Israel’s mechanism for deportation is unclear at this point. The UN High Commission on Refugees states that Israel must review each asylum seeker on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not they are still refugees – in which case Israel cannot deport them without violating their own agreements as well as international law.

Israel has long claimed that the majority of African asylum seekers are economic migrants who, especially because of their often illegal status, can be forcibly and justly repatriated. The birth of South Sudan offers a convenient pretext to implement the controversial deportation policies the Knesset recently passed. But the potential dangers migrants face when they return home are unknown – thus it is crucial that migrants’ refugee status is reviewed individually, and without the bias that is present in much Israeli rhetoric.

Israel’s Sudanese community has reacted to the sudden announcement with understandable despair. Many lament the absence of any conceivable livelihood in the embryonic nation, preferring to delay their return until the country is both politically and economically secure.

The indefinite detention of illegal migrants dispossesses asylum seekers from their basic rights, including the right to trial as well as to timely deportation. The law only requires a review of detention within seven days, and once again every three years. Any crime committed by migrant workers – from graffiti to weapons possession – is grounds for detainment. This default criminalization of migrants and the terms of their detention contradict several international treaties. Mandated periodic reviews that are years apart fail to mitigate these abuses.

The amendment adds to the growing body of legislation targeting migrants, which includes a five to fifteen year prison sentence for individuals aiding or sheltering illegal migrants. The brute response to migrants is entangled in Israel’s ambiguous, ad-hoc refugee process which broadly condemns assylum seekers as economic profiteers; to date, less than 200 asylum seekers have been granted refuge status. Israel has failed to uphold its obligations as a signatory to the Convention on the Status of Refugees, which requires nations to implement substantive assylum law.

The Knesset’s heavy-handed approach to migration is driven by, and itself perpetuates, this misperception of migrant; statements by the Knesset members and citizens alike manufacture a disasterous image of Israel’s future if refugee migration is sustained, stoking fears in the hopes of justifying draconian and discriminatory laws.

The debate over asylum seekers is particularly intense in Israel as many of its own citizens are refugees from Europe. Israeli communities and international organizations have strongly voiced their discontent with the law; a homegrown initiative called STOP the Infiltration Prevention Law Campaign produced an awareness video featured on Care2.com’s politic’s cause page. See the video and responses from other Israeli NGOs here. Amnesty international also condemned the law in a public statement here.

This week, Israel took further steps to disfranchise refugees and illegal immigrants; the Knesset approved a 2% cut from all ministries to fund measures to repel African migrants. These $167 million initiatives include continuation of the fence along the Egyptian border, as well as the expansion and creation of detention facilities. Migrants may spend anywhere from 60 days to three years in these temporary detention centers.

Potentially even more worrying is Netanyahu’s commitment to visit parts of Africa in the hopes of “returning” migrants. Though his attempts to forcibly repatriate asylum seekers would subject many of them to persecution, the prime minister claims that Israel will continue to protect the “real” refugees. Especially in light of the small percentage of migrants granted asylum, his statement begs the question: how are can “real” refugees – versus economic migrants – be identified, given that even refugees must seek work?

Reut Michaeli, executive director of Israel’s Hotline for Migrant Workers, countered Netanyahu’s assertion that most migrants are fraudulent asylum seekers who only come to Israel for employment:

“Across the world, 88 percent of Eritrean migrants who seek asylum are recognized as refugees. I find it very difficult to believe that the ones who come to Israel are any different.”

Detainment camps are spread throughout the Sinai, run by Israeli and Egyptian criminals who abduct asylum seekers and hold them for ransom. Inside these prisons, migrants are subject to torture and rape until, and unless, family or friends come to their rescue. Despite accounts detailing human trafficking and even identifying the actual criminals involved, no persons have been prosecuted by either Egyptian or Israeli authorities.

Those who manage to leave the camps alive do not find the refuge they sought in Israel. Over 27,000 asylum seekers live with the uncertainty of the government’s next move – to date, Israel, which has no defined set of asylum law, has only recognized 200 refugees. The nation is a signatory to the Convention on the Status of Refugees, but rather than comply with its own commitments, the Knesset is implementing incredulous detention laws that criminalize refugees; last November, the government approved a detention center with a 10,00 person capacity to hold migrants until their deportation. Currently, the Knesset is determining penalties for asylum seekers that include a minimum three year prison term, as well as a five year term for accomplices.

Tel Aviv’s mayor argues that illegal migrants are coming for work rather than asylum, and holds them responsible for many of Israel’s economic woes. Employment is inherently connected to the asylum process, but such entangled intentions do not justify the illegal and xenophobic reactions the Israeli government parades brashly and without shame: Prime Minister Netanyahu believes the proposed measures are essential to protecting the “character and future” of Israel. Netanyahu further referred to refugees as a “threat to economy, society, security, and demographic fabric” of Israel. The rhetoric includes economic references, but primarily emphasizes the difficulty in their “absorption,” as asylum seekers are so underhandedly “changing the face of entire neighborhoods.”

While nations are empowered to confront illegal migration, Israel’s crude solutions ignore the victims of human trafficking and violate international refugee law. It is little wonder that the government has failed to crack down on Israeli involvement in Sinai’s prisons camps, when its own detention facilities will similarly flout human rights. The attorney for the Anu Plitim (‘We are Refugees’) NGO reminds Israel that it “is itself a nation of refugees and survivors.”

Currently, the MoI grants temporary protection under the Refugee Convention to nationals of certain countries, such as Eritrea and Sudan, provided that they can prove their identity.

The African Refugee Development Center (ARDC), based in Tel Aviv, has encountered numerous cases being dismissed out of hand by the MoI due to the difficulties in doing so. In the case of Eritreans, problems arise when there are discrepancies in identity between Eritreans and Ethiopians. Unlike Eritreans, Ethiopians are not eligible for temporary protection in Israel. As in the case referred to above, the MoI commonly rejects an applicant’s claim by asserting that they are not Eritrean but rather Ethiopian.

The long and complex history of Eritrean and Ethiopian relations has resulted in a state of confusion regarding national identity for several thousands of people. Individuals seen as traitors, such as those who voluntarily qualified to vote for Eritrean independence in 1993 or those who were involved in Eritrean Community Associations, were denied Ethiopian citizenship. At this time the Eritrean administration was only a “provisional” government and thus not capable of issuing legal documents such as passports, only identity cards. Therefore many of these cases fell under the definition of “stateless”, that is, they were not formally recognized as either nationality. However, Article 15(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality. In 1996 both countries signed a formal agreement stating that acquiring Eritrean identity under the 1993 referendum does not deny individuals from Ethiopian nationality. Both Eritrea and Ethiopia then began issuing dual citizenship.

After Eritrea’s attack on Ethiopia in May of 1998, individuals of Eritrean ties residing in Ethiopia were issued with yellow “alien” identification booklets. These individuals were again denied their Ethiopian citizenship and were not issued with legal Eritrean documents, as they were seen as enemies of the state. This resulted in tens of thousands of cases of denationalized citizens. To add to the confusion, those Eritrean nationals who left Ethiopia were issued with an Ethiopian alien passport which did not show evidence of Eritrean origins. There are three common problems when attempting to prove Eritrean identity

Firstly, in the case of mixed marriages between Eritreans and Ethiopians, one spouse may be granted protection in Israel whilst the other is not, The spouse not granted protection may even face deportation. These situations are also particularly difficult if the couple wish to relocate. Furthermore, there are many difficulties for children born out of these mixed marriages in terms of citizenship which can result in the denial of a temporary protection visa. Due to the current political climate in both Eritrea and Ethiopia, mixed marriages and the resulting children are not accepted by either country and often face discrimination if they are returned. Article 16(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”. The complexity of Eritrean-Ethiopian identity and nationality therefore results in several situations in which the principle of family unity is in danger.

Secondly, adult individuals of mixed heritage who gained dual citizenship (such as in the aforementioned court case) are often are dismissed as being purely Ethiopian and thus not eligible for temporary protection. However, these individuals are faced with the same discrimination and persecution as all other Eritrean nationals, such as forced military service.

Finally, identity cases are often brought forward by individuals having previously lived abroad for many years or in exile from their country of origin. In these cases, the claimant may not speak the native language of their birth place. For example, Eritreans exiled from Eritrea to Ethiopia may speak Amharic rather than Tigrinya or Arabic, the two most common languages in Eritrea. Similar language issues are found for those clients from Sudan, who do not speak tribal languages such as Fur. Language and identity often go hand-in-hand for the MoI is commonly used to dismiss temporary protection claims.

This court case was a step-forward in asylum rights and we must continue to advocate for fairer trials and a multi-dimensional understanding of identity.

by Zoe Peck

Kidane describes watching people dying of dehydration in the desert heat, “there was nothing we could do, there was so little water even for ourselves; we sent a prayer to God and moved on”. Sadly, Kidane’s journey is not unique. This is the typical journey, this is the reality. The estimated 18,000 Eritrean asylum-seekers currently residing in Israel have fled from one of the most oppressive regimes in the world. In 2009 Eritrea was ranked last in the World Press Freedom Index, even more oppressive than North Korea.

Fleeing Eritrea does not necessarily result in escaping the corruption of the regime, Kidane explains: “The Israeli Ministry of Interior demands Eritrean identification cards…we don’t have them, they are not important in Eritrea or the smugglers steal them from us”. To obtain an identification card, the people must go to the Eritrean embassy in Israel and pay $1,500 USD, which goes directly to supporting the very regime from which they just escaped. How do they afford this? Kidane explains: “you either suffer for a year or you borrow from someone; we suffer a lot”.

Furthermore, upon receiving the ID card, the asylum seeker must provide personal details to the embassy. This information is relayed back to Eritrea where it is viewed as betrayal and opposition to the regime, and can result in reprisals for the family remaining in Eritrea. To add further anguish, the asylum seeker must then sign a declaration stating that if they return to Eritrea they will accept any punishment the government deems necessary. Obtaining this document is not only a financial burden—it can mean a life sentence.

“We are tired, we want change; we want to get rid of the dictatorship”, says Kidane. The community is hopeful the toppling of many North African dictatorships in the past year will have an overflow effect on Eritrea and result in global condemnation of such regimes.

Five months ago, with the support of the African Refugee Development Centre (ARDC), a five-member strong committee was formed in order to support the broader Eritrean population living in Israel. The Eritrean committee aims to promote advocacy and awareness amongst the Israeli population regarding the plight of asylum seekers, as well as to strengthen unity within the Eritrean community. The five members were elected by the Eritrean community and report to a group of three elders, who settle any disputes that may arise and ensure accountability. Isaac explains that it is not always easy for asylum seekers, particularly Eritreans, to trust NGO workers. “Trust doesn’t come easily, even in the committee, we are friends, but the [Eritrean] regime has traumatised people”.

by Zoe Peck

The government decision in August of last year set out a number of criteria based on which it was estimated that out of the 1,200 migrant children in Israel, 800 would be granted stay permits and the rest would be deported. The majority of the migrant mothers lost their legal status for getting pregnant, as a result of a government policy that has since been struck down by the Supreme Court.

Since July of 2009, a campaign spearheaded by the NGO Israeli Children prevented the deportations time after time. The Minister of Interior explained the delay by stating that the Ministry was constructing a holding facility capable of housing the children and their mothers before deportation. The deportation of older children was further delayed due to the desire of the State to avoid the public outcry over deportation of children during the school year.

About 700 families that supposedly fit the criteria of the government decision submitted their requests to receive a stay permit. Out of those 700, the requests of 100 were summarily rejected. The other 600 families have not received any word about their legal status because the Minister of Interior decided to hold them hostage – they will not be given their stay permits until those families that do not fit the criteria will be deported. These 600 families have spent almost a year in uncertainty, unable to legally work and excluded from many of Israel’s protective laws due to the lack of legal status. During this year, some of children who didn’t fit the criteria a year ago (notably, being older than 5-years-old) are now eligible for the legal status according to the August 2010 decision.

In March, the first deportation of an undocumented migrant family took place and in the past two months the rate of deportations of children under the age of four was accelerated. 26 children and their mothers were arrested and taken to the holding facility constructed for them at the Ben Gurion Airport. Migrant rights NGOs expect the deportations to accelerate further now that the school year in Israel is about to end on June 30.

Rotem Ilan, the founder of Israeli Children, which launched the new campaign together with the NGO Hotline for Migrant Workers, says that their organization has received “very disturbing accounts” about the conditions at the Ben Gurion holding facility. Despite the child-friendly image of the holding facility that the Israeli government tried to promote, Ilan made it clear that “there are no social or medical services in the holding facility, and thus, far away from the public eye, the children and their mothers are being held in harsh conditions that are not fit for children.” One testimony about the holding facility came from a woman who was arrested and detained in the facility with her child, despite the fact that the Ministry of Interior knew that the father of the child has legal status in Israel. Due to this her deportation was prevented and she and her baby were released from the facility after a few days inside. The account she provided to lawyers at the Hotline for Migrant Workers is a harrowing one:

“They locked us inside the room from the moment we got there, and wouldn’t let us go out to the yard. We didn’t have soap or hot water and I had to prepare a bottle for the baby with no hot water. I showered the child with cold water in the sink. I had to bang on the door for a long time until they let me have warm water for the bottle… They gave me a document telling me that I’m entitled to call an attorney but wouldn’t let me call. I cried all the time and asked them to let me make the call. The inspectors kept telling me that the father doesn’t want to have anything to do with me or the child and that “he has had enough of you” and that he doesn’t love us.”

It has been reported that when Physicians for Human Rights doctor rushed to the holding facility to treat a sick child, he was prevented from entering and helping the child as the inspectors of the facility suspected the doctor might try to stop the deportation of the child and his mother. The holding facility is the only one operating in Israel without set guidelines and those who run it are not policemen or prison guards who are experienced with dealing with prisoners; instead the facility is managed by Ministry of Interior inspectors.

The new campaign includes an animation video (translated below) and on-the-ground activity, including a call to send letters to Israeli ministers urging them to stop the deportation via BibiDontDeport.com.

Originally posted by the writer on +972 Magazine.

The designation of countries as safe follows an amendment of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act which specifies that the Filipino Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) must certify that countries to which Filipino workers are deployed protect migrant workers’ rights. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) then needs to approve this certification. The law specifies that the Philippine government will only allow deployment if the host country meets at least one of these demands: it “has existing labor and social laws protecting the rights of workers; is a signatory to and/or a ratifier of multilateral conventions, declarations or resolutions relating to the protection of workers; and has concluded a bilateral agreement or arrangement with the government on the protection of the rights of OFWs.”

As the language of the law indicates, none of the conditions include enforcement of protective laws or treaties, which is a major problem in the region. In none of the countries in the region are sponsors allowed to beat their workers, drive them to suicide, under-pay them, not pay them at all or confiscate their passports, and yet such practices are all too common due to lack of enforcement. Therefore, we must look at the facts of the ground and not treaties, laws or bilateral agreements in order to determine whether countries can be regarded as “safe”.

Such a bottom-up approach easily reveals that neither Israel nor Oman are safe for migrants. Oman often does not enforce the regulations on minimum wage and hours of work for migrants (while doing so for its citizens) and domestic workers continue to be excluded from the protection of Oman’s labor laws. Most unskilled migrants have their passports confiscated by their employers and their movement restricted while some employers threaten, beat and sexually harass their workers or prevent them from leaving their job.

In Israel, the labor laws apply to all migrants, however, enforcement is also lacking. The Israeli government does nothing to ensure that workers who come to Israel are not indebted to recruitment agents. This debt, which takes at least one year of labor to repay, prevents migrants from complaining about abuse, fearing they will lose their jobs, won’t be able to find a new employer (which is usually the case, since recruitment agencies have no interest in finding the worker a new employer when they can bring a new worker who will pay the recruitment fees) and lose their job. Most migrant laborers in the agricultural sector are not paid the legal minimum wage and many employers confiscate their workers’ passports. Several employers who were found to be in violation of Israel’s labor laws including serious violations of work safety did not lose their license to employ workers. Inspections of work places are rare and recently, the Israeli police decided to close the branch of its police that was designed to monitor crimes by migrants but also combat human trafficking and prevent exploitation by unscrupulous recruitment agencies.

The most troubling part about this qualification it how little it will matter. If the Philippine government imposed a ban on all countries in the region except Oman and Israel, it would have at least done something to protect its workers from working in countries like Lebanon and Kuwait where suicides or migrants are so common it’s not even news. However, the POEA has already announced that it will continue deploying Filipino workers to countries that the government itself determined were not safe for migrants. The POEA said “conditions in other countries will be continuously reviewed and evaluated and deployment will only be halted if a ban is put in place.”

Migrant-Rights.org member Elizabeth contributed to this report from Israel.

The policy was appealed by several human rights organizations in 2005, but the ruling was pending until last Wednesday. The ruling, the last one to handed out by Justice Procaccia before her retirement, was extremely critical of the government policy. This harsh criticism was supported by fellow judges Justice Elyakim Rabinowitz and Justice Salim Jubran, who went as far as stating that the regulation “isn’t becoming of a democratic state.”

The regulation in question, set in place by the Israeli government, is intended to decrease the likelihood of women migrant workers staying in Israel after the expiration of their work visa. The state of Israel prevents migrant workers from entering Israel if they have relatives from their immediate family in Israel, stating that this would increase the chances of the workers overstaying illegally (meaning, the worker would have no reason to go back if they have a family in Israel or start one). Under the regulation, the pregnant worker would be deported either after the sixth month of her pregnancy if she is not currently employed, or once she gives birth if she is employed. Once the worker is out of Israel, she has two choices: she can either apply for a work permit for two more years on employment and return to Israel without her child in 90 days, or remain in her home country.

Sigal Rosen of Hotline for Migrant Workers (HMW) explains that in practice, the only way pregnant migrant workers could return to Israel is if their employer was willing to wait for her for three months, since recruitment agencies prefer to hire new workers (who would pay the exorbitant recruitment fee) instead of finding a new employer for a worker with a valid work visa. There have been several cases of women leaving Israel to give birth, expecting their employer to want them to return. However, during the three months, the employer got used to the substitute caregiver and the worker was not able to return, even if she was willing to leave her child behind. In other cases, the Ministry of Interior prevented the new mother from returning and the employer didn’t fight to force the Ministry to let her come back.

The human rights organizations appealing this policy said that it violates the human right to have a family and violates the workers’ right to earn a living by forcing her to choose between raising their child and making a living in Israel. The Court accepted this view, stating that forcing women to make this choice “involves serious infringement upon the workers’ constitutional rights under Israeli law.”

The High Court verdict explained the decision to strike down the regulation, stating: “The [pregnant] migrant worker regulation includes considerable harm to the constitutional rights of the migrant worker. It infringes upon her right to become a parent and have a family, and her economic expectations; it does not conform with the protection the Israeli law offers to workers who have given birth or are pregnant, and with the prohibition on discriminating workers based on pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood as part of the right to equality in employment; it contradicts the protection offered to migrant workers in the international conventions.”

In reaction to the verdict, the Hotline for Migrant Workers (HMW), one of the human rights organizations appealing the regulation stated: “We praise the High Court of Justice ruling that recognizes the right of caregivers to parenthood. We hope this ruling will lead to an increase of migrant workers’ rights in Israel, a reduction in the number of workers staying illegally in Israel and a decrease in the number of workers deported from the country before they are able to repay the enormous sums of money they’ve loaned in order to get to Israel.”

Currently, hundreds of undocumented female migrant workers and their children who were born in Israel are set to be deported from the country. Most of these workers lost their legal status as a result of the “pregnant migrant worker regulation” that was struck down by this Court otruling. The verdict could be used by women who have been in Israel for less than four years and have lost their legal status as a result of having a child to regain their legal status. Migrants’ rights organizations fear that the Immigration Authority would delay giving those women back their legal status until four years have passed since the worker came to Israel, at which point she will not be covered by the ruling.

The ruling stated that Israel must allow workers to complete their employment period (up to 63 months) with their child by their side, if their employer is willing to continue employing them or if they find a new employer of caregivers. It remains to be seen whether the Immigration Authority in the Ministry of Interior will follow the High Court verdict. Despite the fact that High Court rulings must be obeyed by the State, an examination in 2010 showed that nine High Court rulings are not being implemented by the State, the most famous of them is the 2007 decision to relocate the Separation Barrier near the Bil’in village. Sigal Rosen of HMW expressed hope that “the Immigration Authority will make an exception to its habit of ignoring High Court rulings and honor this verdict.”

The piece appeared originally in +972 Magazine by the author.