Why Britain is turning to ‘negative nation branding’ on refugees

Why Britain is turning to ‘negative nation branding’ on refugees

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is betting that a sweeping crackdown on refugees will steady a volatile immigration debate that is already shaking his new government. His plan would push Britain far away from its earlier, more generous stance on asylum and align it with some of the harshest approaches in Europe, the New York Times reported.

Under the proposals, people granted asylum would no longer be on a relatively clear path to permanent settlement after five years. Instead, they would receive 30-month blocks of residency, face repeated reviews and be at risk of deportation if their home countries are later judged safe. Only after 20 years in Britain would they be allowed to apply for permanent settlement.

The measures come as almost 40,000 people have already crossed the English Channel this year in small boats, adding to public anxiety about borders and fuelling claims from the right that Labour is weak on migration. Starmer and his ministers insist they are simply bringing Britain into line with tougher European regimes and restoring “order and control” to a system voters see as unfair and overwhelmed.

Copying Denmark’s ‘negative nation branding’

The blueprint closely echoes Denmark’s experiment with what academics call “negative nation branding” – a deliberate strategy to make life for refugees unattractive enough that others decide not to come. In Copenhagen this has meant repeated status reviews, reduced welfare benefits and an overt political message that refugees should not assume they can stay.

In Denmark, asylum applications fell sharply after the 2015 crisis, and the country’s share of claims shrank relative to its neighbours. But experts caution that Europe-wide trends and tighter borders also played a role, and that it is hard to isolate the impact of any single policy.

What is clearer is the social fallout. Researchers have found that immigrants in Denmark report lower trust in government and weaker satisfaction with democracy, especially Muslim communities and those with less education. Cuts in support pushed more refugees into poverty, which in turn fed concerns about crime and poor educational outcomes. Critics of Starmer’s plan warn that Britain is walking toward a similar trap.

Fears of ‘performative cruelty’ and poor integration

Britain has already shifted from being one of Europe’s most liberal asylum destinations – approving three-quarters of claims in 2022 – to a mid-table country, with about half of claims accepted in early 2024. For many Labour MPs, that was already a difficult compromise. The new proposals, they argue, go much further and risk becoming an exercise in “performative cruelty.”

Stella Creasy, a Labour lawmaker, warned that keeping refugees in decades of limbo is both morally wrong and economically self-defeating, since people who do not know if they can stay find it harder to integrate, invest in skills or contribute fully to the economy.

Particular outrage has greeted talk of confiscating valuables from new arrivals to offset accommodation and food costs. After a backlash – and painful historical comparisons to refugees fleeing Nazi persecution – ministers hastily clarified that jewellery with sentimental value would not be seized. Critics say the damage was already done, reinforcing the sense of a government using symbolic toughness to placate a hostile public mood.

Tough signals abroad, mixed messages at home

The government also wants to reduce benefits for asylum seekers and remove the blanket legal duty to support those who would otherwise be destitute. Countries that refuse to take back failed asylum seekers could see their nationals denied British visas, with Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo cited as potential targets.

Supporters say these moves will deter dangerous Channel crossings and respond to anger in communities where hotels have been turned into refugee accommodation, sometimes sparking protests and rioting. The home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, argues that without a visible show of control, public consent for offering sanctuary will erode further.

Yet migration specialists point to a built-in contradiction. Governments, they note, want to cut the number of arrivals but also need those who stay to integrate, work and build stable lives. Policies designed to deter new refugees – constant reviews, reduced support, punitive rhetoric – are often exactly the ones that push existing refugees to the margins and make long-term integration harder.

A high-risk play for Starmer

The toughest questions about the plan are political. Starmer is under heavy pressure from the right, particularly Reform UK, which has been exploiting unease about immigration and polling ahead of Labour in some surveys. The asylum crackdown is clearly intended to blunt that attack and show that Labour can be just as firm as its opponents.

But the backlash from Labour MPs and pro-refugee groups carries its own danger. Starmer has already been forced to retreat on other contentious policies when his base rebelled. Analysts warn he could again end up in the worst of both worlds: angering supporters who see the policy as a betrayal of Labour values, while failing to win over voters who prefer harder-line anti-immigration parties.

For now, many details remain vague, including how the new rules will affect small-boat crossings or overall migration numbers. What is clear is that Britain is staking its reputation on a strategy that treats deterrence as a form of branding, hoping that the signal of toughness travels far beyond its shores. Whether that signal delivers control – or leaves the country looking meaner without being more secure – is the gamble Keir Starmer has chosen to take.