In 2008 migrant workers continued to require the assistance of Kav LaOved in order to realize their very basic right to stay in Israel. Kav LaOved has had to intervene in order to ensure that Civil Registry clerks implement the Civil Registry's own policy this year as well. In dealing with department officials, we have encountered arbitrariness, close-mindedness and ignorance followed by whimsical and illegal demands over and over again. This year, as always, high ranking officials in the Ministry of the Interior have not lifted a finger to amend injustices and have not responded to any of our petitions.

In March 2006, The High Court of Justice ruled that the policy of "binding" a migrant worker - conditioning their right to stay in Israel on their employment by a specific employer - was invalid. The Court further ruled that the "employer transfer procedure" (granting a worker who lost their job the permission to stay in Israel for up to 60 days without a work permit in order to find a new employer) did nothing to alleviate the harm done by the "binding" policy, and was therefore invalid as well.

Nevertheless, in 2008, the "binding" policy was the main mode of employment of migrant workers in Israel, leaving only one way out – the dysfunctional "employer transfer procedure". Moreover, in many cases even this procedure was not carried out in full by Civil Registry clerks. In some cases the Ministry of the Interior did not even obey specific court rulings.

G.S. was particularly unlucky. She first came to Israel in 2000 as a care-giver, but had to return to the Philippines after a year and a half when her family's home burned down. G.S. returned to Israel in 2006 only to find that the Ministry of the Interior calculated her period of stay in Israel from the first time she entered Israel (including the 5 years she had spent at the Philippines), that her permit had therefore expired, and that she had to leave the country.

As an exceptional case, the Ministry of the Interior granted G.S. a permit on the condition that she only work for her current employer. G.S. had no choice but to sign the document. After a few months of suffering abuse at the hands of her employer, including screams and blows, G.S. quit her job and requested to be transferred to a different employer. The Ministry of Interior refused her request, even though G.S. had already found a woman who wanted to employ her. It took a court petition, submitted by Kav LaOved (petition no. 2010/08), to convince the Ministry of Interior to grant G.S. a work permit for 2008.

At the conclusion of a months-long process, G.S. and her new employer arrived at the Civil Registry offices in Petah-Tikva with the court ruling ordering the issue of her permit in hand. Before she was issued her permit, the Registry manager insisted that G.S. sign a statement promising to leave Israel at the end of 2008. G.S. refused to sign. At this point the prospective employer gave up and fired G.S. Thus the court ruling was rendered obsolete, even though it had been made clear that the Registry was to issue the permit without making any further demands.

In direct violation of the "employer transfer procedure", many migrant workers are denied temporary or permanent permits for the following reasons: failure to produce a "termination letter" from a previous employer or manpower contractor, the worker's failure to report leaving their employer, or the worker's alleged misconduct followed by an employer's complaint to the police. Time and again department clerks have made demands, fruit of their own whimsy, that workers state that their current employer will be their last, and that upon termination of their work relations they will leave the country. Time and again department clerks have ignored the rules of the procedure, which state that a worker who has been in Israel for under a year is eligible for regularization of their status.

G.Z. had a hard time finding a job after being fired, and was forced to pay an employer with a migrant worker employment permit thousands of dollars in order to keep his own work visa. When the permit expired, the employer demanded another payment in order to renew it. G.Z. refused and applied to the Ministry of Interior for a temporary permit (B2). There he was required to produce a "termination letter". Of course, the extortionist employer refused to give G.Z. the letter.

Against all odds G.Z. was able to find a new employer but was fired again when, after two whole months of bureaucracy, the Ministry of Interior refused to issue him a new permit. It took a petition submitted by Kav LaOved to convince the Ministry of Interior to change its position and six months later the worker was granted a permit to work as a caregiver under a different employer.

It is almost unnecessary to note that the Ministry of the Interior did not bother to compensate G.Z. for the long period of time in which he was unable to work and for the distress caused by his termination, which were both unjustified and precipitated by the hardships caused him by the Ministry of the Interior.

Workers seeking to extend their permits for an additional 60 days because the first 30 did not suffice them to find a job have also endured hardships at the hands of the Ministry of Interior. The Ministry demanded that they prove their efforts to find a job by presenting letters from placement agencies. This is an impossible demand (private manpower agencies do not see the workers as their clients, and therefore do not feel obligated to them in any way) that has generated many opportunities for extortion. During 2008 we have witnessed a growing phenomenon: private placement agencies in the care-giving industry demanding hundreds of dollars from migrant workers in order to find them jobs. We must emphasize that the Ministry of the Interior's demand is in contradiction of its own commitment to the High Court of Justice to grant workers 90 days to find a new employer.

One of the great evils generated by the "employer transfer procedure" (which was invalidated by the High Court) is the employment of caregivers for a "trial period" during the time allotted by their temporary permit (a B2 visa without a work permit) and their subsequent termination. Once a migrant worker in Israel has lost their job, they must apply to the Ministry of Interior for a 30 day tourist visa (B2) that permits them to stay in the country, but does not permit them to work, in order to find employment. Many employers, with the support and encouragement of placement agencies, hire caregivers holding B2 visas without applying to the Ministry of the Interior to issue the workers a work visa (B1).

Some reasons for the implementation of this illegal form of employment are: to temporarily fill a position until a new worker arrives from abroad or until an existing worker returns from a vacation at home, to be able to employ a worker without obtaining the proper migrant worker employment permits from the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor, or even to simply exploit workers. Another reason for this form of employment stems from the fact that a worker, whose B2 visa expires during the "trial period", would be able to receive a B1 permit only through their current employer, and only if that employer states that the worker has been their employee for a certain period of time and that they had not been able to renew their visa for specific reasons. In many cases employers delay the regularization of their workers' permits, sometimes for months, and then fire them. During the "trial period" many workers, fearing deportation, agree to work for small salaries and under terrible conditions.

After loosing their job in this way, the worker applies to the Ministry of Interior for a temporary permit in order to find a new employer, is denied on the grounds that they worked and stayed in Israel "illegally" for months, and is required to leave the country immediately. As a rule, the Civil Registry does not believe workers who claim to have been working as caregivers throughout that period and whose permits were not renewed through no fault of their own.

Even when the worker is new to the country and does not fully understand the situation, the Ministry of the Interior lays all the blame on them and punishes the crimes of their employer or placement agency by deporting the worker. It is important to note that Kav LaOved is not aware of a single case in which an employer was punished for employing a worker without a permit, even though this is a criminal offense, and though the damage this form of employment does to the worker is great. Workers routinely pay for their employers' offenses in other cases as well.

A clear cut example of this is L.P.'s case. L.P., from Sri Lanka, worked as a caregiver for her employer, S. After a few months on the job S. informed L.P. that her position would change and that she would be working as a housekeeper for S.'s granddaughter. S.'s granddaughter told L.P. that her permit allowed her to work in this line of work.

Of course, this violation of L.P.'s work permit was illegal, and S. and her granddaughter knew it. Following a tip, the Immigration Police arrived at the granddaughter's house, ordered L.P. to leave and told her to apply to the Ministry of Interior for a temporary permit until she could find work as a caregiver. The Ministry of Interior, due to L.P.'s "serious offense", denied her application. Kav LaOved's petition to the Ministry of the Interior on L.P.'s behalf received no response. L.P.'s complaint of illegal employment to the police was transferred to the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor, where it was decided not to bring charges against S. or her granddaughter. L.P., on the other hand, was forced to hire a lawyer in order to petition the courts to order the Ministry to issue her a permit.

There are cases in which a worker, who has been denied a temporary permit but has found an employer willing to hire them and regularize their position, has been able to convince the Ministry of Interior to "forgive" them for being in the country "illegally" and to issue them a work permit. In all the cases that Kav LaOved has taken in 2008 the Ministry of the Interior has almost never agreed to issue a temporary B2 visa, although later, after finding an employer, a B1 work visa is issued. This policy results in workers under threat of arrest and deportation looking for an employer at all costs. Many placement agencies consider the temporary permit B2 a sort of legitimizing certificate indicating that the worker will not have trouble receiving a permanent permit with a new employer. Therefore many agencies refuse to place workers who have been denied a B2 permit by the Ministry of Interior. We, at Kav LaOved, strive to find creative solutions to this problem, and our volunteers have had to convince placement agencies, time and again, to find workers a job, promising that Kav LaOved will later provide legal assistance in order to obtain a permanent permit for them. In other cases workers have been forced to pay placement agencies or criminal employers hundreds and thousands of dollars in order to obtain a B1 visa.

The phenomenon of employing workers without permits during their B2 temporary visa period has become so widespread, and the Ministry of Interior's policies so uncompromising, that, in most cases, Kav LaOved has been forced to give up the struggle for B2 visas. Our limited human resources and our desire to work on cases that can be settled out of court, in order to help as many workers as possible, left us with no choice but to focus on assisting those who have found an employer and on helping workers find employment. We are greatly frustrated by this situation, in which we feel as though we are cooperating with the Ministry of Interior's arbitrary policies.

Some workers who came to us with this sort of problem, and whom we could not help, have found relief in the (partial) implementation of the new care-giving industry employment policy that entered into force in 2009: thousands of workers, staying "illegally"in Israel, were granted B2 permits. This policy (implemented years after and in utter contempt of the High Court’s ruling against the "binding" policy) serves to emphasize the arbitrariness of the Ministry of Interior's actions. Those caught before the implementation of the policy were deported. Those who were able to avoid the Immigration Police until the implementation of this policy are allowed to stay. It is superfluous to point out that Israel did not suffer from these workers' stay in the country.