Danish Migration model

[s1962a]

https://news.sky.com/story/uk-government-looking-a...

Seems tough, but workable. I wonder if it could be implemented here?

One of the things that stood out

article said:

One of the more controversial policies is a "jewellery law", which allows the government to seize asylum seekers' assets, including their jewellery, to fund their stay in the country.

This is a good idea. Make them pay for their keep, and give them a basic one at that till they are processed/deported.

[s1962a]

Key points of the Danish model include:

Temporary Residence Permits: Refugees are typically granted short-term residence permits (one to two years) instead of permanent ones. These are subject to regular review and can be revoked if conditions in the home country improve, signaling that residency is considered temporary, not a path to permanent settlement.

Strict Pathway to Permanent Residence: Obtaining permanent residence is exceptionally difficult, requiring at least eight years of legal residency (though this can be reduced to four years if all supplementary requirements are met). Applicants must meet numerous conditions, including language proficiency (Danish language test 2 as a basic requirement), full-time employment for a significant period (e.g., 3 years and 6 months out of the last 4 years), a minimum income level, and no overdue public debt or certain criminal convictions.

Tough Family Reunification Rules: Family reunification for refugees has stringent conditions, including a minimum age of 24 for both partners (intended to guard against forced marriages), a requirement that the partner in Denmark has not claimed benefits for a specified period, a financial guarantee, and a Danish language test for both individuals.

Financial and Welfare Restrictions: New arrivals often receive lower social benefits than Danish citizens. There were also controversial policies allowing the confiscation of asylum seekers' cash and valuables above a certain amount to help fund their stay.

Return and Offshore Processing Focus: The policy emphasizes the return of refugees to their home countries when it is safe. Denmark has also explored arrangements for processing asylum applications in a third country outside Europe, such as Rwanda, although this has been put on hold.

Integration Demands and "Ghetto Laws": Integration policy is demanding, focusing on self-sufficiency and participation in Danish society. This has included controversial "ghetto laws" that identified areas with high concentrations of "non-Western" residents and used criteria such as employment and income levels to enforce measures like forced relocation and demolition of apartment blocks.

Deterrence as a Strategy: The overarching philosophy is that by making the country a less attractive destination for asylum seekers, fewer will come. This strategy has been effective in reducing asylum applications, with Denmark recording some of the lowest numbers in the EU.

[Richard-D]

BunkMoreland said:

It does seem an improvement on the current system

But my thoughts are that Labour are out of ideas on how to deal with this ongoing stshow.

So they think if they copy another countries system, then it absolves them of failing the UK. And then any faults with the system will be "blamed" on the other country. Or explained away as "well if its good enough for Copenhagen, why are you upset in Manchester"

If we're copying anyone, lets copy Australia! Its even tougher! And has a far more dramatic improvement!

It wouldn't have occurred to me to blame another country for our government introducing a similar policy if it didn't work. Surely you don't believe a significant number of people would do you?

[90CHPAXL]

Clicked this expecting a leggy blonde claiming asylum, disappointed

[JagLover]

90CHPAXL said:

Clicked this expecting a leggy blonde claiming asylum, disappointed

You know this is the only immigration system that makes sense.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/X9SzgzrcdQc

Edited by JagLover on Saturday 15th November 06:10

[JagLover]

BunkMoreland said:

It does seem an improvement on the current system

But my thoughts are that Labour are out of ideas on how to deal with this ongoing stshow.

So they think if they copy another countries system, then it absolves them of failing the UK. And then any faults with the system will be "blamed" on the other country. Or explained away as "well if its good enough for Copenhagen, why are you upset in Manchester"

If we're copying anyone, lets copy Australia! Its even tougher! And has a far more dramatic improvement!

I think the point of the Danish system is that it supposed to deter illegal migration while still remaining within the ECHR. Australia does not have that problem.

Labour will not be able to do much though as their supporters likely won't agree to any genuine change.

[Mrr T]

BunkMoreland said:

It does seem an improvement on the current system

But my thoughts are that Labour are out of ideas on how to deal with this ongoing stshow.

So they think if they copy another countries system, then it absolves them of failing the UK. And then any faults with the system will be "blamed" on the other country. Or explained away as "well if its good enough for Copenhagen, why are you upset in Manchester"

If we're copying anyone, lets copy Australia! Its even tougher! And has a far more dramatic improvement!

Australia policy for those who actually arrived was an expensive mess. They paid for off shore detention centres. These turned out to lack basic amenities, with inmates being abused. In the end bad publicity forced them to close them. They would not let them settle in Australia so they where held in custody for years at great expense. Some moved to other countries, from memory Australia paid Vietnam 500k AUD to take 2. Most ended up in the US on asylum exchanges. Lots of money wasted and they still got asylum claimants just different one.

Australia stopped the boat arrivals because it's surrounded by international waters and a long way from any where.

[Slow.Patrol]

s1962a said:

One of the things that stood out

article said:

One of the more controversial policies is a "jewellery law", which allows the government to seize asylum seekers' assets, including their jewellery, to fund their stay in the country.

This is a good idea. Make them pay for their keep, and give them a basic one at that till they are processed/deported.

They do similar in Japan to their own residents if they need welfare.

They are expected to sell off their luxuries before getting benefits.

[BikeBikeBIke]

Mrr T said:

Australia policy for those who actually arrived was an expensive mess.

The point was it stopped them botherig to arrive.

[Slow.Patrol]

One thing I think could be introduced, is anyone granted asylum and ILR should be required to pay back the initial costs of housing, legal fees. Say £50-100 a month.

Bit like a student loan.

[Mrr T]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Mrr T said:

Australia policy for those who actually arrived was an expensive mess.

The point was it stopped them botherig to arrive.

You missed this?

Mrr T said:

Australia stopped the boat arrivals because it's surrounded by international waters and a long way from any where.

All you need is to move the UK 50 miles away from France and its easy.

[CoolHands]

Funny how this is now a possibility after years of telling the public nothing can be done.

[asfault]

Work here different tax code paying more for 10 years. But then no doubt there would be some human rights lawer moaning about it.

[MrBogSmith]

asfault said:

But then no doubt there would be some human rights lawer moaning about it.

That's part of the point looking to Europe. They should be stress testing the HRA and other relevant legislation / treaties that are relevant to us. As well as relationships within Europe who are our trading partners.

Interesting comments that this is a centre left party putting these measures in place which have kept the right (who may also be one-tick ponies) out of office.

Sky News said:

What's striking about the week's revelations about Denmark is how little comment there's been from either Reform UK or the Conservatives.

[JoshSm]

Mrr T said:

Australia stopped the boat arrivals because it's surrounded by international waters and a long way from any where.

Which was certainly handy for the interceptions, which apparently weren't done in a nice friendly Border Force free pickup way. And that's just the ones that got the details reported.

[fido]

Slow.Patrol said:

One thing I think could be introduced, is anyone granted asylum and ILR should be required to pay back the initial costs of housing, legal fees. Say £50-100 a month.

Bit like a student loan.

Or make their employees pay towards a health insurance fund? Problem I suspect is many work in the black economy. Best solution is not to take them in the first place.

[irc]

I would start from the premise that France is a safe country therefore anyone arriving in a small boat is not fleeing persecution. No asylum granted. No benefits.
No housing.

They come here because the free housing, health care, and benefits attract them.

[MrBogSmith]

BunkMoreland said:

irc said:

I would start from the premise that France is a safe country therefore anyone arriving in a small boat is not fleeing persecution. No asylum granted. No benefits.
No housing.

They come here because the free housing, health care, and benefits attract them.

Macron TOLD 2tier that a while back "stop giving them stuff and they wont come"

But 2tier is a useless who history will judge as corrupt and ineffective. AND will go down as THE most hated PM this country has ever had.

So of COURSE he didn't look at implementing that!

Macron didn’t quite say that. But since you think Macron is a credible source. He did say this:

Macron said:

The current situation is actually giving an incentive to make the crossing. And this is therefore the exact opposite of what Brexit had proposed and promised.

The thing is, the British people were sold a lie, which was that they were told the problem was Europe but by creating this legal void, the problem has become Brexit.

Labour clearly are having issues, but they didn’t deliver Brexit which made immigration issues worse. They didn’t sign up to £15 billion of hotel schemes. They didn’t try and fail at Rwanda.

Realistically we have a left leaning government looking at quite a right leaning system to consider implementing it. Not sure what more you expect from a left leaning government.

[BikeBikeBIke]

MrBogSmith said:

abour clearly are having issues, but they didn t deliver Brexit which made immigration issues worse. They didn t sign up to £15 billion of hotel schemes. They didn t try and fail at Rwanda.

Labour's France scheme is pretty much identical to Rwanda, but with less people and less deterrent.

If France works, Rwanda would have worked 10x better. (And I confess I wasn't saying that at the time.)

Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Saturday 15th November 17:29

[E63eeeeee...]

BikeBikeBIke said:

MrBogSmith said:

abour clearly are having issues, but they didn t deliver Brexit which made immigration issues worse. They didn t sign up to £15 billion of hotel schemes. They didn t try and fail at Rwanda.

Labour's France scene is pretty much identical to Rwanda, but with less people and less deterrent.

If France works, Rwanda would have worked 10x better. (And I confess I wasn't saying that at the time.)

It's more people. And it's legal. So you can actually implement it rather than talk about it endlessly while fking everything else up. And it's staggeringly cheaper which means you can do other stuff as well. Apart from all that it's pretty much identical, sure.