News
November 22, 2025
How Denmark’s migrant crackdown has booted 95% of rejected asylum seekers – from ‘Ghetto Law’ to strict return centres
FOND of touring Britain by campervan, Danish government minister Kaare Dybvad offers a simple solution to help end our asylum chaos. “People who come to the UK illegally should be made to return to their country of origin,” he tells me. “It’s so important that you implement this.” Liberal Denmark — known for its generous...
Denmark's increasingly stringent approach to immigration has resulted in a dramatic reduction in the number of rejected asylum seekers remaining in the country. A staggering 95% of those whose asylum claims are denied are now being removed, a figure that highlights the effectiveness, and some would argue, the severity of the nation's evolving immigration policies.
The shift is largely attributed to a series of measures implemented by the Danish government, including the controversial "Ghetto Law," which aimed to integrate marginalized communities but faced criticism for its potential to discriminate against residents based on their ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Coupled with this, Denmark has invested heavily in establishing strict return centres designed to facilitate the swift deportation of rejected asylum seekers.
Kaare Dybvad, a Danish government minister, recently emphasized the importance of enforcing returns. During a tour of Britain, he offered his perspective on managing asylum claims, stating that individuals entering the UK illegally "should be made to return to their country of origin." He asserted that implementing such a policy is crucial for maintaining control over immigration flows, a sentiment echoed by many within the Danish government.
While Denmark was once known for its relatively liberal approach to asylum, offering refuge to those fleeing persecution, the current political climate has fostered a much stricter stance. This shift is driven by concerns about integration, the strain on social services, and the perceived threat to national identity. The government argues that a firm approach is necessary to deter unfounded asylum claims and ensure that resources are allocated to those genuinely in need of protection.
However, the Danish approach has drawn criticism from human rights organizations and refugee advocates. Concerns have been raised about the potential for vulnerable individuals to be returned to dangerous situations in their home countries. Critics also argue that the "Ghetto Law" and the conditions within the return centres raise ethical questions about the treatment of asylum seekers and the integration of minority communities. The debate surrounding Denmark's immigration policies continues, highlighting the complex challenges of balancing national security concerns with humanitarian obligations.
The shift is largely attributed to a series of measures implemented by the Danish government, including the controversial "Ghetto Law," which aimed to integrate marginalized communities but faced criticism for its potential to discriminate against residents based on their ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Coupled with this, Denmark has invested heavily in establishing strict return centres designed to facilitate the swift deportation of rejected asylum seekers.
Kaare Dybvad, a Danish government minister, recently emphasized the importance of enforcing returns. During a tour of Britain, he offered his perspective on managing asylum claims, stating that individuals entering the UK illegally "should be made to return to their country of origin." He asserted that implementing such a policy is crucial for maintaining control over immigration flows, a sentiment echoed by many within the Danish government.
While Denmark was once known for its relatively liberal approach to asylum, offering refuge to those fleeing persecution, the current political climate has fostered a much stricter stance. This shift is driven by concerns about integration, the strain on social services, and the perceived threat to national identity. The government argues that a firm approach is necessary to deter unfounded asylum claims and ensure that resources are allocated to those genuinely in need of protection.
However, the Danish approach has drawn criticism from human rights organizations and refugee advocates. Concerns have been raised about the potential for vulnerable individuals to be returned to dangerous situations in their home countries. Critics also argue that the "Ghetto Law" and the conditions within the return centres raise ethical questions about the treatment of asylum seekers and the integration of minority communities. The debate surrounding Denmark's immigration policies continues, highlighting the complex challenges of balancing national security concerns with humanitarian obligations.
Category:
Politics