A few countries have started to introduce this recently due to paranoia around Syrian refugees. It's extremely controversial, as it basically nullifies Schengen, but countries are apparently allowed by the agreement to put these spot checks in place (provided some political procedures) up to 20 out of every 60 days.
> It's extremely controversial, as it basically nullifies Schengen[...]
It's controversial, but it doesn't nullify Schengen, because these countries are using provisions of the Schengen agreement to implement these border controls. See "When can countries re-impose border controls?" in this BBC article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13194723
You are technically correct—I did mention these checks are allowed by the agreement.
But I guess what I meant by saying it "nullifies" Schengen is that it makes it redundant within its own bounds. i.e. pushing minor provisions of the agreement to the point that the motivation for creating Schengen is thwarted.
Is it paranoia, or just a sensible way for states to implement some semblance of control over their own border when a EU wide strategy seems out of reach?
It is paranoia or rather political acting, since right next to the "controlled" borders there are smaller streets and paths without controlled border and there are multiple reports about those border officers not finding anything of relevance (from time to time they notice something like overloaded cars and those kind of offenses, but that's not a border protection issue, but regular police work)
In order to argue that it's sensible, you have to first demonstrate a disimprovement in affairs warranting a change in policy, and secondly show a causal link between "outsiders" that your border control is targeting and those disimprovements.
Even if you could manage the former of those two (which I don't believe you could, though I might be mistaken), the latter is definitely not the case.
I don't have any numbers, but I twice saw refugees "caught" at Malmö Hyllie station; the first station in Sweden and the official customs point for people arriving by train from Denmark.
I only go to Malmö every 2-3 months, so at least for a while it may have been reasonable, given the aim of discovering refugees before they settle illegally somewhere.
I've been to Sweden twice in my life, and I've hit these border checks three times (I believe they were the first country to bring this stuff in—about 5 other countries have done so since) and also seen the same happen on one occasion coming from Copenhagen (by bus); someone being "caught". Nothing about that indicates to me that this is warranted, effective, or not purely motivated by paranoia. Who were those that were "caught" in your encounters? Did you get their names?
It is no more "sensible" for a state to be exercising control of its border than it is for a town to be exercising control over its border. We're all free people in the world, and we should be able to move around it freely. There should be no borders at all.
> The 1918 flu pandemic spread so rapidly that, in general, there was no time to implement cordons sanitaires. However, to prevent an introduction of the infection, residents of Gunnison, Colorado isolated themselves from the surrounding area for two months at the end of 1918. All highways were barricaded near the county lines. Train conductors warned all passengers that if they stepped outside of the train in Gunnison, they would be arrested and quarantined for five days. As a result of this protective sequestration, no one died of influenza in Gunnison during the epidemic.
In this world, how would public officials plan for the number of school places needed in 2 years, or the number of hospital beds? It's a nice idea, but it seems impractical.
The sentiment that we are "all free people" may sound nice but is unfortunately a meaningless platitude bearing little resemblance to the real world. Sorry if that sounds unduly harsh
Are you not then essentially arguing that states have no sovereignty? If so, how far do you take it - do individuals? Can any migrant - legal or not - rock up to your house and start camping on your lawn?
What definition of sovereignty are you using which says that exercising border control is essential for sovereignty?
Under the Svalbard Treaty of 1920, Svalbard is under Norwegian sovereignty. It is also an entirely visa-free zone. Anyone can go there, including same-day visa-free transit at Oslo Airport en route there. If someone lives there for 7 years they can then get Norwegian citizenship.
People can be deported from Svalbard if they are unable to support themselves or commit a crime, which I think answers your migrant topic.
FWIW, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta has no territory, and hence no borders, but has widely recognized sovereignty.
In my world there would be no such thing as an "illegal" migrant.
And, the distinction would be between public places and private places. Anybody is free to exist in any public place with no permission required (just like you are already allowed to do once you're in the country).
It would all be exactly the same as it is now, except there are no checks at the border, and no visa requirements.
Do you seriously think the quality of life wouldn't deteriorate rapidly if this was the case? Or is that not your concern? Or would it not effect your area, so you don't care?
I think it's utopian to believe that this would lead to anything but slums and shanty towns. People with no wealth will all flock to areas with wealth, which won't have the infrastructure to support them. They'd camp out wherever they could with whatever they could - possibly right outside your house. Probably in your back yard actually - local law enforcement would be too overwhelmed to go around persecuting squatting or trespassing.
Travel to a large city in India to see what happens when free movement is coupled with massive inequality.
Under your model people would just end up building huge gated-communities anyway - it would all be private property, so wouldn't violate any of your laws.
People will find a way to keep people they don't want near by away from them.
1. if any person on earth could sleep in their bed, would they want to?
2. if they do want to, what circumstance are they in that that's something they would want?
i.e. if everyone has their own bed, why take yours
Obviously I'm simplifying and referring to an impossible utopia here, but the sentiment stands regardless. The point is, once you're taking it that far, both sides are absurd.
Of course it's more sensible. A town doesn't have the same authority as the state. Although it's perhaps hard to see that from so far left of the field.
I agree that no borders at all is a desirable state.
However, in order to achieve this, certain prerequisites have to be met first. Opening borders has to be accompanied and indeed preceded by economic development.
The Schengen agreement for example only works because of the relatively similar economic situations of the member countries and even then it unfortunately has been a considerable cause for discord in recent years.
Your prerequisite doesn't follow through to your (apparent?) conclusion; there's no logical connection I can see.
Let's say opening borders does have to to be accompanied by economic development: fine. How does that then not work when migration occurs from areas with different economic situations?
You seem to be proposing that migrants from economically areas necessarily depress a developed economy?
I'm well aware of the fact that this is an ethical dilemma and that simply by winning the birth lottery one isn't morally entitled to living at a certain place any more than everybody else is.
However, an argument can be made for the self-determination of groups as well, particularly their freedom of association (or lack thereof).
Then there are more pragmatic matters. You can't simply let people starve if they can't provide for themselves. Providing for everyone who chooses to stay at a place but can't actually afford to do so might just not be economically feasible.
Sure, over time these differentials will be evened out because people won't come to a place if it doesn't make economic sense to do so but simply opening all borders without taking possible consequences into account could lead to quite harsh outcomes.
It depends on if you think the immigrants deserve the social safety net the rest of the citizens have. The social safety nets of rich countries are completely unsustainable if they allow anyone to come in and receive them. There is a reason that there isn't a single country with any kind of strong social safety net that has open borders. The math isn't even close to working.
If you don't apply the social safety net to the incoming immigrants, I don't see how you hold any higher moral ground than people who want controlled migration.
It is easy to work around that if that counts separately for each crossing: have four sets of border crossings, each accessible every fourth day, and controlled every day.
There is no 'paranoia' about migration, rather a reasonable response to a calamity.
In 2015 - entire nations population swelled by double digits as irregular migrants swept through - for example, Hungary, Austria, Bulgaria etc. are only the size of a small American city.
So, can you imagine if 3 million migrants swept through Sand Diego? Or 30 million migrants swept through the Southern US? Would this be 'an issue of concern'? Of course it would - and that's the relative magnitude of disruption for some of these countries, particularly the tiny Balkan states which are quite poor - so much so that citizens of places like Albania are just as poor as the migrants sweeping through there.
In 2017, the migration issue is no longer Syrian, as the aggregate numbers have calmed, but there are still a considerable number of migrants arriving, mostly from Africa, via Italy. [1]
As for their 'qualification as refugees' - it's generally true that most don't qualify. It's hard to quantify precisely, but merely being from an African country does not immediately qualify one for status. Migrants from Eritrea (Africa), Afghanistan and Syria have special status and are generally processed differently, but again these groups (at least the later) are not so common.
And of course Schengen definitely allows for countries to put up border controls on an as needed basis, and the current migration calamity is a reasonable candidate for that need.
Just as some people are too ideological about hard borders, we shouldn't be so ideological about open borders either; 'Smart borders' ie more open where they make sense, but with practical flexibility I think are best suited.
As for Germany/Belgium and similar enclaves ... it only works when there is an economic and cultural equilibrium between nations - otherwise, it's just going to cause problems. A tiny hole in a border can create an existential challenge for nations, and massive humanitarian and legal headaches.
I should add that border checks go up and down for all sorts of reason, and this is not a new thing. I know that in the early 2000's I was stopped a long between France and Italy. I don't know what the issue then was, but it's not like it felt odd to have to waive to the Gendarmes while crossing an international border.
It's a big issue with existential and permanent consequences, so it has to be taken very seriously, with deliberation.
