|| Interpretation Act is amended infiltration short lady mantle The claim that the new proposal is a constitutional principle ignores two previous rulings of the Supreme Court, according to which imprison people whose only crime is that they are asylum seekers Eyal Gross 19.11.2014 Updated at 21:00 11/19/2014 36 You have to ring twice, declared the famous poem by Natan Alterman. But anything related to the state asylum seekers, infiltration bill memo new Ministry of Justice published yesterday shows that the two rings are not enough, and we may have to wait, as is customary in the theater, the third ring. If the second law, refugees can be imprisoned without trial, said Judge Edna Arbel ruling against him in September that struck down the law in relation to the previous year, this is a that getup, then this time it is the same lady short glorification. In short it is not enough to fix the constitutional defects fell two previous rules that were rejected. According to the memo, it will be possible, as under the previous law, imprison new asylum seekers entered Israel in jail crescents, though for three months, instead of the year was disqualified by law. After this, you will move them to the facility sands, where it will be possible to imprison asylum seekers who have been in Israel. Period of stay in the sands, which today is limited in time, will be limited to up to 20 months. Also, instead of three records for attendance, attendance registration is required sands just one night, and the facility will be closed from 22:00 at night to 6: 00 am. These changes are there to make the law unconstitutional? Sands facility in September Photo: Eliahu Hershkovitz More titles on the subject Still unconstitutional Let asylum seekers living Ostensibly, the fact that the High Court preferred the last two elections to reject the laws on grounds of proportionality, you can upload it. But the argument that the new proposal is ignoring constitutional principle which runs in two previous judgments, according to which no imprison people whose only crime is that they are asylum seekers. Bag Court stressed that the detention of foreigners in Israel is only valid for a limited period, and aimed at ensuring the removal procedure sands state and confinement violates the freedom. Shortening the term of saharonim and the sand does not solve this defect. Touch the sand, the proposed text explicitly states that it is possible to order a stay there for those who have difficulty expel his country of origin. The explanatory notes also indicate that the purpose of this part of the law dealing mainly with the citizens Eritrea and Sudan, due to the existence of difficulties in deporting their country of origin. What are these difficulties? With regard to asylum seekers from Eritrea, due to the difficulties lay in the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits expel a person to a place where there is a danger to his life or freedom, can not be deported back to Eritrea. Sudan regarding Israels position is that it does not deport people there due to non-maintenance of diplomatic relations with the state. Exception to all this is that my name be imprisoned sands is exactly who can not be deported, as opposed to determining the effect that no person has no interest in stopping the deportation process. Moreover, it means precisely the same asylum seekers that Israel will not deport alleged that it recognizes that there is no expel a person to a place where there is a danger to his life or freedom - want Israel to imprison an offending their freedom. That will last punishment of asylum seekers innocent, and the creation of Israel itself absurdity which denies the freedom of someone who does not expel, ostensibly to defend its freedom. Judge Uzi Fogelman ruled the previous law on the subject of the question is not only quantitative - What is the maximum amount of time to hold her in custody constitutional - but whether the lease is allowed custody of those who held regarding the effective removal process. I respond to this question - as replying to this Court in extensive case - a definitive no. This determination was made about crescents but also holds true for the denial of freedom sands. Therefore, all detention beyond 60 days allotted Entry into Israel Law custody for deportation illegal alien can be deported, constitutionally unacceptable due to violation of the right to liberty. Claim that the state is expected to argue that the exemptions were made in connection sands facility make it open and do not see the teaching stay there be incarceration, it should be rejected. Even under the new bill will be managed by the sands of the Prison Service and prison will serve as director of the Center. Indeed, asylum seekers will be able to just stay out of the sand during the day, but given the location of the facility, and a ban on asylum seekers to work outside, it is unclear where they can go, and how to live an independent life out of him when they were forbidden to make a living. Moreover, it is unclear what will be achieved from holding asylum seekers in the sand, when after 20 months they will be released there. If the law is enacted in the current version, and will come again to the Supreme Court, the court will be put to the test. Justice Miriam Naor was already in the second round disqualification discontent law again soon, but stressed that when the court determines the law is unconstitutional, the Knesset did not can re-enact it without change, or a change that will not resolve the conflict with the basic laws, and that the new law did not correct the violation of the basic laws pointed out by the Supreme Court last time. If and when the issue will reach the entrance to the High Court again, it may then recourse to the third ring, and lets hope the latter.
Posted on: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 18:47:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015