dw.com
Schengen Area Faces Challenges from Migration and Security Concerns
A German study shows 72% support Schengen, but the COVID-19 pandemic and rising illegal migration since 2015 (over 400 border control instances reported) challenge its open borders, leading to revised rules permitting controls up to three years.
- What are the immediate impacts of increased border controls within the Schengen Area on the free movement of people and goods?
- A recent German study revealed that 72% of respondents believe the Schengen Area offers more advantages than disadvantages. However, the COVID-19 pandemic significantly tested the Schengen system, leading to border closures and raising questions about its future.
- What long-term strategies should the EU adopt to ensure the security and functionality of the Schengen Area while upholding the principle of free movement?
- The EU is grappling with balancing the benefits of free movement within the Schengen Area with the need to address concerns about security and illegal migration. Revised Schengen rules now allow for border controls up to three years, reflecting the ongoing struggle to find a sustainable solution. Strengthening external border controls and implementing the Common European Asylum System are key elements of addressing these challenges.
- How have events like the COVID-19 pandemic and the rise in illegal migration influenced public perception and political debate surrounding the Schengen Area?
- The Schengen Area's free movement of people, a cornerstone of the EU, has faced increasing pressure from factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, terrorism, and illegal migration. Since 2015, over 400 instances of border controls have been reported to the European Commission, highlighting the challenges to maintaining open borders.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the Schengen Area's future in a negative light, emphasizing the challenges and criticisms. The headline (if there were one, based on the provided text) would likely focus on the threats to Schengen. The repeated mention of 'threats,' 'challenges,' and 'concerns' shapes the narrative towards a pessimistic outlook. The inclusion of quotes from politicians expressing concerns further reinforces this negative framing, while the positive viewpoints are downplayed.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language such as 'under pressure,' 'threats,' 'challenges,' and 'concerns,' repeatedly emphasizing negative aspects. Phrases like "Schengen is at stake" or "Schengen is on the brink" contribute to the overall pessimistic tone. More neutral alternatives could include: instead of 'under pressure,' use 'facing challenges'; instead of 'threats,' use 'security concerns'; instead of 'Schengen is at stake', use 'the future of Schengen is uncertain'.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on concerns regarding the Schengen Area's functionality due to migration, terrorism, and organized crime, potentially omitting positive aspects or alternative perspectives on the Schengen system's impact. While it mentions a German study showing 72% of respondents view Schengen positively, it doesn't explore the reasons behind this positive view in detail or present counterarguments to the negative perspectives presented. The article also does not explore the economic benefits of the Schengen area in detail. Further, the long-term effects of temporary border controls are not explored.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the issue as either maintaining completely open borders or implementing extensive border controls. It overlooks the possibility of nuanced solutions or intermediate measures that could address security concerns without completely dismantling the Schengen system. The debate is simplified to an eitheor choice, neglecting the complexities of balancing security and free movement.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights challenges to the Schengen Area's free movement of people due to increased concerns about illegal migration, terrorism, and organized crime. These threats undermine the rule of law and internal security, impacting the SDG's goal of promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development. The potential for increased border controls further restricts the free movement of people, potentially impacting human rights and justice.