My suspicion is that when people talk about a danish system what they actually mean is cherry picking the bit they agree with.
I struggle to believe that if we mirrored their system and worked to ensure migrant families weren’t clustered together in certain areas people would be nodding in agreement.
Don’t for a second believe that if, for example, the council said migrant families were being moved from places such as Hillfields and Foleshill and taxpayer money used to house them in Kenilworth and Warwick it would be welcomed.
With respect, you’re cherry picking.
When discussing Denmark’s system, you only spoke about how their government funds housing for migrants to live in Danish areas. We agree that this isn’t feasible or desirable in the UK context.
Why? The UK’s net migration figure 1997-2024 is in the millions, probably in around Denmark’s total population (5.94 million) for context. That figure isn’t even gross migration where the number is considerably higher. Put simply, the volume of arrivals is too high to support that particularly policy.
That said, what can the UK implement?
- granted of temporary asylum rather than permanent
- tightening family reunion rules
- confiscate valuable of asylum seekers
- a PBT to assess a migrants financial contribution to the treasury
- restrict access to social housing and benefits until PBT certificate is obtained
- deport economically unproductive people and criminals
- suspend the right to apply for asylum for anyone crossing the English Channel (Polish policy for migrants crossing the Polish-Belarusian border).
There’s more options on the table but this is what the public generally wants.