ADVERTISEMENT
When it comes to migration, Denmark can barely hide its sense of vindication.
“What has been mainstream among our populations for quite many years is now mainstream for many of us politicians as well,” Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said earlier this month, speaking at the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
“Finally.”
Her minister for immigration, Kaare Dybvad, feels equally triumphant.
“I remember when I started in this post three years ago, the Austrian minister was the only one who supported these notions,” Dybvad told Euronews in an interview.
“Now it seems there are a lot more countries that have rallied around the notion that we should get democratic control of the migrant flows.”
For years, Denmark was considered the European Union’s black sheep of migration policy. In the aftermath of the 2015-2016 migration crisis, the country began adopting increasingly restrictive rules to deter arrivals and hinder access to legal safeguards, a decision powered by its opt-out clause from the EU asylum framework.
In 2019, Denmark approved a “paradigm shift” law that made temporary protection for refugees the new norm. The focus turned to self-sufficiency to stimulate integration in the labour market and reduce welfare dependency. Permanent residence was still available, but subject to strict criteria on full-time, long-lasting employment.
By limiting the duration of asylum, Danish authorities made it easier to check whether the grounds of protection were still applicable and, if not, whether deportation was feasible.
Denmark became the first European nation to declare parts of Syria as “safe”, alleging the situation on the ground had “improved significantly”. At that time, the designation, which saw the residence permits of hundreds of Syrian refugees revoked, proved extremely controversial and made international headlines.
A similar outcry occurred in 2021 when Denmark signed a memorandum of understanding with Rwanda. Under the deal, Denmark would transfer asylum seekers to a reception centre in the African nation to wait for the examination of their applications.
It was the first time that an EU member state openly pursued an outsourcing strategy. The European Commission, which had harshly criticised a similar scheme between the United Kingdom and Rwanda, reserved its right to take legal action.
“External processing of asylum applications raises fundamental questions about both access to asylum procedures but also effective access to protection in line with the requirements of international law,” a Commission spokesperson said in 2022.
A year later, Denmark ditched the plan – but retained the principle. Instead of pursuing outsourcing at a national level, the country would aim higher: the European dimension.
From black sheep to shepherd
The Danish bet on the European level did not immediately resonate.
The bloc was then negotiating the New Pact of Migration and Asylum, a comprehensive reform aimed at establishing common, predictable rules for the reception and distribution of asylum seekers. The talks were bitter and intense, and laid bare the old-age divisions between the South and the North. At times, the Pact seemed doomed to fail.
In the end, member states recognised the value of having collective legislation to deal with a cross-border challenge like irregular migration. The five interlinked laws under the Pact were adopted on 14 May 2024, with only Poland and Hungary voting against.
The moment was hailed as a historic breakthrough.
But for Copenhagen, it was not enough. Two days after the vote, Denmark published a letter co-signed by Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania.
In the document, the 15-strong group advocated, in no uncertain terms, the outsourcing of asylum procedures, including by setting up a “return hub mechanism” where “returnees could be transferred to while waiting their final removal”.
The letter made special mention of Italy’s initiative to build centres in Albania to process asylum claims of migrants rescued in high waters.
It was a show of force and a declaration of intent that Brussels could no longer ignore. The conversation quickly shifted from the Pact to so-called “innovative solutions”.
In October, the lobbying paid its greatest dividend when Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, endorsed the idea of building deportation centres on foreign soil, a clean break from the executive’s traditional thinking.
Soon after her re-election, the Commission presented a draft regulation that would enable member states to strike arrangements with nations outside the bloc to transfer rejected asylum seekers in return for financial incentives.
By coincidence, the law is primed for negotiations just as Denmark assumes the six-month presidency of the EU Council. The country has underscored its intention to reach a political deal on the file before the end of the year.
Another key priority is the review of the “safe third country” concept, which would facilitate the relocation of asylum seekers beyond European borders.
“We want to move the migration agenda forward,” Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Denmark’s foreign minister, said earlier this month in a briefing with journalists in Aarhus.
“It’s well known we have a rather tough policy towards illegal migration, and we have proven to be pretty successful,” he added.
Pushing the law
As it happens, Copenhagen has more-than-decent chances of success: the 15-country group that backed the 2024 letter has grown over time and today represents a decisive majority. Germany joined shortly after its new federal chancellor, Friedrich Merz, came into office. Merz has praised Denmark’s migration policy as “truly exemplary”.
The speed at which things are moving has alarmed humanitarian organisations, who warn that outsourcing will waste taxpayers’ money and fuel human suffering.
“Denmark’s model of migration control is being advertised as the gold standard and worthy of imitation because it aims to deter asylum-seekers from coming,” said Céline Mias, EU director at the Danish Refugee Council (DRC).
“The current trend of European nations focusing on deterrence mechanisms and externalising asylum processes is not only ethically questionable, often violating the principle of non-refoulement, but also demonstrably ineffective in the long run.”
At any rate, outsourcing remains a largely abstract concept.
Neither Denmark, its allies nor the European Commission have yet offered details on what these external facilities might look like in practice. There has been no financial estimation, no logistical blueprint and, crucially, no suggested destination.
The Italian-Albanian protocol, which von der Leyen hailed as a pioneering model from which the bloc could draw lessons, has fallen well below the five-digit figure of asylum seekers originally announced. With a reported price tag of €74.2 million, the centres currently host a few hundred migrants under deportation order.
Danish officials admit they have not yet conducted an assessment to flesh out the project of “return hubs”, but insist any agreement with a non-EU country should be designed as a mutually beneficial partnership and comply with international law and fundamental rights, a high standard that might complicate the selection process.
Given the divisive nature of outsourcing, the scheme is expected to be pursued by a “coalition of the willing” with the political and potentially financial support of Brussels.
A progressive spin
Denmark’s approach to migration comes with an ideological twist.
Instead of being spearheaded by a right-wing government, as is generally the case in Europe, the stringent policy is enthusiastically promoted by the Social Democrats.
The party defends many of the ideas common in the European left, such as climate action, gender equality, LGBTQ rights and a strong welfare state. But on migration, it has chosen to deviate sharply from the progressive agenda and adopt a hard line that raises eyebrows among socialists and prompts cheers among conservatives.
The taboo-breaking fusion has played in Frederiksen’s favour. The prime minister is one of the three socialists who have managed to survive the recent right-wing shift and retain their seat in the European Council. The other two are Malta’s Robert Abela, who supports outsourcing, and Spain’s Pedro Sánchez, who opposes it.
“We need to tackle the migratory phenomenon by thinking about the future generations and not the future elections,” Sánchez said last year, arguing a welcoming approach was necessary to address Europe’s demographic crisis and ensure economic prosperity.
But Frederiksen and her ministers are convinced that their method is the only viable option for centre-left politicians to stay in power and fend off the advance of hard-right forces, which pose a direct threat to their progressive beliefs.
Kaare Dybvad, Denmark’s minister for immigration, believes other social democratic parties should reframe the hot-button issue by taking their cue from Copenhagen.
“Migration is often a burden for the constituents. Working-class communities have taken the largest part of the task of integrating people into local communities and the labour market,” Dybvad told Euronews.
“And therefore, if you’re a party that is representing low-skilled, low-paid people, then you should be quite restrictive around migration.”
Asked if he felt vindicated by Europe’s change of heart, the minister said: “I’m just happy that we have a lot more discussions on these matters.”
