EU Schengen Internal Borders Controls: How two wrongs make a right in Europe 

Abstract

More internal borders are closing. Each State claims to be the victim. France and Germany for instance, reason that Luxembourg may be posing threat of irregular migration and internal insecurity posed by terrorism and cross-border crime. Luxembourg, ranking third in the EU for per capita asylum applications, has faced scrutiny from neighbours who argue its migration policies exacerbate secondary migration. Why are the "threat" national priorities rather than the pillars of their economy crossing border controls daily to work? Is there a threat anyway? Are so-called NGOs and charities the gatekeepers? Any person deprived of the right to free movement thereto is entitled to remedies. Priority in foreign and internal affairs of States is the non-negotiable security and protection of the citizen's rights and legal interest. Parties could regularize illegal immigrations through the principle of first state of entry. Equity whether at the Commission or the CJEU may not reward a wrongdoer. We submit that Member States cannot share the responsibility provided for in Article 80, TFEU, if they had no say and acted in accord with the State that allowed illegal immigration in the first place. Equity demands equal right, equal responsibility.

In 2024, Luxembourg processed 2,500 first-time asylum applications, with Syria (20%), Eritrea (15%), and Afghanistan (10%) as the top countries of origin. Per capita, Luxembourg remains among the top EU countries for asylum applications (Eurostat, 2025).