Security threats and EU Migration

Post By Brianna Arnold

 

In the European Union, there are 26 countries that participate in the free movement of people or Schengen. This means that people do not need to have a passport to move between these participating counties. With attacks like Paris and Brussels some may argue that the openness of these countries is what allowed the terrorist attacks to occur. It is easy to drive through the countries in Europe that are apart of Schengen and there are not checkpoints that would allow for people transporting illegal goods or gun to be caught. This is what happened in the devastating terror attacks in Paris. Three cars filled with guns and ammunition and three teams of trained guerillas from ISIS killed 132 people and injured 350.[1] This was a horrible attack on innocent people but no one will ever know if the attack could have been prevented if there was stricter borders. In theory it wouldn’t have, but that is not a sound argument against open borders.

            The migrant crisis brings about many questions about the efficiency of open borders and presents the EU nations with security threats. Since 2004, there have been instances of migrant groups going to Europe, most often Italy. However, in the spring of 2015, the number of refugees increased dramatically. It is obvious that the migrants are experiencing security threats in many different ways, however, the countries in Europe that are experiencing an increase in migrants are also experiencing a security threat. This is a threat to both their national security and their ontological security.

            In terms of the national security threat, it is more obvious how the European nations are feeling this threat. They are having people enter their country without restrictions and without knowledge of their intentions while they are there. Going back to the Paris example and Schengen in general, there is a threat to countries in the EU who might not be accepting migrants but who are apart of Schengen and therefore the migrants could also enter their country. By no means do all migrants enter these European countries for the sole purpose of executing terrorist activities, but it is a fear for these European countries.

            These countries are also experiencing ontological security threats. This means their identity and way of life is being threatened. The result of this feeling, in some ways is the emergence of anti-immigration groups. For example, the group known as Pegida is a group formed in Germany that protests the number of refugees arriving in the country. At one protest there was talk about a house that was bought by the country for the refugees being burned down.[2] This type of violence is a result of these types of ontological security threats. In other words, the people of Germany that join this group are trying to protect German culture and have a great sense of Nationalism, and these feelings are increased because of the migrant crisis.

            These security threats that the European nations are feeling, both national and ontological, should not be a reason to close borders and not allow migrants into the counties. Schengen also should not be reversed for these security reasons. There could be an argument made to reform Schengen to allow for more communication between the countries but completely abolishing the open border system would be a step back for the EU. I would argue that the security threats to the migrants are greater than those of the European nations and therefore the countries have an obligation to allow migrants into their country. This should be the thought as long as allowing the migrants into the country does not have negative results on the host nation.

---

[1] Klausen, “Europe’s Real Border Problem”,

[2] Connolly, “Like a Poison: How Anti-Immigrant Pegida is dividing Dresden”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/27/pegida-germany-anti-immigrant-group-polarising-dresden