Working Papers

Europe’s internal border politics are increasingly politicized, with several member states recently reintroducing Schengen controls and challenging the principle of free movement. Although often framed as temporary responses to external threats - such as surges in migration or public health crises - these policies risk normalizing restrictive border measures, even for EU citizens. This study examines how government justifications for altering border policies (i.e., introducing or lifting controls) shape public support, perceived legitimacy, and trust in political authorities. We first identify distinct justification strategies employed by the German government from 2013 to 2023, examining how different aims (e.g., security, economy) and processes (e.g., legal compliance, effectiveness, solidarity) are used to justify policy shifts. Building on these insights, we conduct a multi-factorial survey experiment in Germany, the Netherlands, and France. Participants are exposed to hypothetical government communications featuring varied justifications, allowing us to test their causal impact on public opinion and trust. We hypothesise that certain justifications will bolster support for border restrictions, enhance perceptions of policy legitimacy, and increase trust in political authorities. By experimentally assessing the effectiveness of these strategies, our findings illuminate the mechanisms through which governments shape public perceptions of border control. This has significant implications for the sustainability of open borders, the resilience of European integration, and the future of trust in (EU) institutions.

The European Union (EU) currently faces substantial challenges, including rising nationalist sentiments and contentious debates surrounding migration and intra-EU border controls. Despite open borders being celebrated as a key achievement of European integration, public support for reinstating border controls remains high. This paradox underscores the importance of examining how citizens define European identity and determine who belongs within this community. Our study moves beyond traditional categorisations of identity (exclusive national versus inclusive European) by investigating both individual self-identifications and the nuanced traits, values, and behaviors citizens associate with Europeanness. Employing an innovative mixed-methods approach, we analyze qualitative, open-text responses through latent semantic scaling (LSS), capturing identity dimensions that transcend the conventional civic-ethnic dichotomy. Comparative cross-national analysis in Germany, France, and the Netherlands further reveals how distinct political cultures and migration histories shape the meaning of European identity. By integrating self-identification with detailed explorations of identity content, we illuminate how identity influences public attitudes toward migration policies and intra-European border controls. This comprehensive approach contributes valuable insights to policymakers, enriches debates on European integration, and deepens our understanding of belonging and identity in an increasingly interconnected yet contested Europe.