Success through lawbreaking: 50% fewer illegal entries due to unlawful Schengen controls

It's a foggy morning at the German-Polish border, but the silence is deceptive. Where the free movement of goods and people within the Schengen Area once thrived, federal police officers now stand guard, shining their lights into vans and checking passports. The political debate surrounding these measures is more heated than ever, fueled by the latest figures from the federal police statistics for 2025. At first glance, the hardliners in Berlin seem to be receiving support: irregular entries have plummeted. But behind this apparent success lies a legal gray area that is shaking the foundations of European coexistence. While politicians like Alexander Dobrindt celebrate the controls as the only panacea, we, as experts in visa law, are observing a dangerous development in which the rule of law is increasingly being sacrificed to the populist urge for hard-line imagery.

The statistical triumph and its legal downside

The raw figures read like a resounding victory for the Federal Ministry of the Interior. With 62,526 detected illegal entries in 2025, the statistics show a decline of around 50% compared to the more than 127,000 cases in 2023. The effect is particularly evident at the sea borders in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, where the figures appear almost negligible. But for us as legal experts, the question is not whether controls act as a deterrent – they undoubtedly do – but whether they are compatible with EU law . The reintroduction of internal border controls is actually only intended as a last resort in the Schengen Borders Code (SBC) . The permanent implementation of such measures, as we are currently witnessing, threatens to permanently erode the core of European freedom of movement. We see a worrying trend here: the law is no longer understood as a framework, but as an obstacle to be circumvented by political decrees.

Between deterrence and the right to asylum

A key point of contention that repeatedly occupies our firm is the practice of border rejections. Statistics show that an increasing number of third-country nationals are being turned away even before they can submit a formal asylum application. Here, national security policy clashes head-on with international and European law . While Section 18 of the Asylum Act (AsylG) stipulates that entry must be refused without a visa, this must never lead to the principle of non-refoulement being undermined. When people are routinely rejected at the border without their individual need for protection being assessed, we are treading on a legal minefield. Critics and human rights organizations rightly warn of an erosion of the legal system , which will lead to a wave of lawsuits before administrative courts in 2026.

The role of politics: The legacy of questionable legal interpretation

The widespread skepticism within the legal profession regarding this policy is also due to the individuals involved. Names like Alexander Dobrindt have, for years, represented in our industry a policy that doesn't always adhere strictly to the law. When these same voices now call for even stricter controls and a de facto suspension of Schengen, alarm bells ring for us. It almost seems as if provoking breaches of the law has become a calculated political strategy , a way to project strength. As lawyers, it is our duty to point out that headlines don't replace laws, and statistics on prevented entries are by no means proof of lawful conduct.

Practical implications for businesses and global mobility

Beyond the grand political stage, the increased intensity of controls has very real repercussions for the economy and the labor market. For employers , the situation is paradoxical: On the one hand, the traffic jams for truck drivers at the makeshift checkpoints have eased somewhat due to more frequent checks, increasing planning certainty. On the other hand, compliance hurdles for the posting of skilled workers are rising dramatically. We strongly advise our clients and global mobility teams to thoroughly brief their employees. Anyone entering Germany by ferry or long-distance bus must expect to be checked – even if they are formally within the Schengen Area. Digital copies of residence permits or visa stickers are often no longer sufficient in practice , as transport companies, fearing hefty fines under the Residence Act (§ 63 AufenthG – carrier liability), are acting extremely strictly and insisting on original documents.

Conclusion: Security requires legality

In summary, while current statistics suggest success in reducing irregular migration, the price is high. We are witnessing a creeping normalization of the state of emergency at our borders. As a law firm specializing in visa law, we emphasize that border order is a legitimate goal, but it must not be achieved by violating European treaties. The coming months will show whether German courts and the European Court of Justice will put a stop to this practice. Security without the rule of law is ultimately just an empty promise. We will continue to scrutinize situations where political demands exceed the bounds of what is legally permissible and protect our clients from the pitfalls of this volatile legal landscape.