Migrant workers in Israel are required by the Interior Ministry to obtain permission from their employers if they wish to travel to their countries of origin during their period of work in Israel. This permit is called “intervisa”. 

Nothing is more natural than the wish to visit one’s home, especially in light of the fact that it is not possible to have relatives visit in Israel. Sometimes workers need to travel due to an emergency such as an illness, death in the family, or a medical treatment that the worker prefers to undergo in his or her country of origin, accompanied by family and friends. 

In order to issue the intervisa the worker must bring a written permission from his or her employer, in which the employer promises to employ the worker upon his or her return to Israel. In order to replace the worker during the vacation, the employer can hire an Israeli worker, but such workers are not willing to be employed 24 hours a day like migrant workers, and demand the payment of hourly minimum wage. 

Many employers understand the workers' need of a vacation at home, but there are those who refuse, and as a result force their workers to stay. Sometimes the refusal is due to the inconveniency caused by finding a short term replacement and/or by the financial expense of employing an Israeli worker. 

Kav LaOved has received requests from workers to help them leave Israel with the possibility of returning legally in spite of their employer's refusal. One worker told us that during her eight years of work, she had not left the country to visit her children and family. Another worker told us with tears in her eyes that her mother was dying. She said she had already bought her flight ticket after her employers agreed to let her leave and be with her mother in her last moments. One day before the flight the employers changed their mind, when they realized they would have to employ a worker at minimum wage, and canceled the worker’s intervisa. The worker said it was an established family from the well-off Bavli neighborhood in Tel Aviv. 

We have recently raised the issue at the Committee for Migrant Workers of the Keneset, in a meeting with the head of the Immigration Administration, Ya’akov Ganot. Mr. Ganot expressed wonder over the fact that workers had not been allowed to leave. He pointed out that the case was mainly that of women who are mothers of children, and demanded the Population Administration personnel to correct the situation so that every worker could leave once a year to visit his or her children. 

A new regulation was issued at the Population Administration, according to which every worker, who would inform his or her employer in writing a month in advance of a two weeks leave, would be able to leave, even if the employer did not provide written permission. 

One worker, who asked to leave, informed her employer in writing as demanded in the new regulation. The employer did not agree to her departure, and fired her. After she had been dismissed, the Interior Ministry refused to ensure her reentry from the visit, claiming she could not enter Israel without having an employer. 

It turns out, then, that the new regulation had not benefited the workers whose employers refuse to allow their departure from Israel. The Interior Ministry's refusal to allow a worker to leave because after her dismissal she did not have an employer reflects the problematic nature of binding workers’ legal status to his or her active employment by their registered employer.