Europe’s Internal Borders Are Making a Comeback—Here’s Why

In recent years, migration pressures, the threat of terrorism, and regional conflict have made Schengen members increasingly reinstate border controls.

A police member stands guard while the border opens as Croatia enters the EU's control-free Schengen area in Bregana, Croatia, on Jan. 1, 2023. Borut Zivulovic/Reuters

Forty years after its founding, the Schengen Area has expanded into the world’s largest border-free travel zone, encompassing 29 countries and more than 450 million people.

Described in Brussels as one of Europe’s greatest achievements, Schengen embodies the vision of a modern Europe shaped in the aftermath of World War II and the Cold War, where it stands not only as a symbol of mobility but also as a core element of European integration and identity.

However, Schengen has come under mounting strain in recent years as national governments across the continent increasingly reimpose internal border checks, in response not only to the long-standing concerns of illegal immigration and security threats, but also to new and developing geopolitical pressures related to the Russia–Ukraine war.

This has raised questions about the durability of one of the bloc’s defining projects and whether it can withstand 21st-century problems.

Experts say the vision behind Schengen reflected a Europe very different from today’s—one that could not have anticipated the strains the system now faces.

‘A Completely Different World’

On June 14, 1985, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands signed the Schengen Agreement—named after the Luxembourg village where it was concluded—laying the foundation for abolishing internal border checks and allowing the free movement of people, goods, and services.

“Forty years ago, it was a completely different world,” Richard Schenk, research fellow at the MCC Brussels think tank, told The Epoch Times.

He said that when the Schengen Area was made up of only a handful of countries, there were no external borders to guard apart from the Iron Curtain—which was itself a very strongly defended border—and there were not the kind of flows of migrants and asylum seekers that the continent started to see in the past decade.

“You had a very strong defense on the outside, and then you could scrap border controls between the member states,” he said. “But obviously, with the expansion and the world changing, this is completely obsolete.”

The research fellow identified 2015—the height of the European migrant crisis, when more than a million asylum seekers and migrants arrived by sea—as the moment many realized that the European Union’s external borders were “basically nonexistent.”

‘New Norm’

Jolanta Szymanska, head of the EU Programme at the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM), said that 40 years ago, “the Schengen project was very idealistic and largely unprepared for the crises that were to come.”

“This triggered ad hoc reforms of the system, which—in my opinion—still do not make the system resilient to future crises,” Szymanska said.

The zone is made up of 25 of the 27 EU member states and all members of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland).

The Schengen Borders Code provides members the ability to temporarily reintroduce internal border controls—in other words, their own national borders—in the event of a “serious threat to public policy or internal security.”

The European Commission, the EU’s executive branch, says that borders should be reintroduced only as a last resort and only in exceptional circumstances.

The commission can issue an opinion on the reintroduction, but it cannot veto it.

Despite the temporary nature of the provision, Szymanska said that these border controls “have already become the new norm in Schengen after the migration crisis of 2015.”

Currently, 11 countries—more than one-third of Schengen members—have issued notifications of the temporary reintroduction of border controls.

The PISM researcher said that many of the countries have been issuing these notifications “for many years.”

“Internal controls hinder the functioning of the area, but because member states prioritize security (which is somewhat understandable, especially in the era of rising hybrid threats), there are no indications that this trend will reverse,” Szymanska said.

Schenk said that even when some countries reinstate their national boundaries, they are a “pale shadow” of the former real border controls that existed before Schengen.

He noted that in his native Germany, border controls are only in areas such as major roads, which can be circumvented.

“They still catch a lot of migrants, which is just hinting at the scale of the problem of how many people are crossing the border without being caught by the police at all,” he said.

“If you want to avoid the border controls, you can still easily avoid them. It’s just more about how much it increases the price you have to pay for the human traffickers. It’s not that easy anymore, but still, it’s very easy to avoid these controls.”

Poland’s Unique Challenges

Several countries, including Germany, that have reintroduced border checks cite persistent pressure from illegal immigration as a reason.

Italy and Slovenia point to the risk that terrorists will infiltrate migrant flows, and Slovenia also warns of threats from organized crime, such as arms trafficking and people smuggling.

Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands noted the pressure on their asylum systems and reception capacity.

In recent years, however, a new challenge has emerged—not from the southern migration routes but from the east.

Germany, Austria, and Norway have highlighted security risks linked to the Russia–Ukraine war, including possible sabotage, that warrant border closure.

Poland, on Schengen’s eastern flank, has instituted restrictions with Lithuania, citing “migrant smuggling” from Belarus at the border.

Since 2021, European states have accused Belarus, a close ally of Russia, of weaponizing migration by flying in people from countries such as Iraq and forcing them toward the EU’s borders in a bid to destabilize the bloc.

European leaders call it a “hybrid attack,” while Minsk has denied the charge.

Bartosz Grodecki, a security and foreign policy expert at the Polish think tank the Sobieski Institute, told The Epoch Times that in recent years, Poland found itself dealing with two “totally different” crises at its border.

One, Grodecki said, was the “hybrid threat” coming from Belarus, and the second one was “this massive flow [of refugees] from Ukraine.”

According to the UNHCR, more than 992,000 Ukrainian refugees are receiving temporary protection in Poland.

Effect on Relations

Grodecki also touched on the effects internal controls were having on Europeans who, after years of free movement, now have to get used to border controls and the problems that come with it, including waiting at checkpoints.

“These controls are pretty much permanent,” he said. “The widespread reintroduction of border checks pretty much undermines the very idea at the core of the Schengen system, because Schengen was created to strengthen free movement—and then, it’s interrupted.”

Poland has also enacted border controls with Germany, which has reinstituted borders with all nine of its neighbors with which it shares land borders.

When Germany first announced plans to introduce national borders in September 2024 to tackle illegal immigration, Poland criticized the move.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said at the time that Poland did not need tighter controls on its western border with Germany but more engagement from Berlin and other EU members in securing the eastern border.

Szymanska said that the introduction of internal controls within Schengen “certainly does not facilitate cooperation between states on migration issues.”

“Worse, it sends a negative signal outside the EU,” she said. “It shows that in the case of increased migration pressure, instead of collaborating, we start to quarrel. This may encourage those who instrumentalize migration to push more people into the EU.”

Schengen at 40

The European Commission called Schengen “the world’s largest area of freedom and security” and says it has fundamentally changed how Europeans live, work, and travel through the continent.

It also says that it makes European citizens safer. Without permanent internal borders, agencies from different countries can partner more easily, which the commission stated is “an enormous advantage in the fight against terrorism and against serious and organised crime, including trafficking in human beings and illegal migration.”

In its report marking its 40th anniversary, the commission stated that Schengen continues to bring benefits and remains central to the internal market and free movement.

It acknowledged illegal immigration as a problem for member states, including “tactics to weaponise migration for political purposes.”

The commission stated that through “intensified EU efforts,” there had been a significant reduction in illegal border crossings.

January figures from the EU’s border agency, Frontex, show that there were 239,000 illegal entries into the bloc in 2024, a 38 percent drop from the year before and the lowest level of illicit entries since 2021.

The report notes that the bloc had undertaken measures to secure its external border, including increasing funding for border countries to strengthen their surveillance infrastructure and capabilities.

It states that effective return measures “are among the most sustainable tools for safeguarding the area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers” and that the commission has proposed a new legal framework for returns.

The Epoch Times contacted the European Commission for comment and did not receive a response by the time of publication.