logo
Why Denmark's left (not the far right) got tough on immigration

Why Denmark's left (not the far right) got tough on immigration

BBC News2 days ago

Think, Denmark. Images of sleek, impossibly chic Copenhagen, the capital, might spring to mind. As well as a sense of a liberal, open society. That is the Scandinavian cliché.But when it comes to migration, Denmark has taken a dramatically different turn. The country is now "a pioneer in restrictive migration policies" in Europe, according to Marie Sandberg, Director of the Centre for Advanced Migration Studies (AMIS) at the University of Copenhagen - both when it comes to asylum-seekers and economic migrants looking to work in Denmark.Even more surprising, perhaps, is who is behind this drive. It's generally assumed 'far right' politicians are gaining in strength across Europe on the back of migration fears, but that's far from the full picture.In Denmark – and in Spain, which is tackling the issue in a very different but no less radical way by pushing for more, not less immigration - the politicians taking the migration bull by the horns, now come from the centre left of politics.How come? And can the rest of Europe - including the UK's Labour government - learn from them?
Unsettling times in Europe
Migration is a top voter priority, right across Europe. We live in really unsettling times. As war rages in Ukraine, Russia is waging hybrid warfare, such as cyber attacks across much of the continent. Governments talk about spending more on defence, while most European economies are spluttering. Voters worry about the cost of living and into this maelstrom of anxieties comes concern about migration.But in Denmark, the issue has run deeper, and for longer. Immigration began to grow apace following World War Two, increasing further – and rapidly - in recent decades. The proportion of Danish residents who are immigrants, or who have two immigrant parents, has increased more than fivefold since 1985, according to the Migration Policy Institute (MPI).A turning point was ten years ago, during the 2015 European migration and refugee crisis, when well over a million migrants came to Europe, mostly heading to the wealthier north, to countries like Denmark, Sweden and Germany.
Slogans like "Danskerne Først" (Danes First) resonated with the electorate. When I interviewed supporters of the hard-right nationalist, anti-immigration, Danish People's Party (DPP) that year they told me, "We don't see ourselves as racists but we do feel we are losing our country."Denmark came under glaring international attention for its hardline refugee stance, after it allowed the authorities to confiscate asylum seekers' jewellery and other valuables, saying this was to pay towards their stay in Denmark.The Danish immigration minister put up a photo of herself on Facebook having a cake decorated with the number 50 and a Danish flag to celebrate passing her 50th amendment to tighten immigration controls.And Danish law has only tightened further since then.
Plans to detain migrants on an island
Mayors from towns outside Copenhagen had long been sounding the alarm about the effects of the speedy influx of migrants.Migrant workers and their families had tended to move just outside the capital, to avoid high living costs. Denmark's famous welfare system was perceived to be under strain. Infant schools were said to be full of children who didn't speak Danish. Some unemployed migrants reportedly received resettlement payments that made their welfare benefits larger than those of unemployed Danes, and government statistics suggested immigrants were committing more crimes than others. Local resentment was growing, mayors warned.Today Denmark's has become one of the loudest voices in Europe calling for asylum seekers and other migrants turning up without legal papers to be processed outside the continent.The country had first looked at detaining migrants without papers on a Danish island that used to house a centre for contagious animals. That plan was shelved.Then Copenhagen passed a law in 2021 allowing asylum claims to be processed and refugees to be resettled in partner countries, like Rwanda. The UK's former Conservative government attempted a not dissimilar plan that was later annulled.Copenhagen's Kigali plan hasn't progressed much either but it's tightened rules on family reunions, which not long ago, was seen as a refugee's right. It has also made all refugees' stay in Denmark temporary by law, whatever their need for protection.But many of Denmark's harsh measures seemed targeted as much at making headlines, as taking action. The Danish authorities intentionally created a "hostile environment" for migrants", says Alberto Horst Neidhardt, senior analyst at the European Policy Centre. And Denmark has been keen for the word to spread.
It put advertisements in Lebanese newspapers at the height of the migrant crisis, for example, warning how tough Danish migration policies were. "The goal has been to reduce all incentives to come to Denmark," says ⁠Susi Dennison, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations."The Danes have gone further than most European governments," she explains. Not just honing in on politically sensitive issues like crime and access to benefits but with explicit talk about a zero asylum seekers policy.And yet "before the 2015 refugee crisis, there was a stereotype of Nordic countries being very internationalist… and having a welcoming culture for asylum seekers," says Ms Dennison. Then suddenly the reaction was, "No. Our first goal is to provide responsibly for Danish people."The turning-point was, she argues, also triggered by Denmark's neighbour, Germany, allowing a million refugees and others to stay in the country, during the migrant crisis."That was a political choice that had repercussions across Europe."
Where Denmark's left came in
By 2015 the anti-migration Danish People's Party was the second biggest power in Denmark's parliament. But at the same time, the Social Democrats - under new leader Mette Frederiksen – decided to fight back, making a clear, public break with the party's past reputation of openness to migration."My party should have listened," Frederiksen said.Under her leadership, the party tacked towards what's generally seen as the political "far right" in terms of migration and made hardline DPP-associated asylum policies, their own. But they also doubled down on issues more traditionally associated with the left: public services.Danes pay the highest tax rates in Europe across all household types. They expect top notch public services in return. Frederiksen argued that migration levels threatened social cohesion and social welfare, with the poorest Danes losing out the most.That is how her party justify their tough migration rules.
Frederiksen's critics see her 'rightwards swing' as a cynical ploy to get into, and then stay in, power. She insists her party's convictions are sincere. Whatever the case, it worked in winning votes.Federiksen has been Denmark's prime minister since 2019, and in last year's election to the European Parliament, the populist nationalist Danish People's Party scrambled to hold on to a single seat.
A blurring of left and right?
The political labels of old are blurring. It's not just Denmark. Across Europe, parties of the centre - right and left - are increasingly using language traditionally associated with the "far right" when it comes to migration to claw back, or hold on to votes.Sir Keir Starmer recently came under fire when, during a speech on immigration, he spoke of the danger of his country becoming 'an island of strangers'. At the same time in Europe, right-wing parties are adopting social policies traditionally linked to the left to broaden their appeal.
In the UK, the leader of the anti-migration, opposition Reform Party Nigel Farage has been under attack for generous shadow budget proposals that critics say don't add up.In France, centrist Emmanuel Macron has sounded increasingly hardline on immigration in recent years, while his political nemesis the National Rally Party leader Marine Le Pen has been heavily mixing social welfare policies into her nationalist agenda to attract more mainstream voters.
Avoiding 'hysterical rhetoric'
But can Danish - and in particular, Danish Social Democrat - tough immigration policies be deemed a success?The answer depends on which criteria you use to judge them.Asylum claim applications are certainly down in Denmark, in stark contrast to much of the rest of Europe. The number, as of May 2025, is the lowest in 40 years, according to immigration.dk, an online information site for refugees in Denmark.But Nordic Denmark is certainly not what's seen as a frontline state - like Italy - where people smugglers' boats frequently wash up along its shores."Frederiksen is in a favourable geographical position," argues Europe professor, Timothy Garton Ash, from Oxford University. But he also praises Denmark's prime minister for addressing the problem of migration, without adopting "hysterical rhetoric".
But others say new legislation has damaged Denmark's reputation for respecting international humanitarian law and the rights of asylum-seekers. Michelle Pace of Chatham House says it has become hard to protect refugees in Denmark, where "the legal goalposts keep moving."Danish citizens with a migrant background have also been made to feel like outsiders, she notes.She cites the Social Democrats' "parallel societies" law, which allows the state to sell off or demolish apartment blocks in troubled areas where at least half of residents have a "non-Western" background.The Social Democrats say the law is aimed at improving integration but Ms Pace insists it is alienating. The children of immigrants are told they aren't Danish or a "pure Dane," she argues.In February this year, a senior advisor to the EU's top court described the non-Western provision of the Danish law as discriminatory on the basis of ethnic origin.
Whereas once a number of European leaders dismissed Denmark's Social Democrats as becoming far right, now "the Danish position has become the new normal - it was the head of the curve," says Alberto Horst Neidhardt."What's considered 'good' migration policies these days has moved to the right, even for centre left governments, like the UK."Before Germany's general election this year, then centre-left Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, pledged to tighten asylum regulations, including reducing family reunification.And earlier this month, Frederiksen teamed up with eight other European leaders - not including the UK - to call for a reinterpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, whose tight constraints, they claim, prevent them from expelling foreign nationals with criminal records.Contesting international laws on asylum is a trend Denmark is establishing at a more European level, says Sarah Wolff, Professor of International Studies and Global Politics at Leiden University."With the topic of migration now politicised, you increasingly see supposedly liberal countries that are signatories to international conventions, like human rights law, coming back on those conventions because the legislation no longer fits the political agenda of the moment," says Ms Wolff.Despite the restrictive migrant legislation, Denmark has continued to admit migrant workers through legal channels. But not enough, considering the rapidly aging population, say critics like Michelle Pace. She predicts Denmark will face a serious labour shortage in the future.
The other extreme: Spain's model
Spain's centre-left government, meanwhile, is taking a very different road. Its Social Democrat prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, loves pointing out the Spanish economy was the fastest growing amongst rich nations last year. Its 3.2% GDP growth was higher than America's, three times the UK's and four times the EU average.Sanchez wants to legalise nearly a million migrants, already working in Spain but currently without legal papers. That extra tax revenue plus the much-needed extra workers to plug gaps in the labour market will maintain economic growth and ensure future pension payments are covered, he says.Spain has one of the lowest birth rates in the EU. Spanish society is getting old, fast."Almost half of our towns are at risk of depopulation," he said in autumn 2024. "We have elderly people who need a caregiver, companies looking for programmers, technicians and bricklayers... The key to migration is in managing it well."Critics accuse Sanchez of encouraging illegal migration to Spain, and question the country's record of integrating migrants. Opinion polls show that Sanchez is taking a gamble: 57% of Spaniards say there are already too many migrants in the country, according to public pollster 40dB.In less than 30 years, the number of foreign-born inhabitants in Spain has jumped almost nine fold from 1.6% to 14% of the population. But so far, migration concerns haven't translated into widespread support for the immigration sceptic nationalist Vox party.The Sanchez government is setting up what Ms Pace calls a "national dialogue", involving NGOs and private business. The aim is to balance plugging labour market gaps with avoiding strains on public services, by using extra tax revenue from new migrant workers, to build housing and extra classrooms, for example.Right now the plan is aspirational. It's too early to judge, if successful, or not.
So, who's got it right?
"Successful" migration policy depends on what governments, regardless of their political stripe, set as their priority, says Ms Dennison.In Denmark, the first priority is preserving the Danish social system. Italy prioritises offshoring the processing of migrants. While Hungary's prime minister Victor Orban wants strict migrant limits to protect Europe's "Christian roots", he claims.Overstaying visas is thought to be the most common way migrants enter and stay in Europe without legal papers.But recent UK governments have focused on high profile issues like people smugglers' boats crossing the Channel.Ms Dennison thinks that's a tactical move. It's taking aim at visible challenges, to "neutralise public anger" she says, in the hope most voters will then support offering asylum to those who need it, and allow some foreign workers into the UK.
It would be hard for Starmer to pursue the Denmark approach, she adds. After taking over from previous Conservative governments, he made a point of recommitting the UK to international institutions and international law.So, does the 'ideal' migration plan exist, that balances voter concerns, economic needs and humanitarian values?Martin Ruhs, deputy director of the Migration Policy Centre, spends a lot of time asking this question to voters across the UK and the rest of Europe, and thinks the public is often more sophisticated than their politicians. Most prefer a balance, he says: migration limits to protect themselves and their families, but once they feel that's in place, they also favour fair legislation to protect refugees and foreign workers.
Top picture credit: SOPA Images via Getty
BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

LGBT veterans will not lose other benefits after compensation
LGBT veterans will not lose other benefits after compensation

BBC News

time31 minutes ago

  • BBC News

LGBT veterans will not lose other benefits after compensation

Veterans due to receive payments from the LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme will not lose out on other benefits after a change to Scottish government has confirmed that 1,200 armed forces members who suffered under the ban on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) personnel have now applied to the UK government's payment ban was in place within the UK military from 1967 to 2000 and, after years of campaigning, the UK government announced the payments last December. Up to £75m has been set aside to acknowledge hurt and discrimination, with affected veterans able to receive awards of up to £70,000 each. Some veterans currently receive financial help, on a means-tested basis, through the council tax reduction scheme. But Finance Secretary Shona Robison said regulations would be now changed to ensure any compensation payments do not affect eligibility for Robison said: "As we mark 25 years since the lifting of the ban on LGBT people serving in the armed forces, it is important to recognise the hardship that so many faced, with widespread homophobic bullying and harassment."Nothing will make up for the difficulties that LGBT veterans faced, however, our action will ensure those in Scotland receive every penny that they are entitled to."Under the UK government scheme, those who were dismissed or discharged from the armed forces because of their sexual orientation or gender identity could receive £50, service personnel who suffered harassment, intrusive investigations or even imprisonment could receive further payments of up to £20,000. Peter Gibson, chief executive of Fighting with Pride, said the group had "campaigned for justice for LGBTQ+ veterans for many years, helping to secure reparations and financial recognition of their horrendous treatment prior to 2000".He added: "As we slowly see the UK government deal with those financial payments, protected from benefit and taxation impact, it is wonderful to see the Scottish government taking action to ensure other benefits such as council tax benefit is also protected too."We continue to seek out veterans who were discharged or dismissed from the military to support them, and this news is one more step towards helping those in Scotland."

Who cares that Britain is on course to be ‘minority white'?
Who cares that Britain is on course to be ‘minority white'?

The Independent

time35 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Who cares that Britain is on course to be ‘minority white'?

Language is a funny thing. This week, a new report appeared to warn that the white British population could be a minority in the UK within 40 years. And it has brought out the worst in some of us. An analysis of migration, birth and death rates by the University of Buckingham suggests the white British population is set to fall from its current 73 per cent, to 57 per cent by 2050, before becoming a minority by 2063. One newspaper's report explained, rather curiously, that white British is 'defined as people who do not have an immigrant parent'. Bad luck, then, all you non-white kids of an Irish, French or German parent. Unlucky, too, King Charles, Winston Churchill and Boris Johnson. By this metric, it seems that you no longer qualify as white British. Beyond this rank stupidity, there is of course something else going on here. This is less dog whistle than plain old whistle. Dodgy extrapolations posing as predictions. Few people are spared. We're informed, presumably with some regret, that there is going to be a rise in the number of foreign-born people and of second-generation immigrants, all of whom could well be British. Further on, Matthew Goodwin, the author of the report, shifts the goalposts one more time, asserting that by 'the end of the current century, most of the people on these islands will not be able to trace their roots in this country back more than one or two generations'. And then, of course, we have the equating of 'foreign-born and Muslim populations', implying, presumably, that if you're Muslim, you just don't cut it wherever you happen to have been born. If the problem that this country simply isn't white enough, someone may as well just come out and say it. Because it's clear the issue here isn't Britishness. There is a serious debate to be had not only about immigration, but also about integration. Happily, the country that most of us inhabit is somewhere where both ethnic and religious integration is a daily reality for millions of families, including my own. While I think we in the UK do rather better at this than many of our Western peers, there is still more that can and should be done. There is also a conversation worth having about what a manageable level of immigration might be, and whether immigration policy is fit for purpose. This, however, is not the way to have those conversations. Indeed, potentially inciting distrust and dislike between different communities is not how anyone sensible would go about, in the words of the report itself, 'informing, rather than polarising'. That is the only conclusion that I can draw from their sloppiness. If, after all, their aim really was to 'inform, rather than polarise', they might spend more time explaining that forecasts are not predictions. They might explain that there is good evidence that the total fertility rate among immigrants tends to fall over time. That the population projections Goodwin has used – calculations based on assumptions about fertility, mortality and migration – are already massively outdated, and become even less reliable the further forward one projects. But no, there is no such nuance to be found. Merely certainty that the findings are certain to spark a 'considerable degree of anxiety, concern and political opposition' from those who oppose immigration. And, let's think about this in a global context for a moment. The world is changing, its balance of power is shifting steadily eastwards. Demographically, and I'm sorry about this, it is becoming less, not more, white. Relatively small countries like the UK will have to work ever harder to compete and to attract talent in this new world order. Do we really think that bemoaning the insidious impact of non-white foreigners who cannot trace their ancestry back several generations is going to help us in this task? But what I do know is that I'm not only not white, but apparently not British, either.

Crystal Palace's European dream is at risk – it's time for football to wake up
Crystal Palace's European dream is at risk – it's time for football to wake up

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

Crystal Palace's European dream is at risk – it's time for football to wake up

Steve Parish 's face at Uefa this week probably said enough. He didn't need to repeat a view he has pressed on people in private - and now to Uefa executives in Nyon - that Crystal Palace are technically not part of a multi-club ownership. A very different interpretation may now cost his club a place in the Europa League, or perhaps European competition altogether. The challenge for the club this week has arguably been more complicated than beating Pep Guardiola's Manchester City in the FA Cup final. They have had to convince Uefa that John Textor does not have 'decisive influence' on the club. This is due to his 43 per cent stake in Palace, while he also holds 88 per cent of fellow Europa League qualifiers Lyon. That situation could fall foul of Uefa's rules that no one may be simultaneously involved in the management, administration or sporting performance of another club in the same competition. The rules evolved out of EU competition law, which is where the definition of 'decisive influence' is so important. In reality, as Textor himself insisted in Switzerland this week, everyone knows that is just not the level of control the US investor has. His 43 per cent equity only translates into 25 per cent of the votes, where it's basically known that co-owners Josh Harris and David Blitzer go with Parish, who has the casting ballot. Textor himself has publicly complained about this many times. That doesn't necessarily hold much weight, however, next to the legal documents that show his stake. It is quite a grim next chapter to one of the most romantic stories of the season, and yet the real tragedy is that this was one of modern football's inevitabilities. The sport is working against itself as a game, and a cultural value, due to its insistence on business. Palace fans themselves warned of this over a year ago, holding up a banner complaining about 'multi-club ownership', and directly criticising Textor. Parish, Blitzer and Harris might now regret leaving the situation unresolved for so long. This is still the kind of mess football was long headed for, because it is not governed properly, and has a lack of proactive regulation. Uefa's ongoing failure to deal with multi-club ownership is the most pressing illustration. And these situations are simply going to become increasingly more common. Current estimates suggest more than 400 clubs around the globe are involved in almost 150 multi-structures. Like state ownership, it was a problem that became embedded before football even realised it existed, let alone the need to address it. There is frustration even within Fifa about this specific issue, as detailed in this writers' book 'States of Play', with one source claiming 'everyone could see multi-clubs coming'. When some staff raised this, there was pushback. It really goes even deeper than that. Despite the club operating as the basic unit of football, due to its social importance, Fifa has never defined exactly what one is. That is one of many reasons that football has developed what is really an ownership problem, which has been discussed on these pages at length. A multi-faceted issue like multi-club ownership is a natural evolution from that. Football has long since been taken over by capitalist and political interests, so this was always going to the next level. The worst part is not just how the clubs are used. It is how their identities are subsumed. They are not just Strasbourg or Troyes anymore, after all, but Strasbourg and Troyes that serve bigger structures in Chelsea and City Football Group. And the model is almost always going to best serve the biggest club in those structures. Now, we reach the next stage of this, where a club's actual dreams might be denied. It should be a wake-up call for football, but will it be? A further problem is that multi-club ownership straddles so many of the game's major faultlines. Above anything, industry sources complain about the 'vagueness' of the enforcement of regulations around this. There's no legal framework in place. Some in football were already pointing to how 'this never happens to the big clubs'. Others have referenced how Parish worked with the Union of European Clubs, a body casting itself as a voice for those clubs not represented by the European Club Association. Paris Saint-Germain's Nasser Al-Khelaifi is, of course, the chair of the latter, who has been locked in a number of battles with Textor in France. It is ultimately galling that Palace may miss out because they didn't meet the March deadline to put the club in a blind trust, as Evangelos Marinakis did with Nottingham Forest to avoid a similar clash with his Olympiakos. On the other hand, Palace's oversight could just be cast as another consequence of the modern game. The wealthiest clubs almost always win, so why tempt fate - and potential schadenfreude - by opting for a blind trust as early as the FA Cup quarter-final? It would certainly have gone against the sense of romance and defiance. And while multiple lawyers and football officials might point to the absurdity of such a sentiment, it is surely all the more absurd that the situation even exists. There is still hope. Uefa might come down on Palace's side, given the pressure, given the sense of romance. Fans didn't want this. Only a certain type of investor wants it. Multi-club ownership goes against everything football should be, to the point it might somehow sour one of football's great modern stories. It's an almost fitting parable for the modern game.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store