The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNCHR) has stated that Denmark’s actions directly violate the UNHCR quota program, which has a “near-unspoken perception of [the] resettlement of quota refugees as a permanent resolution” and that Denmark’s new policies will change this perception. Danish politicians have stated multiple times that the resettlement of refugees in Denmark is temporary and that the new policies will simply provide a more realistic expectation for those entering the country. This stems from Denmark’s refusal to take in any quota program refugees since 2016. Furthermore, Minister Støjberg has been quoted saying that “you as a refugee should only be in Denmark as long as there is a need for protection” and that “if your life is no longer in danger, then you ought to return home.”

This repatriation policy is in direct contrast with Denmark’s international reputation of being a welcoming and friendly nation. In 2015, Denmark was ranked the second most friendly country in the world and the seventh best country to live and work in. It is difficult to align those rankings with a nation that wants to return asylum-seekers, many of whom are escaping torture, sex slavery, and the violence of the Islamic State. In 2017, Denmark granted protection to 2,365 people and had a population of 5.7 million. In contrast, Sweden welcomed close to 28,000 refugees into a population of 9.9 million that same year. The argument the Danish government uses to justify its strict policies is the need to protect Danish culture because by bringing in “foreigners with their own cultures, ours will be overwhelmed.” This type of comment is difficult to connect to a Danish culture that prides itself on being welcoming to outsiders.

Furthermore, a recent policy proposed by the Danish Parliament in December 2018 suggested moving rejected asylum-seekers, or those with a criminal record, to Lindholm Island. The island, two miles out to sea, was used as a research facility for the state veterinary institute, and housed animals with contagious diseases up until the summer of 2018. This has raised concern amongst both the Danish and international community. Danish citizens are split on the issue of migration, as some argue that the new policies are “not the Denmark I know” while others argue that the policies are not strict enough.

The proposition to move rejected asylum-seekers comes on the heels of several other policies, which targeted non-Western migrants in Denmark. In August 2018, a ban of the niqab and burqa, which approximately 0.2 percent of Muslim women in Denmark wear, was put in place. Policies have also been enacted to eliminate ‘ghetto’ areas, where 50 percent of the population are non-Western immigrants. These include a mandatory minimum 25 hours of daycare for children to learn ‘Danish values,’ required language tests in schools in ‘ghetto’ areas, and stricter punishments for crimes that occur within ‘ghettos.’ These new policies targeting non-Western immigrants and asylum seekers are designed, as Minister Støjberg wrote on her Facebook page, to illustrate that “they are unwanted in Denmark.” This sentiment is in direct contrast with Denmark’s reputation for progressive politics, humanitarianism, and a magnanimous welfare state. Danish politicians argue, however, that the influx of non-Western immigrants and asylum-seekers are a threat to this very reputation and to Danish culture as a whole.

The government is actively trying to make Denmark seem less attractive to migrants, working against its international reputation of being a welcoming place to live. Denmark, once proud of its high standard of living, generous welfare state, and excellent education system, is now making itself unappealing and unwelcoming to non-Western migrants under the banner of preserving that world renowned ‘Danishness.’