Proposed amendment (no. 19) to Entry into Israel Law

The Entry into Israel Law proposed amendment (no.19) determines that the Minister of Interior will not provide a residence permit to anyone who enters Israel illegally, or has resided in Israel illegally for a period of more than thirty days. Kav LaOved opposes the proposed amendment.

In a position paper sent by Kav LaOved to the committee of Internal Affairs of the Knesset, which discussed this proposal, Kav LaOved listed the harsh injuries that could be caused to various groups assisted by Kav LaOved: immigrants and migrant workers, victims of slavery, trafficking, slavery and forced labor, and Palestinians employed in Israel.

The argument set forth in the position paper is that before the legislature applies itself to limiting immigration and regulating immigrants’ legal status, it should ensure that an immigration policy is formulated clearly and openly. This is especially necessary in the context of migrant workers, whose entry into Israel and residency in Israel depend on the “binding arrangement”, which the Supreme Court invalidated some time ago (Supreme Court petition 4542/02 Kav Laoved against the Government of Israel, verdict on 30.03.2006). The Supreme Court ruled that the binding arrangement, according to which a migrant workers’ residence permit depends on her or his employment by a specific employer, is not legal. According to this arrangement, in cases where the worker leaves his or her employer, resigns, is fired, or where the employer dies, the worker’s residence permit is revoked, and the worker becomes exposed to apprehension and expulsion.

The Court ordered the State to sever the dependency of the validity of a residence permit on work for a specific employer, and to formulate within six months of the ruling a new balanced employment arrangement, which is not based on such binding. The State has not yet fulfilled its obligation according to this ruling, and in fact is in contempt of the directive given by the Supreme Court two years and four months ago.

Under these circumstances, where migrant workers lose their legal status due to this illegal and invalid policy, the pretension to impose a comprehensive prohibition for regulating the status of migrants who have become “illegal” residents cannot stand, as it is opposed to the Supreme Court’s ruling.

In the position paper Kav LaOved stated that the binding of workers to a specific employer is not the only unacceptable arrangement regarding the residency of migrant workers. There are additional Draconian measures whereby migrant workers lose their legal status, which in all likelihood will not pass legal critique. One example is the regulation stating that a migrant worker, who gives birth in Israel, loses her residence permit. This regulation is anchored in the “procedures for dealing with a pregnant migrant worker” of the Ministry of Interior. A petition against this procedure has been submitted by Kav LaOved and other organizations, and is now pending before the Supreme Court. It is our standing that there is no justification to determine an all embracing rule, which prohibits the regulation of the status of “illegal” residents, when the legality of the means whereby workers lose their residence permits is so questionable.

In the position paper we emphasized that the “exceptions” to the comprehensive prohibitions, determined in clause 6א(ב)(5) of the proposal, do not suffice. These “exceptions” determine that the Minister of the Interior is permitted, under special circumstances, to issue a residence permit, despite former illegal residency. However, amongst other things, the letter of the law does not enable regulating the status of many slavery victims and/or victims of forced labor or trafficking. Although some victims are indeed brought to Israel as migrant workers with B1 visas, others are brought without permits or are smuggled in. The proposed amendment does not enable regulating the status of the latter victims, and as such stands in complete contradiction to the international obligation that Israel took upon itself regarding the treatment of victims of slavery, forced labor and trafficking.

In addition, in the position paper points out that the proposed amendment is likely to drastically harm thousands of Palestinian workers, who wish to enter Israel for work. The proposal will put an additional heavy burden on Palestinian workers who wish to get permits for work in Israel. The economic plight and the increasing poverty in the Occupied Territories have forced many workers to enter Israel illegally. Preventing entry of Palestinians who had resided illegally in Israel will put Palestinians in an extremely unreasonable situation, and will exacerbate their economic distress. The proposal of the law disregards all these problems, and turns a blind eye to Israel’s many obligations to the Palestinian population.