Labor migration law: Lawyers again call for a stronger role for employers

German immigration law has changed significantly in recent years. Alongside the traditional role of employers as providers of employment, their function as actors in immigration law is increasingly coming to the fore. Companies now employ over three million third-country nationals – a mass phenomenon that inevitably leads to complex legal obligations. The legislature has responded to this development by creating a dense network of regulations that integrates employers into residency law and protects them with control and sanction mechanisms (so-called labor migration law ). This creates a legal responsibility for companies that extends far beyond the simple employment relationship.

Employers as key players in the migration process

A key element of modern immigration law is the dependence of labor migration on a concrete job offer . For Blue Card holders , skilled workers under Section 18a / b of the German Residence Act (AufenthG), or users of the Opportunity Card, employment is the key to a residence permit. Employers must therefore fulfill extensive cooperation and disclosure obligations even before hiring, such as submitting work permits or keeping residence permits on file (see our article on Section 4a of the German Residence Act (AufenthG) (Employer Obligations) ). If an employment relationship is terminated earlier than requested, the employer is obligated to notify the immigration authorities immediately.

Growing sanction instruments and control mechanisms

With increasing obligations comes a growing arsenal of sanctions . Legislators now provide for fines, exclusion from public contracts, suspension of subsidies, and even the denial of future approvals . At the same time, the authorities are scrutinizing employers more closely: they are not only monitoring primary obligations such as documentation and cooperation, but also increasingly secondary aspects of migration compliance , such as the employer's reliability under economic and administrative law. Companies are thus operating in an environment where misconduct can have direct repercussions for the approval process for foreign employees.

Migration as an administrative process – challenges for companies

Experience shows that migration processes depend significantly on official assessments that directly affect employers. Immigration authorities and the Federal Employment Agency effectively consider employers as co-addressees in many procedural steps. Even if companies are not applicants, decisions regularly have repercussions for them, for example, in cases of delays due to missing prior approvals or inquiries into the company structure. The situation becomes particularly problematic when economic urgency and immigration formalities clash—for instance, in expedited procedures, which are offered but come with higher fees. The fact that employers have few rights in these procedures has long been criticized by migration lawyers and experts in labor migration law.

The call for reliable control and clear structures

This makes it clear that the growing role of employers requires a control system that prevents abuse while simultaneously being legally sound, predictable, and economically manageable. Employers desire uniform, paperless, and consistently similar audit standards. The reality so far is different : a diffuse network of individual procedures, often highly dependent on the authorities' discretionary powers, and inconsistent administrative practices hinders planned immigration processes. The idea of a general " employer approval procedure "—that is, a preliminary, one-time check—could provide structure.

Another point concerns the role of professional migration service providers. With increasing complexity, companies' need for consulting services rises considerably. At the same time, the administration must ensure that service providers authorized under the Legal Services Act (RDG) have access to client files and can communicate effectively with the authorities. This requires digital channels, transparent processing procedures, and clear responsibilities . The authorities must also fulfill their supervisory function to ensure legally compliant behavior on the service provider side as well.

Conclusion: More transparency, better management, clear control

The legal profession has once again reached a clear conclusion: While existing employer oversight mechanisms are extensive, their practical application is often inconsistent and lacks sufficient transparency. Migration authorities should align their processes more closely with the integration of employers as integral partners in the administrative procedure. Monitoring remains necessary—particularly to prevent abuse and underpayment—but it must be predictable, consistent, and transparent. An effective monitoring system should facilitate migration, not hinder it. This requires digital tools, clear standards, and a willingness to address structural issues of accountability. Only then can the interaction between employers, service providers, and authorities function effectively and meet the demands of modern labor migration.