Subscribe
Germany has reintroduced, at least temporarily, border controls with the nine countries with which it borders, the reason being the need to combat irregular immigration and prevent terrorist threats. This measure provoked criticism in some neighbouring countries, but also caused satisfaction among many German citizens, who were concerned about security and the management of migration flows. Today, restrictions on the freedom of movement established by the Schengen agreements are already in place in seven other European countries, including France and Italy, albeit in a very different form to Germany. In short, it seems that Schengen is turning out to be a beautiful dream, at least in light of the current state of affairs.
The Schengen Agreement, which removed internal borders between member countries, was designed to facilitate the free movement of people and stimulate economic integration. However, recent measures taken by Germany and other member states raise questions about Europe’s ability to manage its borders and ensure the security of its citizens. With the increase of migrant and refugee arrivals, and the consequent and perhaps inevitable growth of crimes, even serious ones, committed by migrants and the emergence of real enclaves, mainly of an Islamic fundamentalist nature, the perception of insecurity has grown, prompting some governments to reconsider their openness policies.
Critics of these measures argue that the reintroduction of border controls does not address the root causes of irregular immigration. However, the policies recently implemented by the Giorgia Meloni-led Italian government seem to prove the opposite: the tightening of controls on illegal landings and greater control and enforcement of migration policies in general are having the desired effects.
However, what the German government has put in place is very different from the immigration management policies in place in Italy. The reintroduction of border controls, according to German critics, can have repercussions on the economy and lead to delays in deliveries and increased bureaucracy, negatively affecting small and medium-sized businesses that depend on the smooth movement of goods and people.
On the other hand, the situation has also generated an internal debate in Germany. While many citizens support the new measures in order to feel more secure, there is also a strong concern about the repercussions. The rhetoric of the German left has obviously started to raise the spectre of isolation, but this does not seem to have an effect on the population, which is shifting its vote to the more conservative parties and, in some cases, to the extreme right.
In this context, it becomes crucial to ask how the European Union can respond to these challenges. It is clear that the migration issue cannot be tackled only at the national level, Von Der Leyen knows this and also reiterated it on the occasion of her re-election. A coordinated approach is needed, including not only the strengthening of border controls but also more effective reception and integration policies. This could include a review of the European asylum system and a greater commitment to tackle the root causes of migration, investing in countries of origin to stabilise critical situations. And here we return to Italian political choices, with the now well-known ‘Mattei Plan’, which aims precisely at supporting and developing the countries of origin in order to eliminate the economic causes of migration.
In conclusion, the reintroduction of border controls by Germany is a warning signal for the whole of Europe. The current situation highlights the fragilities of the Schengen system and the need for deep reflection on the future of European migration policies. The response to this crisis must be unified and free of the rhetoric that has so far pervaded EU policies in this area. Only by joining forces will it be possible to effectively tackle the challenges of immigration and ensure a stable and secure future for all.
FeMo