4 February, 2008: The Schengen zone of passport-free travel between some European states was extended on 21 December, 2007 to include nine more countries, predominantly from the ex-Communist bloc—Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Malta. The extension created an area without borders now spanning 24 countries, 400 million citizens and 4,000 kilometers. Passport control on airplanes will remain in place until March 2008.

The symbolism of the expansion is unquestionable. The removal of borders across Europe’s post war divide was seen as a final validation of the process of transition and integration that started with the fall of Communism. References to the Iron Curtain echoed throughout the region, as celebrations along the borders of some countries included tearing down of wire fences. The Polish Interior Minister, Gregorz Schetyna, captured the significance of the moment: “It is a dream come true for generations of Poles who fought to become a part of Europe without borders. It is only now that the process initiated in 1989, marking the fall of communism, has really been ended. The present border opening is a symbolic termination of a period of subjugation in this part of Europe.”

The original agreement for common border space was signed between Germany, France and the Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg) in the Luxembourg town of Schengen on 14 June, 1985, but by the time it came into effect in 1995, other countries had joined. The agreement was eventually incorporated into the Maastricht Treaty, making it an integral part of the EU contract; new member states automatically became Schengen signatories. Future expansion of the zone will include Switzerland in 2008, Cyprus in 2009, and Bulgaria and Romania in 2011.

The Schengen agreement’s pivotal role in the process of integration extends to combating crime and supporting police cooperation between member states. To this effect, an important feature of the system is the management of a central data bank—the Schengen Information System (SIS), which stores a wide array of information, including but not limited to crime suspects, persons wanted for arrest, foreigners who have been refused entry to the zone, as well as information on stolen goods and identity documentation etc.

A second technical version of the system (SIS II) is currently under development and is planned to be completed in 2009. The main reason for this upgrade is that the current system can handle data from only 18 countries. Some member states opposed the expansion of the zone under the current system for fear that it would cause further delays in the development of SIS II. To avoid political frustration, Portugal put forth a modified version of its SIS 1+ system to new members until SIS II is deployed. The interim version is named SISone4ALL and its introduction allowed the expansion to proceed on time.

The enlargement of free travel is expected to enhance trade, business and tourism, but it has also brought fears of increased crime, human-trafficking, and a surge in black-market job-seekers. The opposition to it has been quite significant, especially in countries bordering the new Schengen members. Hundreds of German policemen demonstrated against the removal of border control, while a poll in Austria found 75 percent of the Austrian population to be opposed to the expansion. Reinforcing the eastern border has been a formidable undertaking with more than 10,000 border guards deployed along Poland’s border with Russia, Belarus and Ukraine.

In the first few weeks after the expansion the issue of whether the removal of border controls has in fact increased illegal immigration seemed to have been hijacked by partisan politics, according to Austrian Interior Minister Gunther Platter. In both Germany and Austria tabloid newspapers have fanned fears of massive increases in the numbers of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. The German Interior Ministry reports that the numbers of illegal immigrants rose briefly in the final week of 2007, but were similar to those before enlargement. Figures from Poland’s border agency show that the number of illegal immigrants caught on the border with Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, declined by 50% in the three weeks following the enlargement. Michal Parzyszek, a spokesman for the EU’s external borders watchdog, said “Too little time has passed to identify any particular trends. If any surge has occurred, it would be between the nine new Schengen states and the previous members.”

Much of the controversy surrounding the Schengen expansion has to do with Western Europe’s growing fear of immigration. In a number of recent elections anti-immigrant parties of the far-right have performed well. Hostility, however, seems to have moved from African migrants to the far more numerous group from the new EU member states, especially Poland and Romania. Some governments have unnecessarily contributed to the negative backlash in public opinion.

In November the Italian government responded to a terrible crime committed by a Romanian gypsy by demonizing Romanian immigrants as potential criminals and making it much easier to deport them.

Immigration and the free movement of people within the European Union are complex issues whose benefits and drawbacks should be addressed directly and thoroughly. Allowing fear of immigration to kidnap the agenda of further expansion could have detrimental consequences far beyond border control inside the EU. The process of further unification of the continent is fragile and could be derailed by strong negative public opinion. As all eyes in the near future will be on the effects of the Schengen expansion and attempts to use them in support of one argument or the other, the true debate of immigration and integration should be shaped by the European Union’s political institutions and its citizens.