Sign

Yet last week’s municipal elections raised questions about whether that boost from migration policy will continue next year, when Social Democrats face a national election. Frederiksen’s party performed badly, losing control of Copenhagen for the first time in more than 100 years as voters shifted further to the left.

While local issues like parking and housing costs were at play, the way the government talks about migration was also on the minds of some voters.

Denmark has also faced legal pushback for its policies. A so-called ghetto law allowed the government to cut public housing in struggling neighborhoods where more than half of residents come from “non-Western” backgrounds. Earlier this year, a senior adviser at the European Union’s top court found that to be ethnic discrimination.

Even Rasmussen, who helped forge the policies, suggested that not all worked well. The jewelry confiscation law enacted while he was prime minister, for instance, was widely criticized in the global press, painting Denmark as hostile to migrants, and it was rarely used.

“It sent a problematic signal,” Rasmussen said.

He said the goal should be to remain open to legal newcomers who can help the aging population and fuel economic growth, and to migrants who truly need asylum.