Anti-Infiltration Law: framework, amendments, HCJ decisions, and asylum seeker detention status in 2026.
The Anti-Infiltration Law (Offences and Jurisdiction), 5714-1954, and its recent amendments, are among the most contested provisions in Israeli law regarding the status of asylum seekers and "infiltrators" in Israel. Around the question of administrative detention and forced stay in facilities, a struggle has been ongoing for more than a decade between the legislature and the Supreme Court. Our office follows developments in this field, and in this article we explain the existing legal framework, the legislative history that led to it, and the current points of uncertainty that anyone dealing with this matter should know.
The original Anti-Infiltration Law of 1954 was enacted in a security context entirely different from the reality of the past decade. From 2012 onward, the legislature added to this law a series of amendments intended to regulate detention and forced stay of those defined as "infiltrators"—primarily nationals of Eritrea and Sudan who entered Israel across the border with Egypt.
• Amendment No. 3 (2012) permitted administrative detention of infiltrators for a period of at least three years, without need for a criminal proceeding. The Supreme Court, in an expanded panel of nine justices, struck down this amendment in September 2013 (HCJ 7146/12), holding that it unjustifiably impaired the constitutional right to freedom under the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. • Amendment No. 4 (December 2013) attempted to establish an alternative framework, which included detention in closed custody for a period of up to one year for those who entered after the amendment, and mandatory stay in the open "Holot" facility with no time limit. This arrangement too was partly struck down by the Supreme Court in September 2014 (HCJ 8425/13). • Amendment No. 5 (December 2014) shortened the stay in the closed facility to 3 months and stay in the open facility to 20 months, and established a requirement for daily attendance. • Amendment No. 6 (February 2016), enacted following another Supreme Court strike-down in August 2015, shortened the maximum period of stay in the open facility to 12 months.
As of this article, the provisions that regulated periods of stay in a facility (a "residence center") pursuant to the amendments of 2014–2016 were temporary provisions to begin with. According to the text of the law as published in legislation databases, the validity of key temporary provisions on this matter expired in December 2021. The practical meaning is that the normative framework currently applicable to the detention of asylum seekers in facilities may differ from the picture that emerged in 2014–2016, and one must examine for each specific case what the applicable law is at the relevant time.
In recent times there have been reports of government initiatives and proposed legislation for extending periods of stay and detention within the framework of the Anti-Infiltration Law, including discussions in the Interior and Environment Committee of the Knesset. Nevertheless, we have been unable to locate, in official and verifiable sources (the government legislation website, the Knesset website, publications in the Official Gazette), a final and precise approval, including date and amendment number, pointing to a change that has actually passed all required legislative stages (first, second, and third readings) as of the date of writing this article. Any claim regarding a specific amendment extending detention beyond three years, including details of a specific approval in the Interior Committee, must be individually verified against the Knesset website (main.knesset.gov.il) and the government legislation website (tazkirim.gov.il) at the time of inquiry.
Anyone interested in learning whether and how a future or current legislative change affects his or her personal situation is invited to contact our office for an individual and up-to-date examination.
Legislative changes in this field are likely to directly affect: • Asylum seekers residing in Israel without permanent status, particularly those awaiting a decision on their asylum application. • Those who have been held or are currently held in residence facilities or in administrative immigration detention (custody). • Employers and aid organizations in regular contact with this population.
Even in the face of legislative changes, asylum seekers or those held in immigration detention (custody) retain several avenues for examination of the lawfulness of detention:
• A petition to the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice (HCJ) – as has been done several times in the past successfully against Amendments 3 and 4 to the law, where it is argued that a statutory provision unjustifiably impairs a constitutional right. • Individual judicial review of a detention decision – before the competent courts to examine the lawfulness of detention of a specific individual, including examination of proportionality and detention period. • Application to the Population and Immigration Authority requesting release from immigration detention (custody) or renewed examination of personal circumstances.
In any case of detention in immigration detention (custody) or in a residence center, it is recommended to act quickly and consult with an attorney, as the timetables in these proceedings are particularly strict.
The field of legislation surrounding the Anti-Infiltration Law is dynamic and complex, combining a long history of HCJ rulings against repeated legislative attempts. Given the pace of changes, one should not rely on general information when examining a specific case. Our office guides asylum seekers and their families in checking the most current legal status and in accompaniment to immigration authorities and courts.
The legal framework in this field has changed several times since 2012, and some of the provisions regulating extended detention periods have expired or been struck down. What the precise law applicable today to a specific case is a matter that must be examined individually against the most current official sources.
As of the date of writing this article, we have not located in official and verifiable sources a final and binding approval of such an amendment. It is recommended to check the most current status against the Knesset website or to consult with our office.
A residence center (such as the Holot facility in the past) is a relatively open facility in which there is a requirement for daily attendance, while immigration detention (custody) is administrative detention in a closed facility. Both pathways were regulated in different amendments to the law and discussed separately in Supreme Court rulings.
Act quickly. It is recommended to contact an attorney specializing in this field to examine the lawfulness of the detention and explore the possibility of filing a petition or request for release.