When the numbers tell a different story
New rules are reshaping the landscape for international students in Denmark. But as Kelly Draper Rasmussen digs into the latest residence permit data, the numbers reveal a much wider story about who is coming, who is staying - and what Denmark could stand to lose.
Photograph / Graphs: Vitaly Gariev on Unsplash / Kelly Draper Rasmussen
Text: Kelly Draper Rasmussen
As the new academic year begins, international students arriving from outside the EU face tightened rules around work and residence. In June, the Ministry of Immigration and Integration published figures showing that education permits issued to Nepalese and Bangladeshi nationals were down 94% compared with the same period the previous year, after new measures were introduced in May 2025.
The Ministry did not comment on whether other nationalities were affected by the changes and did not note that the peak arrival time for new international students is not early summer but August and September. Nevertheless, in Jan-May 2026, education resident permits issued to non-Western students were down 48%, while those issued to Western students increased slightly, compared with the same period in 2025.
Beyond the headlines
If we dig into the numbers a bit deeper, we can see more types of education resident permits available, such as for au pairs, interns, and accompanying family. If you combine all permit categories in the period they reported on, permits issued to Sri Lankan, Afghan, Pakistani and Iranian nationals are also significantly reduced.
This is a developing situation, and new students are arriving all the time. We can look at the most recent data up to June to see how the policy has affected international students in Denmark. During election campaigning, students from Nepal and Bangladesh were painted in the media as being illegitimate and underqualified, trying to enter Denmark’s labour market through a back door. Their non-state-approved courses were also dragged through the mud, and educational professionals lost their jobs either through redundancies or the media storm itself.
There was no suggestion that other countries were exploiting favourable “loopholes”, but the tightening of the rules has still affected international students’ behaviour in several other nations.
“There was no suggestion that other countries were exploiting favourable ‘loopholes’, but the tightening of the rules has still affected international students’ behaviour in several other nations.”
Who else is feeling the impact?
The USA, with a huge exchange student programme, issued more permits in the winter/spring than the year before, but we will have to wait to see whether the rule changes have affected the summer/autumn numbers. Numbers from June show a drop, but we cannot yet say whether this is a signal or statistical noise.
India had a steeper increase in permits when you include June, interestingly. That is a development to watch to see whether it is a blip that smooths out with more time and data, or the start of a new pattern.
In May 2025, the specific rule changes for third-country nationals in non-state-approved programmes were to remove the right to work during study, end the six-month post-study job search stay and prevent family members from accompanying the student.
“Denmark offers courses in English, in part, to attract English-speaking international students and recruit them to offset Denmark’s ageing population and avoid a disaster in funding its welfare state.”
The previous administration planned to go further: extend the changes to family members to state-approved programmes as well, and tighten entry requirements. They also plan to reduce the job-searching window and review previously issued permits for those suspected of using forged documentation. The new administration has not made this law, but it is likely to affect applications beyond the two vilified nationalities.
“The policy to reduce how many students have partners in general, and working partners in particular, sabotages the kommuners’ aims to recruit and retain both educated and skilled immigrants.”
The higher cost for Denmark
Another downstream impact of these changes is retention. Denmark offers courses in English, in part, to attract English-speaking international students and recruit them to offset Denmark’s ageing population and avoid a disaster in funding its welfare state.
The Danish kommuner have excellent retention of Bangladeshi, Nepalese and Sri Lankan newcomers. Figures do not show how students compare with workers in retention, but reducing how many arrive as students could mean the overall retention rates of internationals will deteriorate. Another factor, besides original citizenship, that affects how long (or if) an international stays long term in Denmark is whether they have a partner of any nationality. Having a partner at all cuts the odds of leaving by more than three-quarters. If that partner has a job, the odds are cut even further. The policy to reduce how many students have partners in general, and working partners in particular, sabotages the kommuners’ aims to recruit and retain both educated and skilled immigrants.
Nepalese and Bangladeshi students who had jobs were providing value to Denmark, and their portrayal in the press as labour market cheats (despite no rules being broken by these students and their spouses working in hospitality) has justified a raft of changes that will shut down much of the growth that international students gift to Denmark.
