The Prevention of Infiltration Act in the Supreme Court: Round Two

Publication by a member of the Interest Group
The Prevention of Infiltration Act in the Supreme Court: Round Two’ by Reuven Ziegler

On 16 September 2013, in HCJ 7146/12 Adam v. The Knesset, et al,1 an expanded panel of nine justices of Israel’s Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Amendment No. 32 of the Prevention of Infiltration Act of January 2012, which mandated detention of asylum seekers  for three years, was unconstitutional and quashed it.

On 10 December 2013, International Human Rights Day, the Knesset passed Amendment No. 4 of the Prevention of Infiltration Act.3 This amendment enacts two fundamental arrangements:

  1. It provides for arrest for a period of one year of any asylum seeker (“infiltrator”) who entered Israel after the amendment entered into force—a phenomenon that has almost ceased to exist since the completion of the fence between Israel and Egypt, as the State boasted in its response to the petition;4
  2. It authorises the holding of “infiltrators” presently in Israel, who according to the State’s official determination have proven to be “difficult” to deport, in an “open” detention centre called Holot. These people are to be held indefinitely, or unless they “voluntarily” return to their states of origin. The only limitation on the number of detainees who can be held in detention is the number of available beds at Holot.

On 1 April 2014, the same panel of nine justices of the High Court for Justice reviewed the petition against the constitutionality of the two components of this law (HCJ 8425/13 Anonymous v. The Knesset et al).5 The petition was submitted, inter alia, on behalf of two Eritrean asylum seekers who were held at the Sahronim detention facility under the previous law, and were recently transferred to the neighbouring Holot facility when Amendment No. 4 came into force.

In my article, “The Prevention of Infiltration Act (Amendment No. 4): A Malevolent Response to the Israeli Supreme Court Judgment,” I argued that Amendment No. 4 is even more draconian than its predecessor, which was deemed unconstitutional, in part because of these following four reasons:

  1. The factual background – The virtual halt in new entrants.
  2. The legal background – An explicit recognition that the legislation targets people who, according to the state’s determination, cannot be deported in the foreseeable future.
  3. The fiction of using the term “open detention facility” – Reports6 on the conditions7 at the Holot detention facility leave little doubt regarding the prison-like conditions.
  4. The absence of judicial oversight regarding which people to detain in the “open” facility and/or the duration of the detention.8

A petition that I co-authored, which was signed by 400 academics and intellectuals and sent to the Minister of the Interior and the Attorney General in January 2014,9 stated that according to the Ministry of the Interior’s data,10 there are currently nearly 54,000 asylum seekers residing in Israel, the vast majority of whom (49,000) fled from Eritrea and Sudan.11The petition also argued that Israel is obligated to examine the requests of asylum seekers for refugee status in good faith and through a fair procedure, according to the standards accepted in democratic countries; it should determine whether asylum seekers qualify for refugee status or at least if their lives or freedom would be at risk were they to be returned to their  states of origin. It is indeed possible that after a fair procedure, some of these asylum seekers would not meet the criteria of “refugee” as defined in the Refugee Convention. However, the wording of Amendment No. 4 stipulates that it will apply to situations in which the “border control officer found that there is a difficulty in carrying out the expulsion of the infiltrator.” In other words, in situations in which the principle of non-refoulement does not allow Israel to forcibly expel “infiltrators” to their states of origin, the solution—as admitted by the legislator—is to hold them in Holot indefinitely or until they leave “voluntarily.” This arrangement is in marked contrast to the EU Qualification Directive which provides socio-economic rights and other benefits to people who do not meet the refugee convention criteria but cannot be deported under non-refoulement (“subsidiary protection”).12

In a previous article, I pointed out that the entire population of asylum seekers in Israel hold a class 2(a)(5) “residence permit” that does not entitle them to health care, except in case of emergency, or to National Insurance benefits. In addition, the employment of visas asylum seekers is pursuant to the State’s pronouncement that was included in the HCJ 6312/70 Kav LaOved judgment (namely, that the State does not presently enforce the prohibition on work that is stipulated in these permits).13 A new report published by the Hotline for Refugees and Immigrants indicates that the resident permit renewal process has recently become particularly difficult and burdensome,14 to the point at which a week ago, the Ministry of the Interior was forced to announce that due to its heavy workload, it will not take legal action against asylum-seekers who did not manage to renew their visas.15

Like Cato the Elder, there is no escape from repeating the obvious solution: enacting primary legislation regulating the status and rights of asylum seekers, recognidsed refugees, and failed asylum seekers who cannot be deported and therefore should be given “subsidiary protection.” This legislative reform can either be incorporated into a new comprehensive immigration act (e.g. the legislative proposal that I examined in an earlier article)16 or in dedicated legislation. In the meantime, it is hoped that the Supreme Court will quash Amendment No. 4 just as it invalidated its predecessor.

Dr. Reuven (Ruvi) Ziegler s a Lecturer in Law at the University of Reading.

This article was cross-posted on the Israel Democracy Institute website


  1. [Hebrew]
  2. [Hebrew]
  3. [Hebrew]
  4. [Hebrew] [Hebrew].
  5. Voices from Prison: Refugees Explain Why they Decided to Protest,The Hotline for Refugees and Migrants, 2 March 2014
  6. Tally Kritzman-Amir, “Between the Court and the Legislature: Thoughts on the Legal Status of Asylum Seekers Israel after Visiting the Holot Detention Facility,” Hatraklin: Thoughts on the Law website, 5 February 2014 [Hebrew]
  7. Reuven (Ruvi) Ziegler, “The Prevention of Infiltration Act (Amendment No. 4): A Malevolent Response to the Israeli Supreme Court Judgment”
  8. See the petition’s Facebook page: Academics4freedom4refugees [Hebrew]
  9. [Hebrew]
  10. The Population, Immigration and Border Authority, Policy Planning Division, “Foreign Worker Statistics,” 5/2013 Edition, October 2013. [Hebrew]
  11. Council Directive 2004/83/EC.
  12. Reuven (Ruvi) Ziegler, “A Matter of Definition: On ‘Infiltrators’ and ‘Asylum Seekers’ in Israel,” The Israel Democracy Institute, 26 January 2011.
  13. Sigal Rozen,“Streamlining the Process”: On the Mistreatment of Asylum Seekers by the Immigration Authority When They Renew Their Restricted Release Permits, The Hotline for Refugees and Migrants, 20 March 2014.
  14. Ilan Lior, “Due to Workload: No Action will be Taken Against Asylum Seekers Who Did Not Manage to Renew Visas,” Ha’aretz, 27 March 2014. [Hebrew]
  15. Reuven (Ruvi) Ziegler, “The Immigration Bill: An Examination of Arrangements Related to Asylum Seekers and Refugees,” The Israel Democracy Institute, 18 January 2011 [Hebrew]
This entry was posted in Publications and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s