As Labour considers Denmark’s strict immigration policies that curb asylum claims and promote integration, internal divisions threaten to reshape the party’s approach amid rising small boat crossings and political pressure.
The Labour Party finds itself embroiled in internal conflict as it contemplates whether to adopt Denmark’s stringent immigration policies, with Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood reportedly studying the Scandinavian model that has driven asylum claims in Denmark to a 40-year low. Officials have even been sent to Copenhagen to understand how the centre-left Social Democrats, led by Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, have dramatically curbed asylum applications while maintaining broad political support. However, this initiative has sparked fierce opposition within the party, particularly from the left wing, which accuses Mahmood of embracing “far right” policies incompatible with Labour’s values.
Nadia Whittome, an outspoken member of Labour’s Socialist Campaign Group, condemned the Danish approach as “undeniably racist,” cautioning against policies that tie welfare and residency strictly to conditions such as language proficiency, employment, and cultural integration. Others within Labour, like MP Gareth Snell, advocate for exploring “best practice” from like-minded parties globally, signalling a divide in the party over how to respond to Britain’s escalating migration challenges. This turmoil is set against the backdrop of rising small boat crossings to the UK, which reached more than 36,954 so far this year, a figure dwarfing Denmark’s asylum total of 2,333 in 2023.
Denmark’s approach is built on several controversial but effective measures. Asylum is granted only temporarily, strictly for the duration of conflict in a person’s home country, with permanent residency requiring up to eight years of steady employment. Rejected asylum seekers are sent to deportation centres with limited benefits and must even contribute possessions such as jewellery to offset their upkeep costs. Additionally, Danish law bans burkas and enforces strict language and cultural integration rules, with failure resulting in loss of benefits and residency rights. Family reunification is heavily restricted, with rigorous financial and language criteria, a policy that critics argue could breach protections under the UK Equality Act if adopted.
The Danish system also employs a comprehensive transparency strategy, publishing crime statistics by nationality to inform public debate and build support for tough policies. Meanwhile, extreme far-right parties have diminished in influence, with mainstream Social Democrats dominating Danish politics by taking ownership of immigration concerns.
In contrast, the UK has struggled with an unsteady immigration policy. Keir Starmer’s government recently abandoned the controversial Rwanda deportation plan, introduced by the previous Conservative administration and struck down by the Supreme Court as unlawful and ineffective. Instead, Starmer has promised a broad overhaul of the asylum system focusing on faster processing, reducing backlogs, and enhancing border security through new structures such as a Border Security Command and “mission delivery boards.” He emphasises a rules-based system that balances effective immigration controls with humanitarian values, aiming to restore public trust without resorting to costly and unpopular measures like expensive hotel accommodations for asylum seekers.
The UK plans to phase out policies such as the “golden ticket,” which allowed asylum seekers to settle upon arrival without immediate conditionality, aligning more closely with Denmark’s philosophy that settlement must be earned through contributions to society. Collaborative efforts with European nations on controlling illegal migration and offshore processing arrangements are also part of the strategy, although past negotiations for such deals, such as with Albania, have collapsed quickly.
While Denmark’s model has garnered praise as a humane yet tough system that prevents exploitation and encourages integration, it would require Labour in the UK to confront significant internal opposition and political risk. The party’s credibility with voters on immigration, and its broader electoral prospects, may depend on whether it can reconcile these competing pressures and muster the political will to pursue a tough but compassionate approach akin to that of Denmark’s centre-left government.
📌 Reference Map:
- [1] (Daily Mail) – Paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
- [2] (Al Jazeera) – Paragraph 5, 6
- [3] (Irish Times) – Paragraphs 2, 9
- [4] (Reuters) – Paragraph 6
- [5] (Anadolu Agency) – Paragraph 6
- [6] (Upday) – Paragraph 6
- [7] (Irish Times) – Paragraph 2
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
7
Notes:
The narrative appears to be original, with no exact matches found in recent publications. However, similar discussions about Denmark’s immigration policies have been reported in the past, such as in May 2024. ([lemonde.fr](https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/05/07/immigration-denmark-again-contemplates-outsourcing-asylum-procedures-to-third-countries_6670681_4.html?utm_source=openai)) The report includes updated data on small boat crossings, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. ([en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security_Command?utm_source=openai)) The article includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. ([en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security_Command?utm_source=openai))
Quotes check
Score:
8
Notes:
The quotes attributed to Nadia Whittome and Gareth Snell do not appear in earlier material, suggesting they are original or exclusive. No identical quotes were found in previous publications.
Source reliability
Score:
4
Notes:
The narrative originates from the Daily Mail, a publication known for sensationalist reporting. This raises concerns about the reliability of the information presented. The report includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. ([en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security_Command?utm_source=openai))
Plausability check
Score:
6
Notes:
The claims about the Labour Party considering Denmark’s immigration policies align with known political discussions and recent developments. However, the lack of supporting detail from other reputable outlets and the sensationalist tone of the Daily Mail raise questions about the narrative’s credibility. The report includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. ([en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security_Command?utm_source=openai))
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): FAIL
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The narrative presents a plausible scenario but originates from a source with a history of sensationalism, raising concerns about its reliability. The inclusion of updated data alongside recycled material may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. The lack of supporting detail from other reputable outlets further diminishes the narrative’s credibility.
