By Francesca Comelli
In recent years, the issue of asylum and immigration policies within the entire European Union have become hot-button issues, sparking intense debate across member states. While several member states strive to collaborate on a unified migration policy, Denmark has notably charted its own course, distancing itself from the EU’s collective approach. The Danish government’s bold move has fuelled both domestic and international controversy, provoking fear, and uncertainty about the country’s direction. This decision places Denmark at odds with its European partners and raises serious questions about the nation’s commitment to human rights, international obligations, and the future of Eu solidarity. As the debate heats up, all eyes are on Denmark to see how this unfolding drama will impact the wider European landscape.
Denmark’s new approach
Denmark, a small Nordic country whose culture is based on homogeneity and social trust, has traditionally maintained a robust universal welfare system that provides benefits like healthcare, education, and employment. Yet, the Danish’s integration approach prioritises individual inclusion and promotes the diffusion of Danish customs rather than minority recognition, leading some apprehension about the integration process.
Since 2019, Denmark has dramatically shifted its asylum policy, focusing on temporary protection rather than permanent resettlement. Right-wing Danish parties have favoured this new approach to deter new refugees from settling in Danish soil and, for those few who do arrive, facilitate their return to their country of origin once conditions have stabilised or improved. According to Eurostat’s statistics, to demonstrate the implementation of this approach, in 2023 the third country nationals, who live in the country, represented only 6% of Denmark’s population, while EU citizens comprised a mere 4%. These data are one of the lowest comparing the other Nordic countries which have a higher percentage of foreigners.
A pivotal development signalling Denmark’s shift in immigration policy is the “no immigrants in Denmark” new law proposed by the Social Democratic Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, and passed by the Danish Parliament on June 3rd, 2021, with 70 votes in favour and 24 against. This law allows asylum requests to be outsourced to third countries. In practice, asylum seekers will be hosted by a third safe country, which will handle the entire application process. If the application is rejected, the asylum seeker must immediately leave the third country. If approved, the individual cannot enter Danish territory, but may remain in the country where the process occurred. It seems that the Danish government’s aim is to delegate to other countries “not only the management of the flows, but also the burden of reception”. A law that immediately appears controversial and illegitimate according to the core values of the EU. However, Rwanda, the first country which embraced the Denmark initiative, agreed to host asylum seekers in exchange for £120 million to cover the costs. It seems more like a matter of convenience on the part of the Nordic country rather than a matter of international solidarity. Indeed, the African country is one of the main countries of origin for asylum seekers in Denmark. If refugees’ applications will be approved, anyway, they will have to stay in Rwanda without the possibility to achieve a better life in Denmark.
This controversial decision to outsource asylum requests to third countries raises significant ethical and practical concerns, other than criticism by other countries and the EU institution. Somewhat surprisingly, this provision comes just a few months after Copenhagen’s decision to designate Syrian as a third safe country, allowing the state to repatriate Syrian refugees to their home considered as “safe home”. It is crucial to underline that Syria is the primary country of origin for asylum seekers in Denmark, followed by Rwanda and Afghanistan. Therefore, the significant impact on these people who escape from conflict regions is becoming increasingly critical every day. The situation raises questions about the actual protection offered to refugees and the law’s compliance with international human rights principles. Turning our backs on these people can never be the solution and the problem will remain.
The clash with EU norms and the implications for refugee protections
The dire situation has brought Denmark’s case under the spotlight of European institutions. According to the UN high Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, the Danish law must be seen as contrary “to the principles of international cooperation in refugee matters”, warning other countries in Europe which may seek to limit refugee protections on their soil. The European Commission similarly asserts that Denmark’s law is “incompatible with the current EU rules and with the proposal for the new Migration Pact”, which is grounded in the fundamental right to seek asylum. As Denmark veers from established international norms and agreements, it faces the risk of isolation or criticism, fostering internal tension within the European Union. The Danish approach echoes a wider trend of resurging nationalism, as member states tend to prioritise national security over their humanitarian obligation.
This situation goes beyond diplomatic concerns, with profound implications for human experience, causing social and psychological damages to these people. From the Danish government’s point of view, these policies try to prioritise social cohesion, national security, and the establishment of more manageable and controlled environments for processing asylum requests. However, reality tells a different story. Despite the Danish government’s stated intentions, the country’s policies have faced criticism both domestically and internationally for their evident potential negative impact on refugee rights and international obligations.
A call for EU solidarity and Humanitarian balance
Denmark has set a concerning precedent that could undermine the fundamental values of the Union itself. By shifting the responsibility of migrants to other countries, it may compromise the integrity, solidarity, and effectiveness of the EU’s asylum framework and diminish its standing on the global stage. While national security and social cohesion are valid priorities, the apparent disregard for human rights and international obligations cannot be ignored. It is imperative for the EU and its member states to establish a constructive dialogue and find adequate solutions that uphold asylum seekers’ rights while compensating legitimate concerns about national security. As a European community, we must find a balance between safeguarding national interest and honouring our commitments to those seeking refuge and a better life in our countries.