Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Fashion Central
The Fashion Central
Jenifer Jain

UK Considers Denmark’s Controversial ‘Ghetto’ Strategy to Disperse Migrant Communities

Photo Credit: Getty Images

At a Policy Exchange event today, Kemi Badenoch let slip she’s “looking at” a controversial Danish-style housing policy designed to tackle so-called ‘parallel societies’—once referred to as “ghettos”—by relocating migrants from certain inner-city areas. Denmark’s version lets the state step in if over half the residents in a neighbourhood are deemed to be from “non-Western” backgrounds, then forces public housing down to just 30–40% within ten years, and nudges displaced people into private rentals elsewhere.

Ms Badenoch admitted the British approach to integration has been too passive, adding: “Until now we’ve had what I call passive integration—people coming to the country in small numbers over a small period—and it’s very easy to absorb and assimilate. But we’ve had so many people, high numbers, people from lots of different places, which is not what immigration used to look like, and I think we need to move from passive to active integration”, reported the Express.

Denmark’s law, introduced in 2010 and strengthened in 2018, puts rigid limits on social housing in areas where over 50% of residents are non-Western and meet socioeconomic thresholds like unemployment or low education. Housing associations must then slash social housing to as low as 30–40%, sometimes even demolishing buildings or ending leases, with those tenants forced to move elsewhere and private landlords required to swap in displaced residents.

The policy attracted fierce criticism, and earlier this year, the European Court of Justice’s advocate-general ruled it amounts to direct ethnic discrimination. She pointed out that dividing communities into “Western” and “non-Western” backgrounds is inherently based on ethnic origin, and labelling some areas as “parallel societies” carries stigmatising, punitive measures that unfairly target those groups
The ECJ is expected to deliver its final ruling soon.

Asked whether the UK should copy this law, Ms Badenoch said she’s “looking at” similar ideas—emphasising the need for policies “along the lines of what you are describing in Denmark, we need to do what works for the UK. It’s not exactly the same situation; we have a much bigger population and so many other things that would require adjustments. But that sort of thing, yes”.

She made a clear distinction between Denmark’s circumstances and Britain’s bigger scale, yet she appears keen on the principle of pushing for enforced assimilation in neighbourhoods where immigrants are perceived to cluster. It’s a marked shift away from what she called the “very easy to absorb” earlier eras of migration.

Naturally, critics are scrambling to draw parallels between such a plan and social engineering. The ECJ’s earlier findings highlight how Denmark’s policy is legally precarious and ethically fraught. By targeting people based on broad definitions of “non-Western” origin—even when socioeconomic issues might underpin the problems—the courts have raised major red flags around discrimination.

What Badenoch’s comments do make clear is that the government is seriously exploring active measures—yet it’s also trying to walk a tightrope, insisting any UK version would be tailored, sensitive to scale, and probably include safeguards. Still, critics will wonder whether forced dispersal of migrants—even in the name of integration—risks outright discrimination and community upheaval.

Whatever happens next, Kemi Badenoch’s nod to the so-called Danish ‘ghetto law’ has already opened the door to a broader debate: should we nudge, push or even compel newcomers into mainstream neighbourhoods? Or is the very concept too ethically loaded—and legally dubious—to ever feel right in the British context?

Either way, it’s the first time a senior Tory has openly suggested exporting a disruptive and divisive asylum policy home. Expect fierce discussion ahead, as MPs, legal experts and communities weigh whether copying Copenhagen makes sense—or whether the UK should be steering away from practices that the EU’s highest courts are already calling discriminatory.

Don’t Miss These:

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.