Critics of the current EU approach argue that the Ceuta incident is a direct consequence of weak deterrence and inconsistent enforcement of existing laws. From this viewpoint, the European Union’s reliance on cooperation with third-party nations like Morocco is fundamentally flawed, as it leaves the bloc vulnerable to the instrumentalization of migration. Skeptics point out that when border security is perceived as porous, it encourages further illegal crossings and places an unsustainable burden on the affected member states, ultimately undermining public trust in European institutions.
Many who hold this view believe that the focus should be on immediate, robust physical security and the strict, rapid return of those who enter illegally. They argue that the diplomatic response from Brussels has been too slow and that the lack of a firm, unified stance against border breaches emboldens those who facilitate irregular migration. For these critics, the priority must be to regain absolute control of the external border, even if it requires temporary deviations from standard free-movement norms. They contend that without a clear, uncompromising policy that prioritizes the security of the Union, the bloc will continue to face recurring crises that threaten its internal stability and political cohesion.