Denmark's Zero-Immigration Policy: How a Left-Wing Government Built Europe's Toughest Asylum Regime

There is not much that Mette Frederiksen, the left-wing Danish prime minister, and JD Vance, the hard-line conservative United States vice president, agree on. But in March of 2025, at an inflammatory security conference in Berlin attended by many of Europe’s biggest powers, they found common ground. Vance went into attack mode, and European leaders were outraged by a speech that felt belittling toward the continent. Most listened to the tone.

One leader listened to the substance, especially on the perceived threat of mass migration into Europe.

That leader was Mette Frederiksen. And she wholeheartedly agreed.

By that point, Frederiksen had championed some of the harshest immigration and asylum policies in all of Europe. She had openly called for Denmark to adopt a “zero refugee” policy, and described mass migration into Europe as “a threat to the daily life in Europe.” For the head of a nominally socialist party, it was a remarkable position to occupy.

This leaves a few questions. What path did Denmark take to get here? How did a socialist prime minister come to adopt what many regard as far-right immigration policy? And how has the country fared since making these radical changes? The story of how a stereotypically egalitarian Nordic society became the strictest gatekeeper on the continent is, ultimately, a story about how the politics of migration reshaped Europe itself.

A Changing Europe

Immigration, refugees, and asylum are deeply sensitive subjects across Europe right now, and the aim here is not to push anyone toward a particular view, but to lay out the facts and the analysis as they stand. Solutions to problems this large begin with objectivity and fair debate.

In 2025, migration is a top political priority across the continent. Politicians are trying to tackle a continent-sized problem on a country-by-country basis. In the stereotypically egalitarian society of Denmark, this has produced a major policy shift since the mid-2010s, made stranger still by the fact that the change came not from the hard right but, in recent years, from the centre-left.

Immigration began to grow in Denmark after World War Two, but most rapidly over the last several decades. Since 1985, the Migration Policy Institute records that the proportion of Danish residents who are immigrants, or who have two immigrant parents, has increased more than fivefold. That is the kind of headline statistic that can mislead, so the underlying numbers matter.

Reading the Numbers Honestly

Denmark’s population is a shade under six million people, so that round number is a useful base for counting. According to the government website Statistics Denmark, 16.3% of the population are immigrants or descended from immigrants. That equates to roughly 978,000 people. It seems like a lot, especially compared with the 3.3% recorded in 1985, when Denmark’s population was about 5.1 million.

But the composition matters. In total, 462,309 non-European immigrants and their descendants are in the country as of the second quarter of 2025, making up around 7.7% of the population. There are about 45,000 asylum seekers in total, which is 0.75% of the population. That figure does not include Ukrainians, who hold their own special status in Danish law.

So there has undoubtedly been an increase in non-EU migrants since the 1980s. But around half of the immigrants who end up in Denmark are European, and large numbers look more alarming without that context. When people discuss immigration in Europe today, they usually mean non-European immigrants specifically, which makes the distinction essential.

When the Mood Shifted

Already by the 1990s, far-right parties in Denmark had noticed their communities beginning to change. The Danish People’s Party championed an anti-immigration, nationalist stance. One member interviewed by the BBC put it this way: “We don’t see ourselves as racists but we do feel we are losing our country.” Slogans like “Danes First” resonated with only a few at first.

By 2015, the migration crisis into Europe was growing, driven mainly by the war in Syria, which displaced millions of Syrians across the continent, often arriving via Turkey or the Mediterranean. Suddenly, egalitarianism toward refugees was no longer a distant humanitarian ideal but a reality on the doorstep. Sweden and Germany took more refugees than anyone else in Western Europe, and Denmark sits geographically close to both. As refugees began arriving in Denmark too, though in lower numbers, those once-quiet slogans started resonating with the electorate on a major scale.

Local mayors and authorities outside Copenhagen began telling the government about attitudes on the ground, amid a rapid influx of migrants into the more affordable communities outside the big cities.

Strain on the Welfare State

Denmark’s famous welfare system was soon perceived to be under strain. Infant schools were said to be full of children who did not speak Danish. Some unemployed migrants reportedly received resettlement payments that made their benefits larger than those of unemployed Danes, and government statistics suggested immigrants were committing more crimes than others. Local resentment grew, which fuelled parties and attitudes like that of the Danish People’s Party.

By 2015 it was the second-largest power in Denmark’s parliament.

Other parties saw the writing on the wall. Attitudes were changing, and migration was becoming a cornerstone campaign issue. There was an opportunity for a party to come down hard on immigration in a way that would likely lead to electoral success.

Nobody seized that opportunity like the to-that-point left-wing Social Democratic Party, led by its new leader, Mette Frederiksen. The party had a previous reputation for openness to migration, but in 2015 Frederiksen, recognising growing public resentment, switched tack. Under her leadership, the party moved toward what is generally seen as the political “far right” on migration, adopting hardline asylum policies associated with the Danish People’s Party as its own.

The Social Democrats won the election on this platform in 2019, and they have gone even further since, building on already highly restrictive policies introduced in the years prior. On the shift in attitudes that prompted the change, Frederiksen said simply: “My party should have listened.”

The Social Democrats have gone from strength to strength with this new stance. Whether out of a cynical recognition of public sentiment to win votes, or a genuine reading of the future scale of Europe’s migration crisis, Frederiksen and her party were decisive, and it has paid off. They are well ahead in the polls to win the 2026 election too.

Slamming the Border Shut

Before examining the specific laws, it is important to recognise Copenhagen’s unique position, which allowed it to legislate so freely in the first place. That story starts in 1973.

In 1973, Denmark voted via public referendum to join the EEC, the European Economic Community, which the wider EU eventually evolved around. Skip ahead to 1992 and Maastricht, in the Netherlands. The EU was being founded from the European Community, which had itself evolved from the EEC. This was being done by the signing of a treaty, and some countries chose to hold referendums on whether to join the wider EU organisation.

Denmark was one of them. It would join the EU, but only if a public referendum did not reject it.

It did, with 50.7% of the vote.

This was a sophisticated political manoeuvre for an entire adult population to make, and it actually handed the Danes considerable power. The Maastricht Treaty could only come into effect if all 12 EU states ratified it. No Denmark, no EU, no single market. Brussels had to compromise, which led to the Edinburgh Agreement in December of that same year, granting Denmark four opt-outs on things it did not agree with.

The Four Opt-Outs

The first opt-out covered the euro. Danish currency is called the Krone. Plenty of EU countries still keep their own currency and have no plans to join the euro, like the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Hungary, and Sweden. The difference is that all those others are technically required to adopt the euro at some point, while the Danes have a permanent opt-out.

The second covered defence. Denmark would not participate in EU defence policy, at least until 2022, when it scrapped this requirement in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The third concerned citizenship, but not in the way you might think. In a more symbolic carve-out, Denmark used a good deal of legal jargon to establish a hierarchy of citizenship, essentially telling its population through law that they were Danish first and European second. The Danes are still EU citizens and enjoy all the benefits, like freedom of movement, but Copenhagen felt it was an important distinction worth making.

And finally, the fourth opt-out removed Denmark from overarching EU legislation mandating certain rules on policing, civil law, and, crucially for this story, immigration. Denmark was free to make its own choices on immigration and did not have to adhere to things like the EU’s common asylum policy. This is not entirely unique. Poland and the Czech Republic hold similar positions, but Denmark’s carve-out status means the Danes can act without upsetting Brussels.

Practical Policies: Doing Things

The policies the Danish parliament has introduced are plentiful, and they can be split into two groups: practical policies, or “doing things,” and perception policies, or “saying things.” First, the practical ones, and there are many.

Following the mass migration to Europe in the mid-2010s, Copenhagen was spooked by what local authorities were reporting and began drawing up plans to crack down on uncontrolled migration and asylum claims. According to the BBC, the government first looked at detaining migrants without papers on a Danish island that used to house a centre for contagious animals, but this plan was eventually rejected.

Then, in 2021, legislation was passed allowing asylum claims to be processed in, and refugees resettled to, third-party countries Denmark makes agreements with, such as Rwanda. The British government attempted something similar more recently. The Danish plan, however, has progressed about as far as the British one, so for now people who do migrate to Denmark are able to stay when they enter, at least for the time being.

When refugees do arrive by land or sea, armed guards along the country’s fortified border are permitted to confiscate any personal items of value over 1,300 euros, with the stated rationale that the proceeds help fund the costs of asylum procedures and housing. In practice, confiscations are rare, and Danish officials tend to act with some discretion.

Following the Money

Danes pay the highest tax rates in Europe across all household types and expect top-notch public services in return. Frederiksen argued that migration levels threatened social cohesion and the welfare system, an issue that would affect the poorest Danes most, so monetary policy is strictly enforced.

Under her government and the previous administration, social welfare and benefit payments for asylum seekers were lowered by almost 50%, and if asylum was rejected, all payments would stop completely. Rejected applicants still receive food but no money whatsoever. When feasible, they are deported, or more recently moved into prison-like detention facilities.

According to a 2025 InfoMigrants report, people are also offered a flat fee of up to 5,400 Danish Krone (a little over 700 euros) to go home and use the money to set up new lives, no questions asked. Reports from the BBC suggest it used to be as high as 20,000 Krone, or just under 2,700 euros. There are also steep fines for face coverings, meaning religious headwear that masks the face, such as the Islamic burka, is effectively banned.

The Danish government has since sent aid to foreign countries that produce migration, aiming to improve conditions on the ground, hopefully stabilising them and reducing migration from those nations. But this was not purely humanitarian. Social Democrat MEP Christel Schaldemose argued that climate change would drive further mass migration if not brought under control: “Climate change of course will move many people around the world. We need to ensure they have something to live off in their own countries.”

Reunification, Residency, and Citizenship

The Danish government goes further still in practical policies unrelated to money. There are tightened rules on family reunions, where it is harder to bring a family into the country simply because of an individual’s refugee status. And those who do get in lack the indefinite right to remain that other countries grant. Refugee status in Denmark lasts two years and must be extended two years at a time, as long as the nation being fled is still deemed too dangerous to return to.

If an extension is rejected, deportation is likely.

Status can also lapse if the Danish government decides a country is safe again. Amnesty International reported on three separate occasions, in 2019, 2021, and 2023, that Copenhagen revoked residency permits for Syrian refugees, causing sizeable protests. Because Denmark is not beholden to EU standards on immigration, it has the authority to decide when a country is and is not safe to return to.

Once refugee status is granted, more hardline policies drive integration. The “Parallel Societies” law allows the state to sell off or demolish apartment blocks in troubled areas where at least half of residents have a “non-Western” background. In 2018 the so-called “anti-ghetto” law aimed to reduce the number of “non-Western” residents, a term enshrined in Danish law, in certain housing areas to less than 30% by 2030.

These laws were expanded in 2021, when local authorities were granted powers to set up “prevention areas” where they can refuse to rent to anyone not originally from the EU, EEA, or Switzerland. That includes the UK. And children born to immigrants are required to assimilate through a mandated 25 hours per week of separation from their parents, starting at age one. Parents who refuse can have their welfare cut.

The Near-Impossible Path to Citizenship

Gaining citizenship is almost impossible for many. Applicants must remain in the country for the entire duration of the process, which can take up to two years to complete. They must also have resided in the nation for nine years before they can even apply, or eight years for refugees, though a fair number of exemptions exist. When the process ends and an applicant is set to pass, they must physically attend a ceremony and shake hands with the mayor or another government official before they can officially be considered Danish.

Denmark’s Immigration Minister Kaare Dybvad Bek said of the ceremony: “Not everyone can or should have Danish citizenship. It’s a big deal to get one and, when it happens, it means that you want to live in Denmark, until you shake hands at the ceremony, you must live in Denmark, this is common sense.”

The handshake was controversial when passed in 2018, as some applicants did not want to shake hands with someone of the opposite sex owing to their religious beliefs. Candidates must also sign a declaration of allegiance to Denmark, be able to support themselves financially, and have worked full-time for 3.5 of the past 4 years. On top of that, they must pass separate language and citizenship tests ensuring they understand the country deeply and are functionally fluent in Danish, an extremely difficult language to learn.

The fee to apply in 2023 is 4,000 Danish Krone (about 530 euros). Nearly half of candidates have their applications rejected, ensuring a consistent flow of money into government coffers every year.

Perception Policies: Saying Things

The Danish government has a vested interest in keeping overall immigration and asylum claims low, so it intentionally creates a “hostile environment” for migrants, according to Alberto Horst Neidhardt, a senior analyst at the European Policy Centre. Denmark is keen to spread that message widely. By even discussing it, the country’s strategy is amplified, which is precisely the point.

In 2018, then immigration minister Inger Støjberg stated in a social media post: “They are unwanted in Denmark, and they must feel that.” Denmark placed advertisements in Lebanese newspapers at the height of the migrant crisis, warning how tough Danish migration policies were, to deter people from trying and reduce the incentive to head to Denmark in the first place.

Overall, the nation has adopted a “zero asylum” goal, effectively meaning it would like to have its number of asylum applications at zero, with everyone either integrated or rejected. The immigration minister put it plainly, stating that no more people should come to Denmark than their society can handle. The aim is to lay out these hardline policies squarely, without any fluff or opinion, and then ask the hard questions about their impact.

Are Danish Immigration Policies Working?

Today, Denmark has become one of the loudest voices suggesting migrants should be processed outside the continent. It is leading the charge as a pioneer of restrictive migration policy. Many European countries have somewhat restricted immigration policies, but unbound by the EU’s rulings, Denmark can go much further, making it a leading voice in the ongoing European debate. For both asylum seekers and economic migrants seeking work, there are not many places on earth harder to stay in.

In 2024, Denmark granted asylum to just 864 people. Not the lowest in Europe; Hungary approved just 29. But 864 people is scarcely a medium-sized village. For reference, the UK, which is considered to have an immigration debate of its own going on, granted asylum to 64,000 people in the same year. Even scaling that up for Denmark to account for the respective populations, the UK would still grant asylum to six times more people.

In early June, Frederiksen teamed up with eight other European leaders to call for a reinterpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, whose tight constraints, they claim, prevent them from expelling foreign nationals with criminal records. She is remarkably in touch with sentiments across Europe, stating: “The message that our populations in almost all European countries have tried to send to politicians through the years: Please get in control of our borders and be decisive on migration.”

The Political Payoff and the Backlash

Some see Frederiksen’s shift to the right as a cynical ploy to gain and hold power. Regardless of how sincere it was, it was certainly effective as political strategy. In the 2024 European Parliament election, the populist and nationalist Danish People’s Party barely held a single seat. Their once-growing power is now non-existent, leaving the ruling party with very few rivals.

Mette Frederiksen has shored up her government’s position significantly, and is earning a lot of plaudits, even being potentially earmarked for the presidency of the European Council someday. When the Social Democrats went down this route, it did cause a schism, leading to a number of resignations within the party, but it has paid off massively even so. If the winds of change roll through again in the near future, however, the Social Democrats might struggle to stay in power.

Many policies, like the so-called “anti-ghetto” laws, are considered discriminatory by some, while others point to their sheer effectiveness in lowering crime and increasing integration, although the crime statistics specifically are disputed. The Danish government states its statistics show non-European immigration is linked to higher levels of crime, while humanitarian organisations like Amnesty International say there is no correlation between the two. No matter how you slice it, the low numbers show Copenhagen is getting results.

And the Danish people, for the most part, are happy about it. In a 2024 opinion poll, 46% of Danes thought that “no more, or only a few, Muslims should be allowed to emigrate to Denmark.” A large proportion of the population wants these kinds of changes, and the government of the day is listening to its people.

The Downsides and the Critics

These policies undoubtedly have downsides, and it is up to regular Danes to decide whether the trade-offs are worth it.

Legitimate Danish citizens with migrant backgrounds, either through their parents or naturalisation, have been made to feel like outsiders in their own country, according to the BBC. It is a deeply politicised issue. According to the ODI’s country study on Danish attitudes toward migration, almost half of the Danish population feel immigration makes the country a better place. However, many are motivated by the concept of migrant crime, and feel that keeping immigration low is a national security issue, although it is worth noting that crime statistics in Denmark from non-Western migrants are perceived as far higher than their actual level.

There is also outcry from the international community. Nadia Hardman, a researcher with Human Rights Watch, said of Denmark’s rightward slide: “It is another demonstration of Denmark sinking to the bottom of its refugee rights responsibilities.” Some argue the changes have seriously damaged Denmark’s image as a country that upholds human rights for refugees.

Amnesty International is concerned that policies like bulldozing ghettos will lead to homelessness and insecure housing. The Committee for the Prevention of Torture said that, upon examining immigration detention centres in Denmark, it had encountered inhumane living conditions in some of them. And an advisor to the EU’s top court described the non-Western provision of the parallel societies law as discriminatory on the basis of ethnic origin.

The Other Side of the Ledger

These laws are not without their critics from wider Danish and European society. Denmark, for its part, is prioritising its focus: the Danish people and their wellbeing first. Copenhagen also claims its laws are humanitarian in nature because they prevent people attempting the dangerous journey across the Mediterranean Sea to reach Europe. They also undermine the efforts of traffickers who exploit the desperate. And they invest in the nations migrants come from, so it is not all stick; there is some carrot too.

The Syrian returns policy is arguably the one that has seen the most controversy. Despite Copenhagen’s insistence that the country was safe enough to return to, Amnesty International reports that detentions, disappearances, and torture of returnees continue, while sectarian violence in the country is still present generally.

In other cases, certain policies have been questioned for their efficacy or consistency. The payout policy for asylum seekers may be exploitable, but no data on whether this occurs currently exists. Some have questioned Denmark’s stance on Ukrainian refugees, who were given an exemption to many of these rules since the war there began. Of course, Ukrainians stand firmly in the “Western” category, and the situation there is much closer geographically, so perhaps Copenhagen feels more obligated to help fellow Europeans.

But activists might argue there is no difference between war over there and war over here. Should a Ukrainian’s plight matter more to Denmark than, say, that of the Sudanese? There is no easy answer.

A Complicated Success

On top of all the headlines, controversy, and policy, one question remains: has this experiment in hardline immigration law been a success? Like all things, it is complicated, and the answer depends on the criteria you judge the laws by.

Asylum claim applications are certainly down in Denmark, in stark contrast to much of the rest of Europe. The number, as of May 2025, is the lowest in 40 years, according to immigration.dk. If you are looking for pure results in terms of numbers, Denmark’s policies are an unequivocal success. If you are looking at other issues, possibly not. If you separate the arguments around compassion and vulnerability among refugees for a moment, problems still emerge for Denmark.

Like much of Europe, it has a rapidly ageing population and not enough young people to replace them. The Danish fertility rate is around 1.5 births per woman as of 2023. A standard replacement-level fertility rate is a minimum of 2.1. Immigration policies may shore up security and the high standard of living for now, but what about the long term?

Denmark could easily face a labour shortage. Less labour means fewer total taxes; fewer taxes put the public purse under pressure from a different angle as the population ages and needs things like healthcare disproportionately. And if Denmark one day needs to attract more migration to bulk up those tax figures, it may find it difficult to draw people toward a country that has become so hostile to the foreign-born. That, however, is Denmark’s problem for tomorrow.

Its problem today is mass migration.

The Danish PM, commenting on this balance, said: “I totally believe in equal opportunities and a Scandinavian welfare model with a tax-paid education, social benefits, and health care. But for me that’s only one traditional pillar of being a social democrat. Being in control of migration is the second pillar.”

The Tip of the Spear

In reality, these kinds of policies change for every nation based on their specific set of circumstances and geographic location. Denmark, with its EU-law carve-outs and Nordic location, has been able to see the realities of both Sweden and Germany first-hand, while keeping the issue at arm’s length. Italy, where many migrants cross from Africa, prioritises offshore asylum processing.

Eastern Hungary’s priority is protecting the nation’s “Christian roots.” Meanwhile Spain, with a rapidly ageing population and towns becoming abandoned, has gone the other way, bringing in more immigrants generally, to the tune of levels four times higher than somewhere like Italy.

But as Europe sees more mass migration, the Danes have been revealed as ahead of the curve. The majority of their policies were passed in the late 2010s, but many started as early as 2015 and before. The Danish position is the tip of the spear. What everyone back then called outrageous is now a fairly mainstream view across Europe, and so the rise in policies like this toward immigration will continue.

Germany, Sweden, the UK, France, and Italy all have significant numbers of citizens who want their governments to act tougher on immigration.

The traditional lines of the Overton window are blurring all over Europe. British Prime Minister and Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer stated that mass migration could lead to the UK becoming “a country of strangers.” The British government has also boasted about its record number of deportations compared with the previous government, and has even taken on parts of the Danish approach by advertising in other countries for their citizens to stay away from the UK.

The point is that this kind of policy move is a growing trend not exclusive to Denmark. Copenhagen simply acts as a window into what happens if a zero-refugee policy is championed and relentlessly pursued.

As Europe continues to grapple with mass migration and the issues that arise from it, there is reason to believe we are witnessing the birth of a new European attitude toward immigration that appears here to stay. It is one that is generally more restrictive and hostile to outsiders, more sceptical of asylum seekers, and one that could upend the status quo on global refugee rights.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is Denmark able to set its own immigration rules outside the EU’s common framework?

Denmark secured four opt-outs through the 1992 Edinburgh Agreement, after Danish voters rejected the Maastricht Treaty by 50.7%. One of those opt-outs removed Denmark from overarching EU legislation on policing, civil law, and immigration, freeing it from rules like the EU’s common asylum policy. Poland and the Czech Republic hold similar positions, but Denmark’s carve-out lets it legislate independently without conflict with Brussels.

How did a left-wing party come to champion such restrictive policies?

The Social Democrats, traditionally open to migration, switched tack in 2015 under new leader Mette Frederiksen, who recognised growing public resentment toward immigration. The party adopted hardline asylum policies previously associated with the right-wing Danish People’s Party, won power on that platform in 2019, and has gone further since. Frederiksen summarised the shift by saying her party “should have listened.”

What are some of Denmark’s most notable immigration policies?

They include lowering asylum-seeker benefits by almost 50% and cutting them entirely on rejection, confiscating valuables over 1,300 euros at the border, two-year reviewable refugee status, an effective ban on face coverings, the “Parallel Societies” and “anti-ghetto” laws targeting “non-Western” residency in housing areas, mandated 25 hours per week of child separation for integration, and a near-impossible citizenship process requiring nine years of residence, language tests, and a handshake ceremony.

What is the difference between Denmark’s “practical” and “perception” policies?

Practical policies are about “doing things,” such as cutting benefits, tightening reunification rules, and revoking residency. Perception policies are about “saying things,” deliberately creating a “hostile environment” to deter migrants. Examples include a minister stating migrants are “unwanted in Denmark” and the government placing advertisements in Lebanese newspapers warning how tough Danish policies are.

Are the policies actually working?

By the numbers, yes. In 2024 Denmark granted asylum to just 864 people, and as of May 2025 asylum applications were at their lowest in 40 years. The Danish People’s Party has been nearly wiped out, and the Social Democrats lead the polls. But critics question the human rights cost, the disputed crime statistics, and the long-term economic risk of an ageing population with a fertility rate of around 1.5.

What do critics say about Denmark’s approach?

Human Rights Watch described it as Denmark “sinking to the bottom of its refugee rights responsibilities.” Amnesty International warns that demolishing housing could cause homelessness and that Syrian returns continue despite ongoing detentions and torture there. The Committee for the Prevention of Torture found inhumane conditions in some detention centres, and an EU court advisor called the parallel societies law discriminatory on the basis of ethnic origin.

What does Denmark’s example mean for the rest of Europe?

Denmark is described as “the tip of the spear.” Views once called outrageous are now mainstream across the continent, with Germany, Sweden, the UK, France, and Italy all seeing public demand for tougher action. Britain’s Keir Starmer warned of a “country of strangers,” and the UK has borrowed Danish tactics like deterrence advertising. Denmark serves as a window into what a relentlessly pursued zero-refugee policy looks like in practice.

Sources

• BBC News
• Euronews — Denmark grants asylum to historically low number
• InfoMigrants — Denmark’s measures to signal to migrants
• InfoMigrants — Denmark plans to tighten citizenship rules
• The Guardian — Zero asylum seekers: Denmark forces refugees to return to Syria
• Politico — Denmark, migration, and the EU Parliament election
• Politico — Mette Frederiksen, Denmark, JD Vance, migration
• Amnesty International — Document EUR18/3229/2020
• Amnesty International — Denmark Syria refugees return petition
• Chatham House — Denmark’s immigrants forced out by government policies
• European Union — History of the EU, 1990–99
• Life in Denmark — Conditions for acquisition of Danish citizenship
• Vox — Denmark, children, immigrant, Muslim, Danish ghetto
• Refugees Welcome Denmark — A Firm Hand
• Mixed Migration — The changing politics of immigration in Nordic countries
• ODI — Public narratives: Denmark country study
• Data Commons — Denmark fertility rate
• Euro Weekly News — Spain has one of the highest immigration rates in the EU
• Statistics Denmark — Immigrants and descendants