What Starmer can learn from the Left-wing country that wants ‘zero refugees’

Sir Keir Starmer’s warning that the UK could become an “island of strangers” without stricter immigration controls has provoked outrage on the Left, with critics accusing him of echoing Enoch Powell’s divisive rhetoric.

Olivia Blake, Labour MP for Sheffield Hallam, suggested that Starmer’s language risked legitimizing the same far-Right violence witnessed during last year’s summer riots. Similarly, Zarah Sultana, a former Labour MP now sitting as an independent, said it was “sickening” to hear Starmer imitating Powell’s infamous “Rivers of Blood” speech. Sultana argued that such rhetoric could fuel anti-migrant sentiment and endanger lives.

However, Starmer’s approach may actually be an attempt to neutralize far-Right influence by addressing immigration directly – a strategy that has been strikingly effective in Denmark.

“There is no doubt in my mind that traditional political parties taking immigration seriously is the reason why we don’t have large far-Right parties in Denmark,” says Kaare Dybvad Bek, Denmark’s immigration minister. Bek, a member of the Social Democrat government, represents a Left-leaning administration that has expanded access to abortion, promoted green energy, and championed Denmark’s generous welfare state. Yet on immigration, the Social Democrats have taken a markedly hardline stance.

Denmark’s “zero refugee” policy actively discourages asylum seekers from coming to the country. While this approach has been viewed with unease by some neighboring countries, others are now looking to Denmark as a model.

Among the most controversial policies is the so-called “jewellery law,” which allows authorities to confiscate valuables from asylum seekers to cover the costs of their stay. Under this law, items worth more than 10,000 kr (£1,129), including wedding rings, can be seized. Although the measure has been used only 17 times by mid-2022, critics argue that its primary value is symbolic, sending a strong message to would-be asylum seekers.

Denmark has also implemented the “parallel societies” policy, previously known as the “ghetto law.” This legislation allows the government to forcibly relocate residents from areas where over 50% of the population is of non-Western origin if crime and unemployment rates are high. This has led to the demolition or privatization of social housing in cities like Copenhagen and Aarhus. Despite a ruling from the EU’s top court deeming the law discriminatory, it remains a cornerstone of Denmark’s immigration strategy.

Despite such harsh measures, the policies have proven politically successful. The Social Democrats won the last two elections in 2019 and 2022 and remain the most popular party in Denmark, with 22.9% support – nearly 10 percentage points ahead of their nearest rival. Meanwhile, the far-Right Danish People’s Party has seen its vote share plummet from 21.1% a decade ago to just 4.4%.

According to migration expert Jean-Christophe Dumont at the OECD, Denmark’s policies have significantly reduced the number of asylum seekers. In 2023, the country received only 400 asylum applications per million inhabitants – a fraction of Germany’s intake.

Dybvad Bek asserts that Denmark’s success lies in the strict enforcement of its deportation policies. “We are very effective at returning people,” he says, noting that rejected asylum seekers receive no financial support and are only entitled to food and shelter until they leave. Additionally, the government offers 20,000 DKK (£2,258) to those who voluntarily withdraw their asylum applications within two weeks of rejection, with an additional 20,000 DKK in “repatriation support” available to those who leave the country.

Bek insists that the policies are not racist, arguing that they are essential to preserving Denmark’s welfare state. “If you’re upper class, immigration is a positive for you,” he explains. “But for those already struggling, mass immigration can exacerbate economic inequality. This has been our starting point and why we have a strict immigration approach.”

His advice to Starmer and other Left-wing leaders trying to counter far-Right populism? “You must first make your own assessment of the challenges with migration and then adopt a policy that is your own … rather than constantly chasing the Left or the Right.”

As Starmer faces mounting pressure to define his stance on immigration, Denmark’s hardline yet electorally successful approach offers both a warning and a potential blueprint. Whether he can navigate the complexities of British immigration policy without alienating his base – or echoing Powell’s controversial legacy – remains to be seen.