Critics of the push to end internal border controls argue that the European Commission is underestimating the persistent security threats facing member states. For governments like Germany, the decision to maintain border checks is not merely about migration statistics but about maintaining a necessary layer of control in an unpredictable geopolitical environment. These officials contend that while the new EU asylum reform is a positive development, it is too early to determine its long-term effectiveness in practice. Removing border controls now would be a premature gamble that could compromise national security and public order.
Those who support keeping the controls point out that the current system provides a flexible, responsive tool that can be adjusted based on real-time intelligence. Interior ministers, including Germany's Alexander Dobrindt, have emphasized that border checks remain an essential component of a broader strategy to combat human trafficking, terrorism, and organized crime. They argue that the responsibility for national security ultimately rests with the member state, and that the European Commission’s desire for a return to the status quo should not override the duty of a government to protect its citizens.
Moreover, the argument that these controls are purely disruptive ignores the reality that they have been instrumental in managing the flow of people and preventing the exploitation of the Schengen system. For many, the stability provided by these checks outweighs the inconvenience of traffic delays. Until the new EU-wide systems are fully operational and their success is proven over a longer period, these national measures serve as a vital safeguard. The focus, according to this view, should be on refining the implementation of these checks to minimize impact rather than abandoning them entirely.