Table of Contents
The Essence of the Bill
The Israeli Knesset is currently discussing a bill on the Basic Law “On Entry, Immigration and Status in Israel,” proposed by Members of Knesset Simcha Rothman and Zvika Fogel.
It should be emphasized that this is currently only a bill, which nevertheless has already been approved in the first reading. If this legislative initiative becomes an active Basic Law, the Knesset will subsequently issue a separate law (not a basic one) that will present more detailed specifics.
Ban on Judicial Protection
One of the most controversial points of the bill is the provision prohibiting persons without Israeli citizenship or residence permits from appealing to court on matters of entry into the country. This doesn’t merely restrict, but actually completely deprives an entire category of people of judicial protection, which directly contradicts the fundamental principle of the rule of law and raises serious questions about the constitutionality of such an approach.
“A person who arrived here without status will not be able to appeal to court… If we are a democratic state that respects human rights, we cannot deprive a person of the right to appeal to court simply because they are a refugee,” noted Member of Knesset Merav Ben-Ari during the debates, adding that Simcha Rothman has literally “gone off the rails.”
The bill’s provision to deprive a person of the right to appeal to court represents an unprecedented and likely unconstitutional restriction on access to justice. In essence, it creates a dangerous legal “blind spot” where government decisions become absolute, final, and not subject to any challenge. This doesn’t simply contradict, but directly undermines one of the cornerstones of the rule of law and Israel’s constitutional order—the axiom that every administrative decision must be subject to independent judicial review.
Such a restriction flagrantly contradicts not only international legal norms but also Israel’s own constitutional doctrine and legal tradition. Israeli jurisprudence and the Supreme Court have consistently upheld for decades the position that the right to judicial protection is a universal, fundamental human right and cannot be conditioned by citizenship, status, or any other criteria.
Rothman’s proposed restriction also creates an extremely dangerous constitutional precedent: if the legislature can deprive one category of people of the right to judicial protection, violating basic legal principles, what would prevent the expansion of these restrictions to other “undesirable” groups in the future? This is a slippery slope toward selective justice that undermines the very foundations of a constitutional democratic state.
Percentage Limits
In addition, the bill provides for the introduction of percentage limits (quotas) on the total number of foreigners who can receive status in Israel annually. It’s important to note that these limits will not apply to foreigners who have the right to repatriation under the Law of Return.
Theoretically, such restrictions could affect various categories of foreigners: participants in the family reunification procedure, elderly and single parents, representatives of the fourth generation, as well as persons receiving humanitarian status and other types of legalization.
Supporters’ Arguments
Simcha Rothman emphasizes that immigration control is an inherent attribute of state sovereignty. “We must return sovereignty over Israel’s borders to the people,” he declared. Supporters of the law argue that the judicial system, especially the Supreme Court, has repeatedly blocked attempts by legislators and the government to establish effective control over illegal immigration. “All our laws aimed at combating illegal immigration have been overturned by the Supreme Court,” Rothman noted.
According to the bill’s authors, uncontrolled immigration threatens the Jewish majority and, consequently, the very essence of Israel as a Jewish state. “We must protect the demographic balance here in the Middle East, otherwise we won’t have a state,” Rothman emphasized.
Video about the humanitarian commission:
Member of Knesset Yitzhak Kreuzer pointed to the connection between illegal immigration and rising crime, especially in the southern districts of Tel Aviv. Bill supporters also argue that many countries have strict immigration laws and restrict illegal migrants’ access to the judicial system.
Interior Minister Moshe Arbel, expressing government support, also noted: “Establishing clear frameworks in these areas and forming a unified policy will strengthen sovereignty and the national character of the state, as well as increase certainty in this matter and public trust.”
Bill supporters also point to the global context of tightening immigration policy. Rothman noted the election of Donald Trump in the US, who made combating illegal immigration a central point of his campaign. “This is not a unique phenomenon for Israel; as we know, newly elected US President Donald Trump—the issue of illegal immigration was at the center of his election campaign,” Rothman said.
Opposition Position
Bill opponents present counterarguments. Gilad Kariv (Labor Party) emphasized that the right to a fair trial is one of the fundamental human rights that should not depend on citizenship or status. “We cannot create a category of people who are deprived of basic legal protection,” he stated.
Such a law will cause irreparable damage to Israel’s international reputation as a democratic state. Law opponents also argue that Jewish tradition and the history of the Jewish people, who were themselves refugees for centuries, require humane treatment of refugees.
Merav Ben-Ari pointed out that the proposed measures will not solve real problems. “This law won’t remove a single migrant from here,” she declared. Kariv emphasized that all necessary tools for effective immigration policy already exist: “We have the Law of Return, the Law on Entry into Israel… The problem is that the government is not fulfilling its obligations.”
Critics of the bill propose alternative approaches to solving illegal immigration problems. They consider it necessary to create an effective system for reviewing asylum applications that will allow quick identification of applicants who truly need protection and those who are economic migrants.
International Legal Aspects
From the perspective of international law, the bill raises serious questions. Israel is a party to several international agreements, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial to all persons under the jurisdiction of a state party.
Israel has also acceded to the Refugee Convention, which imposes obligations to consider asylum applications and prohibits the expulsion of refugees to countries where they may face persecution. Additionally, Israel is a party to the Convention Against Torture, which prohibits the expulsion of people to countries where they may face torture.
Restricting access to judicial protection potentially deprives migrants and asylum seekers of the opportunity to challenge decisions that could lead to violations of these international obligations. This exposes Israel to the risk of criticism from international organizations and possible sanctions.
It’s significant that even countries with harsh immigration policies, such as Australia, the US, or European Union countries, despite strict control measures, maintain certain mechanisms of judicial protection for migrants and asylum seekers.
Practical Consequences
The ban on court appeals for non-citizens has far-reaching practical consequences. Administrative decisions, like any human actions, are subject to errors. Judicial oversight serves as a mechanism for correcting these errors. Without such a mechanism, even obvious errors or arbitrariness will remain uncorrected.
Without the ability to challenge a deportation decision, there is a real risk of returning persons to countries where they may face persecution, which violates the principle of non-refoulement—a cornerstone of international refugee law.
The absence of judicial control may lead to arbitrariness by immigration officials who will know that their decisions will not be reviewed by an independent body. Without access to court, migrants will not be able to achieve justice in cases of violations of their rights, including potential cases of cruel treatment or violence. The bill creates a category of people essentially existing in a legal vacuum, without effective means of protecting their rights.
Political Context
Discussion of the bill organically fits into the current political context. Rothman’s initiative is not an isolated phenomenon, but another alarming element in the government’s systematic campaign to weaken judicial power, undermine constitutional checks and balances, and dangerously concentrate uncontrolled powers in the hands of the executive and legislative branches.
Interior Minister Moshe Arbel during the debates raised the question that one specific judge in the Tel Aviv District Court (referring to Judge Michal Agmon-Gonen) “actively works to redirect all cases” on immigration issues to herself. This statement was perceived as an attempt to undermine trust in the judicial system and justify limiting its role.
Bill’s Prospects
Following the vote, the bill was approved in the preliminary reading and sent to the Knesset committee for further consideration. The government supported it with the condition of making certain changes, including removing the provision on this law’s supremacy over other basic laws and coordinating further amendments with all coalition factions and relevant ministries.
Excluding an entire category of people from the sphere of legal protection grossly violates the basic constitutional principle of equality before the law and the right to access justice. These principles are not mere declarations, but inviolable cornerstones not only of international law but also of the legal systems of all democratic states, including Israel’s constitutional system, developed through decades of Supreme Court judicial practice.
If the bill is adopted, the Supreme Court will inevitably face a flood of petitions challenging the obvious contradiction of its provisions with basic principles of Israel’s constitutional system and international law. Even under current pressure on the judicial system, it’s extremely difficult to imagine that the Supreme Court could turn a blind eye to such a fundamental violation of constitutional principles and recognize the legality of these obviously unconstitutional norms.
But it should be noted that even in the US, despite harsh rhetoric and policy, migrants and asylum seekers retain the right to judicial protection and access to the asylum system.
Author Arthur Blaer, attorney at law
