One of the principal hurdles in regulating the entry of foreigners into the Russian Federation is the absence of a central migrant coordination hub. Andrey Kladov, an expert on migration policy and labor recruitment and the director of the Migrant Services platform, described the issue in a recent interview. He pointed to a system where responsibilities are spread across agencies, leaving a blind spot for a unified view of people who move across borders. Without a central authority, it is hard to track who is entering, for how long they stay, and what legal status they hold. The absence of a single governance layer makes reforms reactive, creates inconsistency, and fuels concerns about border security and the economic impact of migration.
At present, the Border Service oversees entry, the Federal Tax Service collects taxes on patents, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs manages the stay regime. Yet no single institution maintains a complete, up-to-date picture of each migrant. This fragmentation makes it nearly impossible to monitor the legality of a migrant’s stay, determine employment status, verify residence, or track tax payments in a comprehensive way. According to Kladov, immigration reform is being carried out piece by piece by several departments that improvise local solutions and often impose ad hoc bans and restrictions that create friction for migrants and employers alike.
A second challenge is the lack of a Unified Immigrant Profile. The Federal Tax Service does not know where a migrant works or how much they earn, while the Ministry of Internal Affairs holds information about whether the migrant is currently in Russia. The Border Service questions tax compliance before departure but cannot rely on a single, cross-cutting data set. The missing link is comprehensive data on the immigrant’s contact information, residence, employment, and tax status. A single digital profile, an Immigrant ID similar to a Fan ID, could collect these data and allow the state to communicate directly with migrants, ensuring timely updates and more accurate records.
The third problem is the absence of biometric control at entry. The ability to change a passport at home creates a path to avoid accountability for prior immigration or tax violations, effectively enabling new identities to enter the country. Kladov argues that affordable biometric controls can close these gaps. He notes that several nations have already implemented effective biometric checks, including China, the United Arab Emirates, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and South Africa. The use of inexpensive fingerprint scanners integrated into passport control systems can help identify individuals who previously violated the law, even if they present a new passport. While some pilots rely on large, expensive booths, there are practical, cost-efficient models that deliver reliable verification with a smaller footprint.
There are already projects to introduce biometric control, but many proposals rely on expensive, bulky equipment not suited for widespread airport use. More accessible solutions, such as portable trace scanners, could extend biometric coverage and cut capital costs. Implementing a combination of centralized data coordination, a digital Immigrant ID, and affordable biometric checks would strengthen the integrity of entry procedures and ongoing compliance, benefiting both migrants and the state.
Ultimately, the aim is to move from a reactive patchwork to proactive, data-driven governance. The emphasis is not to create obstacles for law-abiding migrants but to provide clarity, accountability, and fair enforcement. A unified system would support better planning for labor markets, taxation, and social services while reducing opportunities for abuse and illegal stays.