5 ms·

A few countries have started to introduce this recently due to paranoia around Syrian refugees. It's extremely controversial, as it basically nullifies Schengen

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.

jamiegreen 8y ago
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?
- johannes1234321 8y ago
  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)
- lucideer 8y ago
  It's paranoia. 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.
  - Symbiote 8y ago
    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.
    - lucideer 8y ago
      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?
- jstanley 8y ago
  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.
  - eMSF 8y ago
    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.
  - jamiegreen 8y ago
    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
    - jstanley 8y ago
      The same way town officials currently plan for the number of school places needed in their town in 2 years. I already drew a parallel between towns and countries. Remember, we're all free to visit or even move to a different town right now, and yet we don't have chaos.
      - HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
        The same way town officials currently plan for the number of school places needed in their town in 2 years. With increased revenue from where, exactly?
  - HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
    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?
avar 8y ago
> 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 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13194723
- lucideer 8y ago
  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.
anticensor 8y ago
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.
mamon 8y ago
>> paranoia around Syrian refugees. 99% of them are not refugees, 99% of them are not Syrian, most of them have fake IDs or no ID at all Many of them are criminals or even terrorists There's nothing paranoid about trying to impose basic security measures in such situation, such as a border control.
- lucideer 8y ago
  Do you have sources for this info?
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    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. [1] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/italy-swamped_switzerland-prepares-for-a-wave-of-migration/43301686 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/italy-swamped_switzerl...

jamiegreen 8y ago

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?

johannes1234321 8y ago
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)
lucideer 8y ago
It's paranoia. 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.
- Symbiote 8y ago
  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.
  - lucideer 8y ago
    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?
jstanley 8y ago
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.
- eMSF 8y ago
  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.
- jamiegreen 8y ago
  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
  - jstanley 8y ago
    The same way town officials currently plan for the number of school places needed in their town in 2 years. I already drew a parallel between towns and countries. Remember, we're all free to visit or even move to a different town right now, and yet we don't have chaos.
    - HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
      The same way town officials currently plan for the number of school places needed in their town in 2 years. With increased revenue from where, exactly?
- HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
  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?

avar 8y ago

> 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 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13194723

lucideer 8y ago
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.

anticensor 8y ago

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.

mamon 8y ago

>> paranoia around Syrian refugees. 99% of them are not refugees, 99% of them are not Syrian, most of them have fake IDs or no ID at all Many of them are criminals or even terrorists There's nothing paranoid about trying to impose basic security measures in such situation, such as a border control.

lucideer 8y ago
Do you have sources for this info?
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  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. [1] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/italy-swamped_switzerland-prepares-for-a-wave-of-migration/43301686 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/italy-swamped_switzerl...