In recent months, Danish media and policymakers have turned their focus on Nepalese students studying at institutions like Niels Brock Copenhagen Business College, portraying them as a threat to the Danish labour market.

This scrutiny follows reports suggesting that some Nepalese nationals are misusing student visas to engage in low-wage work, prompting proposed policy changes that would restrict work rights for international students enrolled in non-accredited programs.

However, this narrative raises critical questions about fairness, transparency, and the broader implications for international students in Denmark.

Selective Targeting and Stereotyping

Nepalese students are not the only group enrolling in non-accredited programs in Denmark.

Students from countries like India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan—alongside many others from outside the EU—also pursue education here, each with distinct aspirations and challenges.

Singling out Nepalese students not only perpetuates harmful stereotypes but also obscures the diversity and complexity of the international student population.

It remains unclear whether the proposed restrictions are aimed exclusively at Nepali nationals or if they apply broadly to all students from non-EU countries—excluding, notably, those from North America and Australia.

If so, this raises a pressing concern: Are these policies especially biased toward students from developing nations?

Financial Burdens and Institutional Accountability

The financial burden placed on international students is considerable.

Tuition fees can range from DKK 45,000 to DKK 120,000 annually—an enormous sum for students from countries like Nepal, where the average monthly income is around DKK 1,500.

But the challenges extend far beyond tuition.

International students often struggle with limited working hours permitted under student visas, lack of student discounts, no access to maternity benefits, inability to bring spouses during their study period, and limited travel concessions.

Together, these factors create a heavy financial and emotional toll.

Meanwhile, institutions offering non-accredited programs continue to benefit from international tuition fees.

This raises important questions about institutional responsibility.

Are these schools providing adequate support, transparency, and realistic expectations for their students?

Are students fully informed about the constraints they will face once enrolled?

Immigration Oversight and Policy Clarity

It is the Danish immigration system that vets and approves student visa applications.

If misuse is occurring, it is critical to assess the effectiveness of the current screening processes rather than penalising students across the board.

Without such reflection, stricter policies risk punishing genuine students while doing little to address systemic gaps.

Additionally, the policies being proposed lack clarity.

They seem to apply in a broad, ambiguous manner, with no clear distinction between students at non-accredited institutions and those enrolled at fully accredited Danish universities.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that students at accredited universities face fewer restrictions and are subject to more lenient regulations.

This disparity leaves many international students—particularly those at institutions like Niels Brock—confused and anxious about their future in Denmark.

Disparities in Treatment of International Students

Students from EU countries benefit from tuition-free education and, in many cases, financial support through the SU system.

In contrast, non-EU students, especially from developing countries, must pay high tuition fees and navigate a host of additional barriers.

The unequal treatment of students based on nationality and region undermines the principles of fairness and inclusivity that Denmark is known for.

Conclusion: A Call for Equity and Transparency

Nepalese students, like many others, come to Denmark with the hope of acquiring quality education and building a better future.

While it is necessary to prevent misuse of the student visa system, it is equally vital to ensure that policies do not unfairly target specific nationalities or apply inconsistently across institutions.

To move toward a fairer system, Denmark should:

• Clarify the scope and intent of new immigration and education policies.
• Hold educational institutions accountable for the quality and transparency of the programs they offer.
• Ensure that all international students, regardless of nationality, receive equitable treatment and access to necessary support systems.
• Review immigration vetting procedures to address misuse without compromising fairness.

By doing so, Denmark can maintain its standing as a welcoming and inclusive destination for international students and reaffirm its commitment to global education values based on mutual respect, transparency, and fairness.