Danish Prime Minister, a member of the European Socialists, has adopted "one of the most restrictive immigration policies in Europe". She has now forged an alliance with Meloni, despite ideological differences.
Ideologically, they are very far apart. The Prime Minister of Denmark,
Mette Frederiksen , a member of the Social Democrats, a centre-left party that is part of the European family of socialists, recently met in Rome with the head of the Italian executive,
Giorgia Meloni , who leads a right-wing coalition in the Italian Parliament and whose political force belongs to the European Reformists and Conservatives. In the Italian capital, the two women kicked off
an initiative on immigration, an issue that unites them, despite their differences.
Together with other leaders from seven countries, Giorgia Meloni and Mette Frederiksen aim to
reform the European Convention on Human Rights , drawn up by the Council of Europe after the Second World War, in particular with regard to the rights of asylum seekers and immigrants. “In recent decades, irregular migration has contributed significantly to immigration in Europe. Some have arrived and decided not to integrate, isolating themselves in parallel societies and distancing themselves from the fundamental values of equity, democracy and freedom. In particular, some have not contributed positively to the societies that received them and
have chosen to commit crimes.”
In the open letter, the Italian-Danish initiative focuses specifically on immigrants who have committed crimes, calling for the
deportation of these foreigners to be made easier . However, the European Convention on Human Rights poses some obstacles, especially in the need
for States to ensure that their countries of origin are safe before expelling them. “We need to have more national space to decide when to expel these criminal foreigners,” argue the nine signatory countries of the document, giving as an example that cases “related to violent crimes and drugs” have “serious implications” for European societies.
Since taking office, the Italian Prime Minister has always made the
migration issue one of her main concerns — in the European context, it was something that was in keeping with her political roots on the radical right. In contrast, the Danish Prime Minister belongs to the family of European socialists, who traditionally favor less restrictive measures in the area of immigration.
Mette Frederiksen clearly goes against this trend and has focused on restricting the entry of immigrants into Denmark.
In the Nordic country, the measures against the entry of immigrants — especially those from outside Europe — are among the toughest in the West. Because of this, Denmark has been the target of several lawsuits in European courts, which has caused some frustration in Copenhagen. But the approach has not changed: as recently as late May,
the Danish government refused to accept seriously ill children from Gaza, unlike Norway, which also has a government led by socialists.
Externally,
the Danish Prime Minister is seen as an exception among European socialists. Internally, Mette Frederiksen is a consensus politician, as the most recent polls show.
The head of the executive maintains good results and nothing seems to affect her popularity, concentrating votes from the political center and even the right. At a time when socialist parties in Europe are in crisis — Portugal being the most recent example — many look to Denmark as a possible path to follow:
keeping the borders closed and betting on a strong welfare state.
What does the open letter that prompted a response from the Secretary General of the Council of Europe propose?
Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. These are the nine countries that signed the open letter written by the teams from Denmark and Italy. They consider themselves
“leaders of societies that safeguard human rights” . However, they “share the need” to stop illegal immigration. The nine member states of the European Union (EU) emphasize that they
“belong to different political families and traditions”, but agree that it is “necessary to start a discussion on how international conventions are in line with the current challenges”.
In a message addressed to the Council of Europe, the nine countries recall that the international organization was conceived in the “ashes of great wars.” Its values were “universal and eternal”; however, in a “globalized world,” some have lost strength. “It is beyond our understanding how some people can come to our countries, share our freedom and our
wide range of opportunities, and decide to commit crimes.”
The focus is on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), a judicial body of the Council of Europe which, according to the nine signatories of the letter, has been too rigid in its interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, which established the foundations of the legal institution. Once national institutions have been exhausted, citizens can appeal to the ECtHR.
“We believe that the development of the Court’s interpretation has, in some cases, limited our ability to make political decisions in our democracies,” the nine countries that signed the open letter continue, adding that this “affects the way in which leaders can protect democratic societies.” The document gives an example: “We have seen, for example, cases related to the expulsion of foreigners who have committed crimes in which the interpretation of the charter has resulted in the
protection of the wrong people and has placed several
limitations on the ability of States to decide who to expel from their territories.”
Specifically, this initiative by Denmark and Italy aims to allow foreigners who have
committed crimes to be deported to their country of origin , even if their lives are at risk, something that the European Court of Human Rights — which can be used when the remedies provided by the legislation of the different countries have been exhausted — has opposed.
However, for the countries that signed the letter, “the safety of victims and the vast majority of law-abiding citizens is crucial and a decisive right”. “As a general rule, it should take precedence over other considerations”, the document reads. The heads of government therefore call for more “freedom to decide how authorities can track foreign criminals who cannot be deported”
. “Criminals who cannot be deported, despite having taken advantage of our hospitality to commit crimes and increase insecurity”, they also criticised.
Recalling the electoral success of the various leaders who signed the letter, the nine countries stressed — “with all modesty” — that they believe they are
“highly aligned with the majority of European citizens” in this approach. “We want to use our democratic mandate to launch a new conversation on the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
The nine countries did not go unanswered. In a statement, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Alain Berset, criticized the initiative. Although he stressed that democracies should have their own spaces to conduct this type of reflection, he recalled that the ECHR is not an “external body”: “It is the legal arm of the Council of Europe — created by the Member States and connected to a Convention that the 46 Member States freely signed and ratified.”
“Debate is healthy, but politicizing the Court is not,” countered Alain Berset, arguing that in a “society governed by the rule of law” the judiciary should not “suffer political pressure.” “Institutions that protect fundamental rights cannot bow to political cycles. If they do, we risk eroding their stability. The Court must not be instrumentalized — neither against nor by governments.”
In turn, according to Alberto Horst Neidhardt, a member of the European Policy Center
think tank , the ECHR is not the main reason why European countries cannot deport foreigners who commit crimes. “Neither European law nor the convention prevents them from expelling people who pose a threat to security,” the expert pointed out, arguing that this has more to do with the “lack of international cooperation” and “legal gaps.”
“It has to do with the lack of cooperation from third countries that often do not want individuals who pose a security threat back on their territory,” Alberto Horst Neidhardt explained
to Deutsche Welle , stressing that it is
“a bit simplistic to point the finger only at the court.” For this researcher, the initiative between Denmark and Italy could, however, send a “political message” in the “short term” not only to voters, but also to other European institutions.
Restrictive and not to threaten the “welfare state”: the Danish approach to immigration
In the case of Italy, Giorgia Meloni is in
a constant competition with her ally in the government from the same ideological space, Matteo Salvini, to win votes — and popular support. The Italian government also has an ambitious plan to
deport asylum seekers to Albania , a country in which Rome has set up reception centers. The Italian courts have put up several obstacles (they have already forced the return of asylum seekers to Italy) and there are expected to be future blockades in the European institutions.
Coming from a more conservative and right-wing political family, Giorgia Meloni’s actions are not exactly surprising. Given the competitive electoral climate and the Italian Prime Minister’s plan, there are several reasons for Rome to take on the co-leadership of this initiative. But what about
Denmark , the Nordic country governed by a centrist executive and led by a social democrat?
In an interview with Der Spiegel , published last Monday, Mette Frederiksen gave more details about her views on immigration and her support for this initiative. The Prime Minister signaled that the country believes in the “rule of law and the idea of human rights”, but “if someone comes from the Middle East to our society and wants to destroy it, we must be able to defend ourselves”. Regarding the changes to the European Convention on Human Rights, the Prime Minister justified that the document was “created to protect minorities after the Second World War” — and that it is obsolete.
“Today, however, we need to protect the majority.
It cannot be a human right for someone to come from Afghanistan and rape a young woman or murder someone. If someone does that, we should have the right to say: ‘You have to leave’. If someone kills my partner, do I allow that person to sit with me at the table? No”, said the Danish Prime Minister, assuming that the goal is to have “control over the external borders”: “I want Europe to become a safe place in the future”.
Asked whether she remains a social democrat by defending these ideas and allying herself with Giorgia Meloni, Mette Frederiksen assured that she identifies with the center-left political space, which “shapes her position, including on immigration”. The Prime Minister
clarified to the New York Times her ideological basis for taking these positions: “You can’t let everyone into a country. It’s impossible to have a sustainable society, especially if it’s a society with a welfare state”
, clarified Mette Frederiksen, stressing that there is “a price to pay” when there are many foreign immigrants in a country. “
Those who pay the highest price are the workers and the lowest class in society. It’s not the rich. It’s not those with good salaries and good jobs”, explained the head of the executive.
Assuring that she did not adopt this conviction because it would be an electoral asset, Mette Frederiksen assured that the party she leads, the Social Democracy, “believes” in this premise, also rejecting the idea that it is an “atypical” case in the center-left worldwide. Even so, the Danish prime minister’s discourse has been increasingly alarmist, with populist overtones; at the end of May,
she described immigration as the “greatest internal threat in the Nordic region”.
Speaking to Observador, Anita Nissen, a researcher at the Department of Politics and Society at Aalborg University, stressed that the Nordic country is indeed one of “the countries with the most restrictive migration policies in Europe”. Since 2019, the year she became prime minister, Mette Frederiksen has adopted more restrictive immigration policies.
Anita Nissen has “no doubt” that the prime minister’s stance on immigration has been influenced by “populist and radical right-wing parties”. In Denmark’s political scene, the influence has come from the
Danish People’s Party, the most right-wing party in the Nordic country’s parliament. “It has been particularly successful in the last two decades and has been instrumental in moving Danish migration policies in a
more restrictive direction ,” says the expert.
For all these reasons, the researcher from Aalborg University believes that, internally, the issue of immigration is relatively peaceful in Denmark — and converges on the adoption of restrictive policies. “This is due to the shared ideas on immigration restrictions of many Danish political parties, which means that there is not much appeal around this topic,” reinforces Anita Nissen. There are, however, exceptions; the Greens and the Green-Red Alliance — further to the left — defend more inclusive policies for migrants.
In foreign policy, the issue is different. “Although immigration is not a key issue for the Prime Minister in domestic policy, it is an important issue in European policy,” Anita Nissen stresses, recalling precisely the meeting with Giorgia Meloni to demonstrate the importance of the issue for Mette Frederiksen, especially less than a month before
Denmark takes over the presidency of the Council of the European Union .
Speaking to Observador, Jens Blom-Hansen, a professor at the Department of Political Science at Aarhaus University, sees the meeting with Giorgia Meloni in Rome as a way for the Danish Prime Minister to “
draw attention to issues related to immigration” at a European level. “Not only to deport foreigners who have committed crimes, but also [to draw attention] to issues such as the treatment of asylum applications in third countries (such as Rwanda) and the repatriation of asylum seekers who have been forced to return [to the country that expelled them].”
With the presidency of the Council of the European Union coming up soon, Mette Frederiksen could put pressure on this issue, believes Jens Blom-Hansen. “The Danish government has not yet published its national priorities for the upcoming presidency of the Council of the European Union, but I think there is a good chance that immigration will be one of them, although it will probably come before security and defence.”
Can Mette Frederiksen's successful model be copied by European socialists?
The Danish prime minister’s approach clashes with what many European socialists advocate.
Speaking to Politico ahead of the 2024 European elections , Marlene Wind, a political scientist at the University of Copenhagen, predicted that Mette Frederiksen would converge on immigration with leaders of the radical right — such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.
“But among social democrats in Europe, she may face some challenges ,” she predicted.
The issue seems to remain behind the scenes, but it is also true that European socialists are suffering heavy defeats. In the European Union, they are the only main parties in power in
Denmark ,
Spain ,
Lithuania, Malta and
Romania (in the latter country there is a central bloc). Given this scenario, the centre-left cannot show signs of disunity in Europe.
It is true, however, that Mette Frederiksen has a radically different approach from the head of the Spanish government, for example. Pedro Sánchez
defends a “humanist” stance: “Welcoming those who come from outside in search of a better life is not only a duty to which we are obliged under international law, but also an essential step to guarantee the prosperity and sustainability of our welfare state.”
Still, in a Europe moving to the right, Anita Nissen predicts to Observador that Mette Frederiksen's approach to immigration will start to be seen as a
“potential model for adoption” by center-left parties “in other countries”, particularly in those where the radical right is gaining votes.
In the European Union, in 2024, the New Pact on Migration and Asylum of the European Union was adopted, which increases the barriers to entry of immigrants into the community. Criticized by international organizations for not protecting the most vulnerable, the pact was a consensus between the different political forces and sensitivities of the member states, although there continues to be several criticisms from various political leaders.
In any case
, the issue remains on the agenda. Not only in the EU, but in several member states, despite the fact that last year
there was a 13% drop in the number of asylum seekers compared to 2023. Still, this is not changing perceptions in several countries. “All the statistics suggest that we are seeing a
reduction in irregular arrivals . In some member states, including Germany, we have seen a reduction in asylum applications for the first time. However, the political rhetoric remains very hostile,” analyses Alberto Horst Neidhardt.
“People will continue to vote for parties that somehow support more radical solutions to what they see as a problem,” Alberto Horst Neidhard told Deutsche Welle. Given this negative perception of immigration
, the center-left may be tempted to copy Mette Frederiksen’s strategy — and the center-right is already doing so.
In Denmark, the prime minister’s strategy is paying off. The Social Democrats are leading the polls and the radical right-wing Danish People’s Party has dropped below 5% of the vote. Mette Frederiksen made it clear to the New York Times that she will continue these policies: “
If we lose the next election — and maybe we will, I don’t know — it
won’t be because of immigration .”
www.thecollector.com
