During 2008 we continued to assist migrant workers with regard to individual and principled and issues concerning their status in Israel. In addition, we continued with existing legal action, and we initiated new legal action concerning various fundamental issues of migrant workers employment in Israel.

Background
According to the Entry into Israel Law, the maximal period of work allowed to a migrant worker in Israel is 5 years and 3 months. The Con Tensa court ruling states that this period can be counted starting the worker’s first entry into Israel, even if the worker has spent long periods of time outside Israel after he or she first entered Israel. This ruling puts workers in absurd situations, whereby they enter Israel legally with work visas, and then immediately lose their visas because their first entry into Israel had taken place more than 63 months earlier. This ruling was applied by the Ministry of Interior even to workers, who last entered Israel before the ruling was made.

New legal proceedings – individual: 

1. Administrative Petition 2997/08 Bag Debbie Jogjali vs. the Ministry of the Interior:
In November 2008 we lodged an urgent petition to the Administrative Court in Tel Aviv on behalf of a Nepalese worker, who managed to call us from the deportees' compound at Ben Gurion International Airport a few hours before she was due to be deported back to Nepal. It turned out that the worker, who had come legally to Israel to work, had fallen victim to a flying visa scam whereby her invitation was cancelled on her arrival. As a result the worker lost her legal status, was apprehended and imprisoned, and the Ministry of the Interior demanded that she be sent back to Nepal. As a result of the petition the Interior Ministry reversed its position and allowed the worker to enter Israel and look for another employer in care-giving.

2. Appeal of Administrative Petition 8240/08 Seriani Hintigala Medinaji vs. the Ministry of the Interior:
Appeal to the Supreme Court by the worker from Sri Lanka against the decision of the Ministry of the Interior to deport her from Israel. The appeal argued that the worker’s loss of legal status stemmed from the illegal "binding to a single employer" arrangement, which was revoked by the High Court of Justice, and from the worker’s difficulties in finding an employer, which resulted from the State’s failure to comply with the Court’s ruling to implement a new legal scheme for the employment of migrant caregivers. After the appeal was filed, the Ministry of the Interior saw fit to allow the worker to regulate her status.

3. Administrative Petition 2812/08 Lilventi Manji vs. the Ministry of the Interior:
This petition regards an Indian migrant worker, who had stayed in Israel for five years in the past, and returned to work legally for a second time. The Ministry of the Interior wishes to apply to her the Con Tensa ruling (see background above). The petition is pending.

4. Administrative Petition 3144/08 Saxan Kroant vs. the Ministry of the Interior; Application for Leave for Administrative Appeal 10948/08 Saxan Kroant vs. the Ministry of Interior:
This petition was filed in December 2008, and attacked the decision of applying to the petitioner, a Thai migrant worker, the Con Tensa ruling (see background above). In the petition the court was asked to order the Ministry of the Interior to allow the petitioner to complete the maximum possible stay in Israel according to the Entry into Israel Law (5 years and 3 months). The last transitional order set regarding the application of the Con Tensa ruling stated that workers, who stayed in Israel in the past and returned for a second work period, could work in Israel only until the end of 2008. In the petition we asked for an interim order to extend the permit of the petitioner until the court made a final ruling concerning her case. Our request was denied. We lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal and criticized the policy of the Ministry of the Interior. As a result of the ruling new regulations were set by the Ministry of the Interior, which cancelled the previous policy towards workers, who returned to Israel before the Con Tensa ruling. Under the new regulations only the time that a worker actually spent in Israel is counted toward the 5 years and 3 months limit. The permit of the petitioner was therefore renewed for 2009.


New Legal Proceedings – Principled:

1. Filing an application according to the Order of Contempt of the Court in the High Court of Justice case regarding binding of migrant workers to specific employers:
On 28.7.2008 Kav LaOved, the Hotline for Migrant Workers, Physicians for Human Rights, Adva Institute and Mekhuyavut for Peace and Social Justice filed an application according to the order of contempt of the court to order the State to carry out the ruling of the High Court of Justice regarding the binding of migrant workers to a single employer. In the request submitted we stressed the serious injury done to the rule of law and the grave infringement of the rights of migrant workers resulting from the continued contempt of the Court’s ruling. On 26.11.2008 the Supreme Court accepted the petition, and ruled that the State had indeed held its ruling in contempt. An additional discussion of the issue was set for June 2009.

2. Administrative Petition 2675/08 Tatiana Rotro vs. The Ministry of Interior:
This petition concerns the application of the Con Tensa ruling to a person, who had stayed in the past in Israel on a tourist visa, rather than a work visa. The petitioner, a migrant worker from Moldova, had stayed in Israel in 2002 on a tourist visa. Due to this fact, and the Con Tensa ruling (see background above) the Ministry of Interior refused to extend the worker’s permit. The petition argued that the Con Tensa ruling and the Entry into Israel Law do not refer to stays in Israel on a tourist visa. As a result of submitting the petition the Ministry of the Interior reversed its position and allowed the worker to regulate her status.

3. Administrative Petition 2483/08 Lali Cordilama Lili Das vs. the Ministry of the Interior:
This petition was lodged on behalf of an Indian migrant worker, who was fraudulently brought to Israel to work in the care-giving branch. The petitioner, like dozens of other Indian workers, was brought to Israel to work in the care-giving branch after paying an exorbitant sum to a manpower agency that arranged his arrival in spite of the fact that no employer requested to employ him, and despite the fact that it was clear to the people who brought him that he did not have one of the basic skills necessary for working as caregiver in Israel: the ability to communicate verbally with the employer. This case is just one example of a very widespread phenomenon, which Kav LaOved has been dealing with, of importing migrant workers from peripheral areas in India where English is not spoken to work as caregivers, although there are no prospective employers for them and they are unlikely to find employers. These workers are brought for the sole purpose of illegally charging them enormous brokerage fees. As a result of the binding arrangement, which still applies to migrant workers contrary to the ruling of the High Court of Justice, these workers lose their legal status immediately upon their arrival in Israel, and are arrested and deported without having the chance to pay back even a small portion of their enormous debt.

In the petition we argue that the fraudulent import of migrant workers into Israel is made possible due to the failure of the State to supervise the recruitment process of migrant workers for work in Israel, and due to the fact that there are no criteria in Israeli embassies abroad for providing prospective caregivers with entry permits and no effective interviews with workers that convey full and exact information about the work awaiting them in Israel. These serious failings enable manpower agencies to deceive the workers they recruit to work in Israel and serve as an incentive to scout for the most vulnerable, desperate workers, who are the easiest to tempt with groundless promises. The glaring discrepancy between the bargaining power of migrant workers and manpower agencies, brokers and recruiters, the huge gaps in their access to credible information on the immigration process and on the nature of their expected employment in the country of destination, require effective regulation by the State and its effective intervention in order to prevent the corruption of the process and its abuse.

Kav LaOved repeatedly warned the various authorities, including the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor, the Ministry of Tourism and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and demanded the State to act to prevent this harsh phenomenon and to help find solutions for those workers brought to Israel after paying exorbitant sums, even though they cannot find work as caregivers on account of communication difficulties. Our pleas fell on deaf ears.

In the petition we demand that the petitioner receive a B/1 residency and work permit until the end of the maximal stay allowed for a migrant worker in Israel according to the Entry to Israel Law (63 months), so that the worker can work legally in a job that does not require regular communication with the employer, thus enabling the worker to repay his enormous debts. Likewise, we requested that the court order the State to set regulations for granting general residency permits to migrant workers in the same situation as the petitioner, who were brought into Israel fraudulently to work as caregivers, and who are not qualified for this work, or who do not have the required language skills to work in this field. We also demanded that the State set regulations for granting entry visas to Israel in Israeli embassies in countries of origin until the full application of government decisions regarding supervision of the recruitment of migrant workers for work in Israel by the IOM.

Since these workers have been brought to Israel, our argument is that the State cannot ignore their distress, which was caused by its own failings. The State does not have to be the entity that deceived the petitioner directly in order to determine that it has to be responsible for his situation, since the State's neglect and a series of institutional failures, which are typical of its recruitment practices, have prepared the ground for the defrauding of the appellant and enabled it in practice.

The petition was rejected, and we are contemplating further action.


Prominent achievements
1. The Supreme Court ruling in the contempt case regarding the "binding" arrangement.
2. Changes in the Con Tensa procedures as a result of application for leave of appeal 10948/08 Saxan – see above
3. Endorsement by the Government's Legal Advisor of Kav LaOved’s position in the High Court of Justice case regarding overtime


Applications to the authorities concerning principled matters:
1. The policy not to cancel migrant caregiver employment permits of abusive employers 
2. Toughening of procedures concerning transfer of workers between employers
3. The employment of migrant caregivers by two patients at once 
4. Migrant workers' export permits
5. Amendments to the Entry to Israel Law
6. Lack of defense for migrant caregivers by the migrant workers ombudsman 
7. Fees for the employment of Palestinian workers