dw.com
Record Schengen Internal Border Checks in 2024
The year 2024 witnessed the highest number of internal border checks in the Schengen Area's history, with Germany reinstating controls on all land borders and France resuming checks due to migration and security concerns, despite EU regulations emphasizing such checks as an exception.
- What is the immediate impact of the unprecedented rise in internal border checks within the Schengen Area in 2024?
- In 2024, the Schengen Area experienced its highest number of internal border checks since its inception nearly 40 years ago. Germany, a key transit country, reinstated controls on all its land borders, a measure unprecedented since 2015 when checks were limited to its southern border with Austria. France also resumed border checks, primarily due to terrorism concerns, though these are not consistently widespread.
- How do the actions of Germany and France regarding internal border controls reflect broader challenges within the Schengen system?
- The increased internal border checks within the Schengen Area reflect challenges in managing migration flows and maintaining security. While the EU aims for asylum seekers to be processed in their first country of entry, many proceed further into the EU, necessitating internal controls. Germany's extended border controls highlight the tension between maintaining the Schengen system and addressing national security concerns.
- What are the long-term implications of continued internal border controls, considering the EU's new asylum laws and the disputed effectiveness of these measures?
- The indefinite continuation of German border controls, pending a decrease in migrant arrivals, indicates a potential long-term shift in Schengen's functioning. The EU's new asylum laws, not effective for another two years, exacerbate this situation. The effectiveness of these checks remains disputed, with reports of both successful interceptions and circumvention of checkpoints.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the increased border controls primarily as a response to the rising number of migrants, emphasizing the security concerns of member states. While acknowledging the legal framework of the Schengen Border Code, the focus remains on the perceived need for stricter control, potentially downplaying the impact on freedom of movement and the principle of solidarity among member states. The headline (if there were one) likely would focus on the record number of checks, reinforcing this security-focused narrative.
Language Bias
The article uses neutral language in many places. However, phrases such as "the increasing border control" and "the perceived need for stricter control" subtly frame the issue in a manner that supports the necessity of increased controls. The word "migrants" could be substituted with more neutral terms such as "individuals seeking entry" or "people crossing borders", depending on context.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the increase in internal border checks within the Schengen Area, detailing the actions of several countries. However, it omits discussion of the perspectives of those subjected to these checks – migrants and asylum seekers. The article also doesn't delve into potential economic consequences of the increased border controls, such as disruptions to trade and tourism. While acknowledging the practical limitations of space and audience attention, the lack of these perspectives limits a comprehensive understanding of the situation.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by framing the issue as a choice between maintaining the Schengen Area and controlling migration. It implies that these are mutually exclusive goals, neglecting the possibility of strengthening external border controls while simultaneously preserving the freedom of movement within the Schengen Area. The article does not explore alternative solutions, such as increased cooperation among member states on asylum processing and migrant distribution.
Gender Bias
The article mentions several male figures (German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, EU Commissioner Magnus Brunner, and Andreas Roskopf, the head of the police union) by name and role. While it does not explicitly display gender bias, the absence of prominent female voices or perspectives in positions of authority or advocacy regarding migration and border control could create an unintentional bias.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses increased border controls within the Schengen Area, aiming to improve security and manage migration flows. This relates to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by focusing on strengthening institutions and promoting the rule of law in managing migration and border security. While the impact is positive in terms of increased security, it also raises concerns about potential negative impacts on human rights and freedom of movement.