"The European Union has always been sold, to its citizens, on a practical basis: Cheaper products. Easier travel. Prosperity and security."

"But its founding leaders had something larger in mind. They conceived it as a radical experiment to transcend the nation-state, whose core ideas of race-based identity and zero-sum competition had brought disaster twice in the space of a generation.... [I]nstead of overcoming [feelings of national identity], European leaders pretended it didn’t exist. More damning, the entirely avoided [sic] mentioning what Europeans would need to give up: a degree of their deeply felt national identities and hard-won national sovereignty. Now, as Europeans struggle with the social and political strains set off by migration from poor and war-torn nations outside the bloc, some are clamoring to preserve what they feel they never consented to surrender. Their fight with European leaders is exploding over an issue that, perhaps more than any other, exposes the contradiction between the dream of the European Union and the reality of European nations: borders.... It is not easy for Europeans to abandon the old-style national identity, rooted in race and language, that has caused them such trouble. The human desire for a strong group identity — and for perceived homogeneity within that group — runs deep."

Writes Max Fisher in "Why Europe Could Melt Down Over a Simple Question of Borders" (NYT).

The most highly rated comment there is: "It's one thing to merge with other countries in Europe. It's another to feel like one is merging with the Middle East or Africa. the EU was not supposed to be about that." Second highest rated: "It is one thing for a nation like Germany to share a common market and porous border with Luxembourg or Belgium. It is quite another to share one de facto with Syria and Chad."