The work-and-stay agency will be more expensive than planned and will be financed from special funds.

The planned Work and Stay Agency (WSA) was originally intended to be a central instrument of modern immigration policy: efficient, digital, clearly structured, and designed as an interface between skilled workers and the administration. However, a recent look at the Budget Committee's recommendation paints a very different picture. The WSA will be more expensive than anticipated – and the method of its financing raises significant constitutional and political questions.

Unexpected cost increase without clear justification

A total of €35 million is now earmarked for the agency's concept development alone – an increase of €10 million compared to previous plans. However, the medium-term financial plan is even more alarming: the draft budget allocates €740 million for the years 2027 to 2029. Officially, the focus is to be on the necessary digital infrastructure, i.e., the establishment, operation, and administration of the WSA (Employment Agency). This places the project on a scale more reminiscent of nationwide IT mega-projects than an agency whose core function is immigration management and skills matching. Such a large financial volume demands absolute transparency, a sound cost structure, and a clear demarcation from existing structures in the field of skilled worker immigration, which is currently barely discernible. In other words, the WSA reeks of immense waste of money .

Financing from the special fund: A questionable step

Particularly noteworthy is the decision to draw the funds not from the regular budget, but from the special fund for infrastructure and climate protection . The Budget Committee allocates the corresponding items in BT-Drs. 21/2060 to this special fund – a structure actually designed for measures to modernize infrastructure and achieve climate targets. The logical question is: How does a migration policy measure like the WSA fit into a special fund that is constitutionally bound to infrastructure and climate neutrality?

Conclusion: Good idea with poor fiscal policy signals

The Work and Stay Agency could be a useful instrument for skilled worker immigration . However, the current budget planning and the planned classification as a special fund raise significant questions. When a migration policy agency is suddenly declared an infrastructure or climate protection project, it creates the impression of a budgetary trick intended to conceal the true costs. Transparency, realistic cost planning, and constitutionally compliant financing are fundamental prerequisites for a project of this magnitude. The path the federal government is currently taking with the WSA does not meet these criteria – and thus jeopardizes trust in an already questionable undertaking .