The United Kingdom is poised to introduce sweeping changes to its immigration policies, with Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood expected to unveil plans next week aimed at making the country a less attractive destination for migrants. These reforms, which are significantly modelled on the Danish system, seek to deter individuals from coming to the UK and streamline the process of deporting those who do. Officials from the Home Office were dispatched to Denmark last month to study its stringent border control and asylum policies, informing what have been described as "the most sweeping reforms to tackle illegal migration in modern times."

A key aspect of Mahmood's anticipated announcement to Members of Parliament on Monday involves amendments to human rights legislation. These changes would mandate judges to prioritize public safety over migrants’ rights to a family life or the risk of "inhuman" treatment if returned to their country of origin, as reported by The Telegraph. This legislative shift underscores the government's commitment to a tougher stance on immigration and border security.

Ahead of next week's formal announcement, the Home Office disclosed that 48,560 people had been removed or deported from the UK since the Labour government came to power. This figure represents a 23% increase in removals compared to the 16 months preceding last year's election and includes refused asylum seekers, foreign criminals, and others without the legal right to reside in the UK. Mahmood stated, "Nearly 50,000 illegal migrants have been removed or deported since the election. We’ve ramped up enforcement, deported foreign criminals from our streets, and saved taxpayers millions. I pledge today to scale up the removal and deportations of illegal migrants and do whatever it takes to secure our borders."

Despite these intensified efforts, the government continues to grapple with the persistent challenge of small boat crossings across the Channel. While approximately 100 people have been returned to France under a "one in, one out" deal, these crossings remain a significant political headache. Analysis of Home Office figures by PA news agency indicates that 39,075 people have made the journey this year, a 19% increase on the same period in 2024 and 43% up from 2023, though still 5% lower than the peak year of 2022. The system's efficacy was further tested when a second man, previously returned to France under the deal, re-entered the UK by small boat, though the Home Office emphasized his immediate detection and detention as proof of the system's functionality.

The UK's ambition to emulate Denmark’s hardline asylum model stems from the perceived effectiveness of its policies, particularly the impermanence of refugees' status. Ten years ago, in response to a surge in arrivals from conflict zones, Denmark drastically altered its rules. Refugees, who previously received initial permits for five to seven years with an automatic path to permanence, now receive temporary residence permits for only one to two years, with no guarantee of a permanent visa. To achieve permanent status, refugees must demonstrate fluency in Danish and have held a full-time job for several years. Michala Clante Bendixen of Refugees Welcome Denmark described this as creating a "feeling of being here as a visitor on a temporary basis," where one's future is uncertain, and even a minor infraction like a speeding ticket can delay permanent residency.

These stringent measures have had a notable impact on asylum applications in Denmark. From 14,792 asylum seekers in 2014, the number dropped to 2,099 in 2021 and 2,333 in 2024. Last year, only 1% of nearly 100,000 residence permits granted went to refugees, excluding those from Ukraine who are categorized separately. This reduction has been attributed to Denmark’s "negative nation branding," a deliberate policy of deterrence to discourage asylum seekers.

The political landscape in Denmark has also seen a significant shift, with Social Democratic prime minister Mette Frederiksen coming to power in 2019 with a stated aim to cut the number of asylum seekers to zero. Her predecessor, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, laid the groundwork with the 2015 temporary permit changes and the 2019 "paradigm shift," which prioritized repatriation over integration. This uncompromising approach has allowed Frederiksen to capitalize on anti-migration sentiment, despite criticism from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and human rights organizations regarding its asylum practices and integration policies.

One of Denmark's most controversial integration policies is the so-called "ghetto law," now rebranded as the "parallel societies" law. This legislation permits the state to demolish apartment blocks in areas where at least half of the residents have a "non-western" background. In February, an adviser to the EU’s top court found that this law constitutes direct discrimination based on ethnic origin. Domestically, the debate has become increasingly extreme, with the far-right Danish People’s party advocating for "remigration," or the mass deportation of people with immigrant backgrounds.

Critics argue that Denmark's hardline policies come at a cost to its reputation and internal values, suggesting that populist right-wing ideas have eroded core Danish ideals. Rune Lykkeberg, editor-in-chief of Information newspaper, noted the adoption of "extremism in the centre" and a weakening of a strong position to legitimize human rights. Eva Singer of the Danish Refugee Council believes politicians, rather than the public, are driving anti-immigrant sentiment. Furthermore, the contradictory nature of these policies creates frustration for municipalities tasked with both integrating refugees and reminding them of their temporary status, which Bendixen labels "poison for integration."

Meanwhile, the UK is also facing internal opposition to some of its proposed immigration measures. Hundreds of charities, including the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) and the Charity Retail Association, have announced their refusal to cooperate with government plans to mandate volunteering for refugees as a condition for settlement. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood had outlined this as part of a "contribution-based settlement model," alongside requirements for high English proficiency, a spotless criminal record, and self-sufficiency from social security benefits.

The charities, representing over 320 voluntary organizations, argue that compulsory volunteering would be exploitative, bureaucratic, and fundamentally undermine the principle of free will in volunteering. Their letter to the Home Secretary states, "We will not work with coerced volunteers. We will not report to the Home Office on the time people give freely... We will not allow our volunteers’ valuable work to be used against other migrants and racialised people who are not able to volunteer." They also expressed concerns about the administrative burden on charities and the potential harm to traumatized survivors of war or trafficking. Louise Calvey of Asylum Matters called the proposal "nonsensical," while Sarah Wilson of PERN emphasized that volunteering should not be "weaponised to prove 'contribution' to the UK."

Looking at the broader European context, Martin Lidegaard, leader of Denmark’s Social Liberal party and former foreign minister, highlights a growing dilemma: aging populations and declining fertility rates across Europe, including the UK, necessitate immigration to address labor shortages. He notes the challenge of balancing economic needs with rising anti-immigrant sentiment driven by populist right-wing parties. While some elements of Denmark's integration policies, such as aiding access to education and work, are commendable, Lidegaard admits "other parts of our politics I am not so proud of." This suggests that while the UK seeks to learn from Denmark's strictness, the full implications and controversies of such an approach remain a complex global issue.