Two recent events once again raise the question of freedom of movement in Europe. First event: regularization by Spain from 500,000 to a million illegal foreigners. There European Commission and some Member States have expressed their strong reservations with regard to this initiative which creates a considerable draft, whatever the Sánchez government says. The second event, the adoption of the “return regulation” – which France and Spain oppose because it provides for the construction of “ hubs » to send foreigners there under OQTF – also has consequences with regard to the movement of foreigners in Europe.
This question arises because in the current state of European law, nationals of third countries – therefore not belonging to the Schengen area – can move freely between the 29 States concerned in Europe. This freedom of movement, combined with the two recent events (Spanish regularization and adoption of the “return regulation”) could thus have two consequences. Firstly, foreigners, once regularized in Spain, will be able to come freely to France since “Schengen law” means that a visa or a residence permit for Spain is equivalent to a permit for France and the other Schengen States.
Secondly, the clandestine who tomorrow would refuse to be sent back – by Germany or the Denmark for example – to return centers in Europe or in Africa as provided for in the “return regulation”, will naturally come, helped by NGOs and various associations, to countries which refuse the application of this European regulation, that is to say France or Spain, since they can travel within Europe.
In recent years, various events have marked public opinion: a Moroccan who resided in Belgium attempted to commit an attack on the Thalys in 2015; A Syrian having stayed in various European countries had attacked children in Annecy, in 2023; A Tunisian disembarked in Lampedusa and having traveled to Sweden, Norway and Italy had killed Swedish nationals in Belgium in 2023. Filipinalike the young Lolawas murdered by an illegal alien who was free to travel to Europe. These tragedies have revealed the flaws in the system developed at Schengen in the 1980s. This is an opportunity to revisit this new European law.
The side effects of Schengen
After the circulation of goods, services and capital, the time had come for freedom of movement for men. It was in 1985. The abolition of borders between member countries of the Union was ultimately the realization of a dream of peace and openness. Initially formed by five states, what is called the “Schengen area” today includes 29, including two non-member countries of the European Union, the Swiss and Iceland. The Schengen Convention allows Europeans living within this area to move freely, without a visa. This is how a French person can travel without a visa or passport to go to Spain or Estonia and customs clearance is made easier for them at European airports. This was the original right, designed in 1985.
But Schengen, since the end of the 1990s, has also allowed nationals of “third countries” to move freely in this area once they have entered it. Schengen is a sort of “box” within which everyone can move. A Egyptian or a Saudi no longer has to obtain a French or Spanish visa to travel to France and Spain. All he needs to do is obtain a “Schengen visa” from a French or Spanish consulate in his country. This is a considerable advantage: with this visa, he can go to France, Spain, Switzerland, Iceland, Finland, and so on. Likewise, the foreigner in an irregular situation, arriving for example by boat from the Algerian coast in Spain, and who obtains Spanish “papers”, will cross the border to join his relatives or friends in France or Belgium. At the same time, the regularization operation announced with great fanfare by the Algerian president Tebboune at the start of the year, supposedly to take care of his compatriots, has the sole effect of making them settle in France through the game of the Franco-Algerian agreement of 1968. No one to my knowledge has noted this point.
The Schengen Convention was designed at a time when questions of immigration, asylum, international crime and jihadism did not arise with the intensity they know today. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, freedom of movement, initially limited to Europeans only, was extended to “third-party foreigners”. Since 2015 and the first migration crisis, waves of refugees have been sweeping across Europe and we can therefore wonder if the system imagined in 1985 has not become generally harmful to the interests of Europeans.
Rethinking free movement
The solution could be to renegotiate the Schengen convention and limit free movement only to nationals of countries in this area, as was originally the case. To return to our example, a French person would continue to travel freely, without passport or visa, to Spain or Estonia, as he does today. Same thing for an Estonian who could also go to Italy or in Germany. Nothing would change for citizens belonging to the 29 “Schengen States”.
On the other hand, third-party foreigners (therefore outside the EU) who have obtained a visa for Spain cannot legally come to France or Finland. Is it normal for a foreigner who is not a national of the Schengen area to be able to circulate without control in European States solely because he has entered them once, legally or not? Is it normal for a migrant from sub-Saharan Africa or Asia to move freely like a Spaniard or a Finn? It would therefore be a question of reaffirming free movement for nationals of the Schengen area, but of limiting this right for nationals of countries subject to visa requirements. This would amount to generalizing for the latter “territorially limited visas” (VTL), which already exist.
The French would probably not be shocked if the freedom of movement of third-country nationals was limited. Public opinion would probably not deplore the fact that asylum seekers were prohibited from taking a “tour of Europe” to determine which country offers them the best conditions of residence. The latter can even, in France, be married without this posing a problem… European public opinion would not criticize the fact that people disembarked in Lampedusa or Alicante wander around EU member countries without hindrance. It therefore appears that after the vote on the “return regulation” in the European Parliament, it is time for the same governments to take up this issue to adapt the Schengen area to current needs.
