Proponents of stricter border measures argue that temporary suspensions of the Schengen agreement are a vital, pragmatic tool for maintaining public order and national security during times of crisis. When thousands of individuals arrive at a border in a single day, as seen in Ceuta, governments have a fundamental responsibility to verify the identity and status of those entering their territory. By implementing targeted checks, nations like Italy are not abandoning the principle of free movement but are instead exercising their right to protect their citizens from the risks associated with uncontrolled migration flows.
Supporters point out that the current asylum system is often overwhelmed, and that signaling a firm stance on borders is essential to deter human trafficking mafias and prevent dangerous, illegal crossings. For many national leaders, the political reality is that their electorates demand visible evidence that the state is in control of its territory. Without these measures, public trust in the European project could erode further, potentially fueling the rise of more extreme political movements that advocate for a complete withdrawal from international agreements.
Furthermore, advocates argue that these actions encourage a more serious discussion at the EU level about the sustainability of current migration policies. By creating a temporary 'circuit breaker,' member states can force a collective reassessment of how the bloc manages its external frontiers. This approach is viewed as a necessary evolution of European policy, ensuring that the benefits of open borders are balanced against the practical requirements of modern security and the need to manage migration in a way that is both orderly and sustainable for all member states.