Decolonising migration law and border security in Israel: The intersectional and colonial impact of the Prevention of Infiltration Law

Abstract

Around the world, so-called migration crises often mask severe human rights violations resulting from domestic laws and border securitisation policies. Abuses occur along numerous routes taken by migrants and refugees. This article argues that these routes, as well as the laws and policies governing them, require greater scrutiny to understand their impact on those seeking refuge. In this context, this qualitative research paper focuses on Israel and combines an analysis of existing theoretical literature with an empirical approach. Drawing on fieldwork conducted in Israel, the article examines the intersectional impact of the Israeli legal framework. It argues that the law is a colonial legacy that perpetuates the exclusion of individuals based on their identity. Furthermore, it promotes the economic marginalisation of African refugees by relying on outdated narratives that falsely define them as ‘infiltrators’ and deem their asylum claims illegitimate. This framework reflects a broader legacy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Therefore, the study contends that decolonising the legal system is essential. The law, along with its intersectional effects, has led to the racialised and gendered exclusion of African refugees from refugee status determination procedure and from Israel’s economic life. As a result, many are pushed to the social and spatial margins of Israeli society, particularly in the city of Tel Aviv, where a large number reside.

Introduction

Migration law and border security issues are often opaque to the citizens of a given nation. ¹ These rules and policies can permit numerous violations to occur, ² yet what actually happens – and what the law allows – generally remains out of the public eye. ³ Nevertheless, a country’s migration and refugee laws must be examined, as they offer a clear lens into the norms and values of that society.

The examination undertaken in this article is especially necessary in the context of multiple migration matters, increasing numbers of refugees worldwide, ⁴ and persistent public perceptions of migration crises. ⁵ Migration issues require greater attention, more scrutiny, and broader debate – particularly regarding the law and its consequences. ⁶ At the same time, there is a pressing need for deeper inquiry into the causes of specific types of migration, what occurs along migratory journeys, and what factors disrupt border crossings. Greater focus must also be placed on the harm experienced during these journeys, including the many lives lost along the way. ⁷ These matters should be of serious concern – not only because of their devastating consequences for those undertaking such journeys, but also because of their far-reaching effects on states and the people who live in them. ⁸

This paper, therefore, examines the workings and effects of the asylum system in Israel to assess the impact of its laws and legal processes. It investigates how the Israeli legal framework affects the African refugee community in Israel, with particular attention to incidents of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and how these experiences manifest in the lives of refugees.

The article specifically analyses the intersectional and colonial impact of the Prevention of Infiltration Law. Section 4 of this law – commonly referred to as the Deposit Law – required Israeli employers to deduct 20% of a refugee’s salary and place it into a deposit fund, which could only be accessed upon the refugee’s departure from Israel. On April 24, 2020, the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, ruled in the landmark case HCJ 2293/17 Garsegeber v. Knesset that Section 4 of the Prevention of Infiltration and Ensuring the Departure of Infiltrators from Israel Law (5775-2014) was unconstitutional and therefore void. However, its effects continue to linger.

This article examines the root causes behind the application of the former Deposit Law to Eritrean refugees and emphasises the necessity of decolonising border security, which has become increasingly entangled with migration and asylum laws. It further argues that the intersectional impact of asylum law is reminiscent of colonial structures, reinforcing the legacy of colonialism and embedding it more deeply within the state’s legal and social systems. This dynamic creates a continuum of exclusion based on religious, ethnic, and citizenship grounds, which disproportionately and negatively affects African refugees. It results in their systematic exclusion and lack of integration into Israeli society, often forcing them out of the labour market entirely. The asymmetrical impact of the Israeli legal framework stems, in part, from the ongoing effort to maintain an ethno-religious majority in Israel – an aim that evokes colonial patterns and ideologies.

The former Deposit Law is also relevant for this analysis, as it contained colonial traits rooted in the ‘infiltrator’ label, revealing a continuum of imperial domination that shifts from formal to informal domination. This is because the legal term ‘infiltrator’ has evolved from a term that described Palestinian refugees attempting to return to their homes in Israel after 1948. The term was established in the Prevention of Infiltration Law in 1954 to prevent the entrance of individuals arriving from Arab countries (i.e. Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Yemen and Saudi Arabia). ⁹ As a result of the increasing number of African asylum seekers, crossing the Sinai border, the term ‘infiltrator’ was extended to African asylum seekers, in 2012. ¹⁰ This was done to imply that these asylum seekers are not ‘real’ refugees but migrants seeking better economic opportunities. After multiple amendments to the law, the term infiltrator is now applied to all those non-residents who enter Israel without using official border crossings, regardless of their nationality. ¹¹

Drawing on fieldwork and combining a decolonial approach with an intersectional lens, this paper highlights the importance of assessing how legal frameworks further marginalise refugees on the basis of gender, ethnicity, and religious identity. It argues for the reassessment of legal norms and institutions, emphasising the urgent need to decolonise them. The central claim of this paper is that the legal framework critically exacerbates the vulnerability of refugees – particularly women – by increasing their exposure to SGBV through processes of social marginalisation within Israeli society. This marginalisation manifests ideologically and spatially, pushing refugees to the outskirts of Tel Aviv ¹² and depriving them of access to the labour market and basic services, thereby entrenching them in poverty. Moreover, the lack of legal status in Israel – including the absence of official recognition of refugee status – further compounds their vulnerability and heightens their risk of exposure to specific forms of SGBV. This legal and social exclusion ultimately reinforces both the ideological and spatial marginalisation of refugees in Israel. ¹³

The Israeli case study presented in this article is important to understanding the effects of state policy on issues such as the prevalence of SGBV in the context of global forced migration. The article reflects on migration and refugee challenges that affect many countries today, including, for example, Greece, Turkey, Israel, and Uganda. It highlights how Israel – like many other states – seeks to create and exploit legal loopholes and often flouts its international obligations in response to perceived migration crises. The paper also demonstrates how a state-led migration approach, as employed by Israel, can exacerbate rather than resolve existing national challenges. The specific focus on the Prevention of Infiltrator Law, including the Deposit Law, stems from its significant and ongoing impact on refugees, as well as its intersectional dimensions, which persist even though parts of the law have been struck down.

This paper begins by outlining its methodology and examining key issues and concepts related to border security, forced migration, and legal narratives. It then explores the structure and application of Israel’s asylum laws. Following this, it analyses the Prevention of Infiltration Law, with a focus on its intersectional impact. The paper also examines the colonial dimensions of the law and its enduring influence. In conclusion, the paper advocates for an intersectional approach and the decolonisation of border security and forced migration policies in Israel.

Methodology and conceptual framing

The methodologies employed in this study are qualitative in nature, combining an analysis of earlier theoretical literature with an empirical approach to assess the law’s intersectional impact.

This paper utilises data collected in Israel as part of a broader study on sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) to analyse the intersectional impact of border security, asylum, and migration law, ultimately advocating for the decolonisation of the border security narrative. It integrates empirical legal research with findings from existing theoretical literature. Such measurement is essential to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of law, and one reliable method is to directly engage with those most affected by the legal system. Accordingly, the conclusions of this paper are drawn from fieldwork conducted in Israel between October 2018 and July 2019. This fieldwork included non-participant observation and conversational interviews with both refugees and key informants. The key informants – professionals with experience in supporting refugees – offered crucial insights into the economic realities faced by refugee populations. They included legal scholars, humanitarian workers, activists, human rights lawyers, shelter directors based in Haifa, and a cultural mediator. The dataset includes 23 conversational interviews: 11 with Eritrean refugee women and 12 with key informants. Eritrean women were selected as participants because they constitute the largest refugee community in Israel. Access to participants was facilitated by the Eritrean Women’s Community Centre in Tel Aviv. The key informants were nationals from Israel, the United States, and Brazil. Prior to fieldwork, the research protocol and interview schedule received ethical approval from the Portuguese Data Protection Authority and the Institutional Review Board of Nova University of Lisbon, in compliance with national international, and local regulations. Before each interview, participants were informed about the study’s nature, purpose, goals, and the interview format. Written consent was obtained from all interviewees. Following data collection, the information was anonymised and analysed through a multimodal approach, including thematic analysis, content analysis, and feminist critical discourse analysis, to identify emerging themes and categories. Finally, the data was interpreted through the lens of critical race theory to deconstruct the socio-legal construction of race and to reveal the mechanisms of racial subordination, oppression, and exclusion embedded in border security narratives and legal frameworks.

Theoretical framing

In terms of the article’s framing, language and narratives – both legal and political – as well as institutions, play a crucial role in reinforcing or deconstructing systems of oppression and privilege. ¹⁴ Equally important from a framing perspective are the concepts of decoloniality and intersectionality. In many regions facing serious border security challenges, the legal frameworks that permit such practices retain the vestiges of colonialism. ¹⁵ This colonial legacy helps explain the nature, location, mechanisms, and perpetrators of various problematic acts ¹⁶ – particularly those targeting marginalised groups. ¹⁷ As a result, there has been a growing call in many parts of the world for the decolonisation of international border regimes. ¹⁸

Decoloniality

Decoloniality, both a theoretical framework and a social movement ¹⁹ largely rooted in the Global South, ²⁰ seeks to dismantle the colonial structures, ideologies, and systems that have historically oppressed and continue to marginalise specific communities. ²¹ The argument is that colonialism has profoundly shaped – and continues to influence – civilisations, societies, and cultures worldwide. In the Israeli context, the former Deposit Law exemplifies a colonial mindset in its classification of certain individuals as ‘infiltrators.’ Many scholars and activists argue that challenging and dismantling such colonial legacies is essential to achieving greater equality and freedom. ²²

Decoloniality has thus emerged as a critical response to both historical and ongoing manifestations of colonialism, including those that undermine human rights protections. It is a valuable lens for promoting global equity across multiple domains and for transforming dominant narratives and power structures to create more inclusive and just societies. ²³ This effort is especially urgent because, despite formal decolonisation processes worldwide, colonialism persists in new forms. The rise of neo-colonial structures reflects a modern continuation of imperial power dynamics – shifting from overt, formal control to subtler, informal mechanisms of domination.

Decoloniality can play a vital role in social transformation, as it encourages a reassessment of a society’s norms, values, and institutions. This is because decoloniality is concerned with “unmasking and challenging the persistence of a set of colonial epistemic formations in contemporary knowledge practices.” ²⁴ By confronting and dismantling colonial paradigms, societies open the door to transformative change – particularly for marginalised communities. Decoloniality enables the reimagining of social structures in ways that are no longer constrained by the biases and limitations of the colonial past, which continue to cast long shadows today. While these issues often remain unfamiliar to many, raising awareness about their existence and impact can foster greater creativity and innovation in the pursuit of more equitable and inclusive societies. Such transformation is urgently needed across the globe but is, unfortunately, far from universally realised.

Intersectionality

Intersectionality is deeply intertwined with borders and with the experiences of those attempting to navigate them. As a framework, intersectionality helps identify how multiple, overlapping identity vectors shape the discrimination individuals face. It explains how different social identities – such as gender, race, sexual orientation, class, and disability – intersect at the micro level of personal experience to reflect the intricately connected systems of oppression and privilege operating at the macro level. ²⁵ It emphasises that identity markers are mutually constituted and should not be viewed merely as add-ons. ²⁶ Rather, they are conjunctive and interdependent, and should be analysed together when assessing discrimination and its effects. As an analytical framework, intersectionality offers valuable insight into the nuanced and varied lived experiences of individuals within society.

It can also play a significant role in advancing refugee rights by deepening our understanding of refugee experiences and supporting the development of meaningful, lasting solutions. ²⁷ When applied in this context, intersectionality can help dismantle and decolonise systems of mobility control and border security, ²⁸ which currently contribute to the economic and political exclusion of certain migrants and refugees based on their ethnicity, nationality, and/or religious identity.

Part I Assessing the intersectional impact of the law

Assessing the impact of state-created categories

Borders – and the laws that authorise their operation – represent an extension of imperial domination. From this perspective, borders are racialised and gendered, serving as mechanisms of inclusion or exclusion at the gates of empire. Race and gender, along with other identity markers such as language or culture, intersect with additional identity features to function as instruments of systemic oppression, used by authorities to distribute rights and privileges. ²⁹ In this context, decoloniality and intersectionality are essential analytical frameworks. The racialised and gendered construction, legitimation, and reinforcement of state-created categories result in the social and legal valuation or devaluation of individuals, privileging some while discriminating against or excluding others based on identity markers.

National borders, and the sites that enforce their crossings, are often viewed as symbols of securitisation. ³⁰ Yet they are also symbols of racism, intersecting with other systems of oppression and discrimination. ³¹ These are spaces where individuals may be excluded based on religion, class, economic status, gender, sexual orientation, and more. ³² They are sites where power is exercised to enforce inclusion or exclusion based on identity markers. ³³ Legal instruments are frequently used at these borders to deny entry to certain individuals while welcoming others, reinforcing existing power imbalances – just as decoloniality theory critiques. ³⁴

These critical issues must be addressed, as the ongoing continuum of multiple, intersectional forms of discrimination and exclusion within international migration systems maintains a persistent ‘no-entry’ signal ³⁵ – particularly at the borders of first-world countries. This remains the case even when such policies result in the death or disappearance of millions of people seeking asylum or a better life. ³⁶ Racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, antisemitism, and classism are historically interlinked and mutually constitutive. ³⁷ They reinforce one another in a complex process of othering ³⁸ that excludes specific segments of mobile populations. The result is a matrix ³⁹ that instrumentalises and weaponises borders to preserve and reinforce hierarchies based on ethnicity, nationality, or religion, thereby structurally and systematically discriminating against and excluding certain migrants and refugees. This occurs despite the seemingly neutral language and application of laws and policies. Given the argument that “foreignness is an intersectional category,” ⁴⁰ it is essential to examine border security, migration law, and asylum law through the lens of intersectionality ⁴¹ and the matrix of domination. ⁴² Such analysis is necessary to assess how state-created categories ⁴³ reinforce migrants’ and refugees’ vulnerability to the state. ⁴⁴

The Israeli asylum system

The Israeli asylum system is based on four foundational laws that form the core of its migration policy: the Law of Return, (No. 5710-1950), the Nationality Law (No. 5712-1952), the Entry into Israel Law (No. 5712/1952), and the Prevention of Infiltration (Offences and Jurisdiction) Law (No. 5714/1954). ⁴⁵ These laws primarily apply to Jewish individuals, while others – such as Palestinians – are largely excluded. For example, Jewish individuals are not required to demonstrate persecution, as stipulated by the Refugee Convention, in order to qualify for entry. In contrast, it is difficult for non-Jewish refugees to gain admission, even if they have experienced persecution.

These laws make Israel comparatively less migration friendly. ⁴⁶ This is because successive Israeli governments have expanded protections beyond the 1951 Refugee Convention for Jewish refugees, ⁴⁷ while applying the Convention narrowly to avoid extending similar protections to non-Jewish refugees. Over time, the government has failed to align domestic legislation with the 1951 Refugee Convention in relation to non-Jewish asylum seekers. ⁴⁸

As a result of this political and legal stance, Israel has received relatively few non-Jewish individuals seeking refuge and asylum compared to other regions globally. ⁴⁹ The number of such individuals granted asylum in Israel remains very low. ⁵⁰ Consequently, migration issues in Israel are highly specific and shaped by privilege based on ethnicity, nationality, and/or religion. ⁵¹ The country’s distinct legal framework has led to a unique approach to migration, ⁵² raising questions about Israel’s compliance with its international obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention. ⁵³ Furthermore, this approach has significantly impacted the already vulnerable situation of refugees in the country. ⁵⁴

Section 4 of the Prevention of Infiltration Law: The deposit law

This article focuses on Section 4 of the Prevention of Infiltration Law – commonly known as the Deposit Law – to examine a legal mechanism specifically designed to discriminate against and marginalise certain refugees. ⁵⁵ The law, which was nullified by the Israeli Supreme Court in April 2020, required Israeli employers to deduct 20% of each refugees’ salary and deposit it into a fund ⁵⁶ that could only be accessed upon the refugee’s departure from Israel. ⁵⁷ Employers were also mandated to contribute an additional 16% of the refugee’s gross (pre-tax) salary to the same fund. ⁵⁸ Although the Israeli Knesset claimed that the Deposit Law was based on Section D of the Foreign Workers Law (Law No. 5751-1991, amended in 2000), the overlap between the two laws was minimal. ⁵⁹

In practice, the Deposit Law was arguably intended to “push asylum-seekers into poverty to encourage them to leave Israel ‘voluntarily.’” ⁶⁰ Notably, even before the Deposit Law was implemented, 40% of refugees earned less than the minimum wage. This was due in part to their concentration in low-paying sectors where labour rights violations were widespread – underscoring the devastating impact the law had on their lives. ⁶¹

This law, among others, appears to have been crafted to reinforce Israel’s identity as a safe haven primarily for Jewish individuals, “based on a shared national and religious identity.” ⁶² As noted in Paz study, Israel has adopted “patchy and often inadvertent responses to the increasing” number of refugees. ⁶³ Prior to “2001, there was no operative RSD [Refugee Status Determination] mechanism in Israel.” ⁶⁴ The Population, Immigration, and Border Authority (PIBA) – a branch of the Ministry of the Interior tasked with administering the RSD process – ⁶⁵ initially offered ‘temporary group protection’ to Eritrean and Sudanese asylum seekers through the issuance of ‘conditional release’ visas. However, these individuals were not permitted to apply for refugee status through the RSD Procedure until 2013. ⁶⁶ This ban on filing RSD applications applied to Eritrean and Sudanese nationals ⁶⁷ and was arguably aimed not only at delaying the RSD process but also at avoiding the obligation to recognise refugee status, as required under the 1951 Refugee Convention. ⁶⁸

In 2013, Amendment Three to the Prevention of Infiltration Law changed the existing policy, allowing Eritreans to apply for asylum individually. However, only a small number of individuals were granted asylum. ⁶⁹ Due to persistent legal obstacles, the recognition rate remained extremely low. ⁷⁰ This situation has not improved, despite the formal opportunity to apply for asylum since 2013. The vast majority of African refugees had their claims denied. Out of 17,778 asylum applications, only 45 – approximately a quarter of one percent – were approved. ⁷¹ These widespread denials of legal status have had profound effects on refugees. ⁷² Without stable legal status – most were granted only short-term visas – and lacking the right to work legally, African refugees faced severe economic and social hardship. Despite the legal prohibition against employment, it proved economically and socially impossible to prevent these individuals from participating in the local economy. ⁷³ As a result, most refugees sought work in the informal sector. However, their employment was largely limited to precarious, low-income jobs, which significantly affected their mental health as well as their social, legal, and economic well-being. Many of these individuals have reported feeling confused and hopeless about the asylum process and uncertain about the steps needed to apply. ⁷⁴ Although the number of African refugees in Israel has not grown significantly – due in large part to the construction of a fence along the Israeli-Egypt Sinai border – those already in the country, including children born in Israel, continue to be defined and constrained by their identity markers. This effectively “deems them either eligible or ineligible for human rights and/or recognition.” ⁷⁵

Colonial memories: Keeping Pandora’s box closed in Israel

The effect of various migration laws in Israel has been profound. African refugees not only face the denial of recognition of their refugee status but also the inability to obtain work permits. Despite these legal barriers, many African refugees participate in the local economy by taking up precarious jobs, often in the informal sector. As a consequence, they have experienced salary deductions under the Prevention of Infiltration Law. ⁷⁶ Although the Israeli Supreme Court declared the Deposit Law void, its impact has persisted. The Israeli State has delayed implementing legal reforms that would allow refugees to recover the money withheld from the deposit accounts. ⁷⁷ This delay continues to undermine refugees’ ability to earn an income sufficient to meet their basic needs.

The lingering effects of the Deposit Law have significantly exacerbated socio-economic hardship, particularly for African refugee women. The intersectional impact of the law has increased their vulnerability to SGBV. For instance, the economic strain imposed by the law has left many African refugee women exposed to sexual harassment by male refugees in shared housing. In some cases, landlords have also exploited this vulnerability, resulting in instances of transactional sex in exchange for covering rent (participant IL#2 and key informant IL#4).

Besides its economic effects, the law also enabled attempts to deport individuals from Israel under the guise of border security and through “criminalizing discourses surrounding migration and asylum.” ⁷⁸ These efforts appeared to be aimed at expelling and excluding “unwanted Others,” ⁷⁹ who were often “perceived as existential for the nation-state.” ⁸⁰ As such, the Deposit Law functioned not only as a significant legal gatekeeping mechanism – before being declared unlawful – but also as both a symbol and a tool for discriminating against refugees and encouraging their departure. ⁸¹

In response to the law’s harmful effects, various organisations filed a petition with the Israeli High Court of Justice. ⁸² Following this, the state introduced a regulation that reduced the deposit deduction from 20% to six percent. ⁸³ This revised regulation also included partial exceptions for specific vulnerable groups, including women, elderly men, victims of human trafficking, and individuals with life-threatening medical conditions. ⁸⁴ As a result, the law’s impact was unevenly distributed across the refugee population. The 2018 amendment to the Deposit Law thus reflects a partially intersectional approach in its legal strategy. This is evident in the Knesset committee acknowledgment of the law’s disproportionate impact on different segments of the refugee population, signalling a recognition – albeit limited – of the intersectional dimensions of migration policy, by granting partial waivers for humanitarian reasons. ⁸⁵

The intersectional impact of the Prevention of Infiltration Law

Evaluating vulnerability is complex, especially when the law exacerbates an already vulnerable situation by rendering those affected effectively invisible. Israeli law has demonstrated an asymmetrical impact on African refugees compared to Israeli citizens, due to its racial, national, religious, and gendered dimensions. For example, the denial of work permits forces this specific group of African refugees further to the margins of society, pushing them into increasingly precarious forms of employment:

“employers in Israel don’t pay the exact same income to us [Eritrean refugees]. They pay more to Israelis. (…) Women are left with no money, and the little they earn is not enough. We cannot manage life with this budget. It is not enough. (…) For women, it is even more difficult” – participant IL#9.

Thus, the law trapped refugees in poverty and economic instability to pressure them into leaving Israel. This precarity has an even greater impact on African refugee women, whose incomes are even lower due to gender-based discrimination. As a result, many women are left with little choice but to take on multiple jobs or, in some cases, resort to prostitution, as highlighted by participant IL#3:

“more or less 400 [Eritrean women] are in prostitution for money (…) forced prostitution is a shame for us. (…) The government is forcing us to leave Israel” – participant IL#3.

In either case, Eritrean refugee women become more vulnerable to various forms of SGBV. Refugee women generally have fewer economic opportunities than refugee men. The imbalance in both formal and informal power dynamics leaves them highly susceptible to labour and sexual exploitation. In this context, the inability to obtain work permits can be understood as a form of structural violence enacted by the Israeli State. ⁸⁶ It increases the risk for vulnerable women to experience sexual violence – including forced prostitution, sexual harassment, and rape – as well as systemic economic oppression. The former Deposit Law further exacerbated their economic struggle for survival by depriving African refugees of a sustainable and legal income, pushing them to the margins of society both spatially and in terms of human rights. As a result, many were forced to live in the poorest and most disadvantaged areas of Tel Aviv: ⁸⁷

“Because we are Black, they [Israeli landlords] charge more money to rent an apartment, and they [Israeli landlords] only have a few houses for us to rent. Not many people would rent houses to us” - participant IL#3.

Furthermore, even when Eritrean refugee women are able to secure housing, many struggle to pay rent. In some cases, they are sexually coerced by landlords or flatmates:

“women asylum-seekers are prostitutes not by choice but because of economic violence. Sometimes they pay the rent with sex; it is for survival” – key informant IL#4.

As a result, the data from Israel – along with non-participant observation – provides evidence of spatial vulnerability within the city. Refugees face significant hardship due to precarious employment, limited access to essential services, and substandard housing conditions (participant IL#2, IL#3, IL#5, IL#7, IL#9, IL#10; key informant IL#1, IL#2, IL#5):

As several participants noted, race – intersecting with nationality, religion, and lack of legal status – directly affects wages. Consequently, these structural forms of exclusion, based on foreigner status, have a negative impact on access to housing, the labour market, healthcare, and other essential services:

“Europeans [battered women] have shelter, food, clothes, what they [Israeli] can, they give. We [Eritrean refugee women] have nothing” – participant IL#3.

These intricate webs of multiple, intersecting forms of discrimination – both legal and social – that marginalise refugee women were exacerbated by a 2019 amendment to Israeli criminal law. This amendment criminalised the clients of prostitution, further pushing these women to the social margins (participant IL#3; key informant IL#3, IL#4, IL#5, IL#7, IL#8, IL#10). As key informant IL#3 noted, the criminalisation of prostitution clients “backfires on these women,” reducing their ability to secure the resources necessary to meet basic needs such as housing, healthcare, food, and education. Several Eritrean refugee women reported being forced into prostitution due to financial hardship caused by state policies. These testimonies underscore the link between socio-economic and sexual violence, as these discriminatory patterns are built upon the construction and reinforcement of otherness. This process deepens refugees’ marginalisation and leads to further discrimination, violence, and suffering. ⁸⁸

Additional issues – such as the lack of legal status and work permits – further marginalise this population, pushing many into precarious and informal employment, thus perpetuating a cycle of poverty and insecurity. As Kritzman-Amir and Schumacher note, “[t]he presence of refugees in Israel raises questions of social justice. Asylum-seekers arriving in Israel have experienced difficulties such as hunger, poverty, persecution, loss of freedom…”. ⁸⁹

The complex socio-legal-economic conditions that refugee women face increase their vulnerability to SGBV. This paper argues that the intersection of gender roles, lack of employment opportunities, and the absence of recognised refugee status – aggravated by the former Deposit Law – has heightened the risk of SGBV among refugee women. As participant IL#3 stated bluntly, having “no status, [being] illegal, is difficult (…),” and as a result, many Eritrean refugee “women are forced into prostitution.” At the same time, others face sexual coercion from landlords or flatmates (key informant IL#4) or endure harassment by authorities.

Thus, the Prevention of Infiltration Law in Israel played a significant role in structurally excluding individuals on the basis of ethnicity, nationality, religion, and gender. Moreover, economic violence functions as a political tool that exacerbates the hardships faced by specific segments of the population, thereby encouraging them to leave the country. There is, therefore, a clear link between socioeconomic violence and sexual violence, as patterns of discrimination – rooted in the construction and reinforcement of otherness – further marginalise refugees and increase their exposure to discrimination, violence, and suffering. The connection between sexual and economic violence, particularly when grounded in racial and religious discrimination, emerges as part of a broader continuum of violence. This connection is especially visible in cases of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), as economic hardship renders individuals more vulnerable to sexual exploitation, including transactional sex, sexual harassment, and forced prostitution. As key informant IL#8 noted:

“[t]here is a recent report on the increasing levels of prostitution among asylum-seeking women due to the 20% deduction on wages as a result of the deposit law.” – key informant IL#8.

Thus, the fact that Eritrean refugees have not been granted full refugee status means they lack legal access to the labour market. This situation has pushed them to the margins of society – both spatially and ideologically – including economic exclusion. As a result, they are more likely to endure various forms of violence, including sexual violence and discrimination. When they do find employment, it is often in precarious and exploitative conditions. In this context, participant IL#3 referred to a case in which an Israeli employer raped his Eritrean refugee employee: “[he] filmed them while having sex, and now the film is online” – participant IL#3. There were also reports of sexual harassment perpetrated by authorities, as described by participant IL#6:

“There are also cases of sexual harassment by authorities while renewing the visa, for instance, asking intimate questions to assess if a couple is a ‘real’ couple, questions such as: What kind of underwear is s/he wearing? What kind of underwear was s/he wearing yesterday? Along with other questions” – participant IL#6.

These situations result from legislative choices that are arguably part of a legal strategy designed to ‘encourage’ African refugees to leave Israel, while simultaneously creating bureaucratic obstacles that increase the likelihood of asylum claim being denied.

The intersectional impact of the Deposit Law is evident in participants’ testimonies, which underscore that Eritrean refugee women are further marginalised and at heightened risk of experiencing SGBV due to the multiple, intersecting forms of discrimination stemming from the law’s asymmetrical impact. Additionally, the broader Israeli legal framework legitimises socio-legal marginalisation and discrimination of Eritrean refugees in the workplace, in Israeli society, and in the housing market. This legal and societal framework reinforces “formations of under- and over-privilege” among different population segments, ⁹⁰ perpetuating the social construction and devaluation of the ‘other.’ ⁹¹ As in many societies, the process of ‘othering’ present in Israeli social structures positions African refugees ⁹² as external others while also maintaining internal others – such as Mizrachi Jews and Palestinians.

Many participants (participant IL#2, IL#3, IL#4, IL#6, IL#9; key informant IL#3, IL#4, IL#5, IL#7, IL#8, IL#10) highlighted the intersectional impact of the Deposit Law, which placed a disproportionate burden on Eritrean refugee women. These women were more vulnerable to SGBV due to the marginalisation and discrimination imposed by the law. Participants emphasised how the Deposit Law legitimised the socio-legal discrimination and hardships experienced by Eritrean refugees – particularly women. For instance, as participant IL#2 explained:

“Life here is difficult for women. A 20 per-cent reduction in income is difficult; how can we pay the bills, they take off 20% of the salary, now it is only six percent that they take off, but nonetheless, it is difficult to search for jobs, only if we ask friends” – participant IL#2.

Thus, the intersectional impact of the Deposit Law is rooted in its colonial traits. The law used the term infiltrators, a label historically associated with Palestinians and others from states considered enemies of Israel. This terminology served to ‘other’ Eritrean refugees by framing them as threats. The use of such language was accompanied by hate speech from some politicians, ⁹³ which both reinforced and was reinforced by colonial discourses. As key informant IL#5, stated: “The official and political narrative is: ‘these people are economic migrants’ […] In the past we had politicians mentioning that ‘We don’t want them here.’”

This discourse reflects a broader political concern: Israel’s reluctance to formally recognise African refugees stems from a fear that doing so would open a ‘Pandora’s Box’ of Palestinian refugee claims – for territory, compensation, and most importantly, the right of return. These demands are perceived as a threat to the country’s ethnic, national, and religious character, and to its very existence as a Jewish and democratic state.” ⁹⁴

Part II: The colonial impact of the law

The colonial impact of the Prevention of Infiltration Law

This section argues that the Israeli Prevention of Infiltration Law has a colonial impact, in that it replicates past systems and practices from colonial eras. In this context, the fieldwork illustrated how Israeli politicians and authorities have perceived African refugees’ claims similarly to those of Palestinians, who were (and still are) viewed as infiltrators. As noted by key informants IL#3 and IL#12, there is a ‘pandora’s box’ effect related to the law’s origins and the historical perception of Palestinians as infiltrators. This legacy has contributed to the passive rejection, marginalisation, exclusion, and hostility directed at African refugees. The memory of Palestinians as infiltrators has shaped the socio-legal construction of African refugees in the same terms.

“African asylum-seekers’ claims are dismissed. Many of them do not have documents; legally, they ‘do not exist’; in this world [Israel], they ‘do not exist’. This is very similar to Palestinians, who lack legal status and are not legally acknowledged. To a certain extent, African asylum-seekers’ situation in Israel is similar to Palestinians’ situation. The Israeli authorities do not want to open a Pandora’s Box” – key informant IL#12.

Therefore, there appear to be resurgent colonial features embedded in the development, design, and implementation of the former Deposit Law, which are intertwined with its colonial legacy. As Oren Yiftachel notes, this is also intertwined in Israel’s ‘ethnocracy’ embedded in the notion of a ‘state of “Judaization”’. ⁹⁵ Thus, in Israel’s case, this has led to the exclusion of those placed by the state into socially constructed categories of ‘others.’ This framework produces a similarly exclusionary status for African refugees – cast as ‘others’ – who are subsequently placed in comparable situations and equated with Palestinians, who are also excluded, through the socio-legal label of “infiltrator.” Therefore, the socio-legal construction of the ‘other’--whether Palestinian or Eritrean refugee--is profoundly intertwined with Israeli settler colonialism, serving to secure the domination of an Israeli “ethnocracy.” ⁹⁶ Unlike other settler-colonial states, such as the United States, Canada, and Australia, which have reversed or dismantled some settler-colonial privileges, Israel actively chooses ‘ethnocracy.’ ⁹⁷ This tendency is heightened by the adoption of Israel’s Basic-Law: The Nation-State of the Jewish People (5778-2018). This law not only established Israel as the historical homeland of the Jewish people but also limited the right to self-determination in the State of Israel exclusively to the Jewish people. It reinforced the regime of ‘second-class citizenship’ ⁹⁸ assigned to Palestinians in Israel through the Citizenship Law of 1952. As Lana Tatour emphasises, despite Palestinians in Israel having “formal status as citizens, the Israeli state still regards Palestinians in Israel as temporary guests and movable people.” ⁹⁹ This underscores the structural vulnerability of Palestinians within Israel. As noted earlier, for Palestinians outside Israel and in neighbouring countries, exclusion is enforced through the 1954 Infiltration Law. In fact, both legal regimes function as complementary tools designed to guarantee Israeli biopolitical domination over Palestinians, who are racialised and delegitimised—either through a regime of second-class citizenship or through the ‘infiltrator’ label. ¹⁰⁰

In this regard, as Atrey et al. note, colonial policies are often designed to ‘divide and rule.’ ¹⁰¹ Thus, Israeli migration policy functions to preserve a Jewish majority within the Jewish State, ¹⁰² as stated by key informant IL#3:

“The matter of keeping Israel as a Jewish democracy is very important to understand all the policies adopted: from de facto refugees ‘non-absorption’ to marriage policies, policies to increase Jewish birth rates in the country, and entry law and citizenship law. It all comes down to the policy of increasing the number of Jewish people in Israel. Making Israel home for Jewish people.” – key informant IL#3.

Thus, the term ‘infiltrator,’ ¹⁰³ historically associated with Palestinian refugees, visitors, residents of Palestine, and individuals from other Middle Eastern countries, ¹⁰⁴ was being applied to African refugees. ¹⁰⁵ This had a major impact on ‘biospatial strategies’, which negatively affect Palestinians and Eritrean refugees, by creating spaces that are racialised versus spaces that are historical, as stressed by Cohen and Gordon. ¹⁰⁶ As a result, this has also led to the construction of citizenship as a form of domination. ¹⁰⁷

The impact of applying ‘infiltrator’ to African refugees

African refugees have been labelled as ‘infiltrators’ by the media ¹⁰⁸ and some politicians ¹⁰⁹ – a usage that echoes how the term was applied in the early 1950s to Palestinians attempting to re-enter Israel. ¹¹⁰ The revival of the term ‘infiltrator’ marks an intensified effort to criminalise African refugees, ¹¹¹ broadening its application to “practically any non-Jew attempting to enter the state ‘illegally,’ regardless of their identity or the reason for their entry.” ¹¹² This legal category has thus been used in a racialised manner to impose a less favourable legal regime on certain minority groups in Israel.

The use of language to frame African refugees both legally and socially as ‘infiltrators’ has contributed to the perpetuation of inequality. As key informant IL#2 emphasised, institutionalised inequality is embedded across various branches of the Israeli legal framework, including asylum policies and civil law.

“Israel wants to make sure that the State is a Jewish State. Hence, all the discriminations are developed in order to keep the communities separated [Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others]. Hence, there are no civil marriages, only religious marriages. The intention is to prevent people from marrying outside their ethno-religious group to prevent mixed marriages. Thus, ensuring that the separation between people from different groups, religions, ethnicities remain” – key informant IL#2.

These issues reveal that the use of race intersects with other identity markers. Consequently, the discrimination and exclusion of certain migrants and refugees are deeply intertwined with structural, power-based socio-legal perceptions of ethnicity and religion, particularly as they affect African refugees. The underlying aim appears to be the establishment of legalised religious domination to preserve Israel as a Jewish state.

The impact of applying ‘infiltrator’ to African refugees: the “Pandora’s box effect”

It becomes evident that decolonisation and intersectionality are closely connected, ¹¹³ especially when viewed through the lens of Collins’ matrix of domination. ¹¹⁴ In this context, the fieldwork highlights the need to decolonise the law. While the ‘Pandora’s Box effect’ served as the starting for examining the rationale behind the former Deposit Law, it also underscores the multiple, intersecting forms of discrimination that emerged from its implementation. ¹¹⁵

However, the terminology used against African refugees has not been limited to the term infiltrator. They have also been portrayed as ‘invaders,’ ‘enemies,’ ‘cancer,’ a ‘national calamity,’ ‘transmitters of disease,’ and an ‘existential threat.’ This rhetoric has been exacerbated by Israeli politicians and state agents, who have framed refugees as criminals, ¹¹⁶ security threats, ¹¹⁷ “disease transmitters and a demographic danger.” ¹¹⁸ They often assert that refugees “make illegitimate claims for asylum in Israel.” ¹¹⁹ Such narratives have been used to shape public perception, increasing societal support for the rejection of asylum claims while simultaneously creating mechanisms to ‘encourage’ African refugees to leave the country, as emphasised by key informant IL#7:

“The official narrative was that African refugees were, in fact, economic migrants, and no services were provided to prevent them [African refugees] from settling in. They left African refugees with no services to support them. This was a signal to show them [African refugees] that they were not welcome (…) There was a weaponisation of sensitive themes regarding migration policy to support an anti-immigration narrative” – key informant IL#7.

These issues also have a racial and ethnic dimension. The arrival of African refugees saw their Blackness being “socially, politically, economically, and legally (…) constructed” to exclude them from Israeli territory and the legal system. ¹²⁰ This has led to the creation of racialised borders, where a particular ethno-religious identity is privileged over others in order to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel. This dynamic creates a tension between the state’s international obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and its national interests. ¹²¹ As a result of this tension, states may at times create disorder (as discussed later) and perpetuate various forms of violence, ¹²² including structural and institutional violence. ¹²³ This was demonstrated by participant IL#3, IL#7 and key informant IL#6, who stated:

“They are making it harder and harder. The law changes a lot. It is more and more difficult to be granted asylum” – participant IL#3

“We do not have rights in Israel. We are not treated the same as other women in Israel” – participant IL#7.

“Israeli authorities and politicians think if they can ignore refugees they will go away. Refugees have no rights, no access to fundamental services, they are treated differently” – key informant IL#6.

This is largely due to Israel’s failure to incorporate the 1951 Refugee Convention into its domestic law. ¹²⁴ As Paz notes, “The government’s incorporation of a range of deterrence measures alongside some accommodating procedures cannot be simply dismissed as stemming from Israel’s inexperience in dealing with asylum-seekers.” ¹²⁵ Thus, the narrative of the ‘Prevention of Infiltration’ Law has been applied to refugees who come from so-called “enemy states.” ¹²⁶ Over the years, this law has been subject to contentious amendments, seemingly designed to construct and legally engineer obstacles that prevent the integration of African refugees into Israeli society. ¹²⁷ The Israeli Supreme Court has, to some extent, mitigated these efforts. ¹²⁸ On several occasions, the Court has struck down laws that sought to violate the rights of refugees and migrants. ¹²⁹ Its use of judicial review has brought it into conflict with the government – particularly in 2023 – over the scope of legislative power. ¹³⁰ Nonetheless, the Court has acted to monitor and ensure that any legal amendments comply with constitutional principles; in some cases, these amendments have been declared void by the High Court. ¹³¹ This dynamic process – reflecting the separation of powers typical of democratic systems – between the legislative body (the Knesset) and the judiciary (the Israeli Supreme Court) also demonstrates how Israel employs a complex set of legal mechanisms to systematically prevent African refugees from first entering, and then remaining in, the country. This creates a multifaceted pressure system aimed at forcing the departure of seeking asylum by preventing the recognition of their refugee status. ¹³² Additionally, the system relies heavily on negative labelling, as previously discussed, to brand African refugees as illegitimate while denying them the legal protection afforded under international refugee law. ¹³³ This quasi-legal strategy, which draws on long-standing local animosities by defining African refugees as ‘infiltrators,’ reinforces the perception that their claims are not valid. ¹³⁴

“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict does play a key role in Israeli asylum and migration policy and how these policies have been developed and implemented. The fact that Palestinians are not acknowledged as refugees and cannot apply for asylum does negatively impact African refugees’ situation in Israel. Therefore, one situation is connected to the other” – key informant IL#3.

Thus, in the Israel dataset, there was not only social ‘othering’ but also “legal ‘othering’ (…) reinforced by media discourses.” ¹³⁵ As noted in this article, over at least the past decade, several efforts have been made to compel refugees to leave the country. As key informant IL#3 and participant IL#3 pointed out:

“The Deposit Law’s goal was to make it very difficult for African refugees to settle in Israel, hence, to encourage their departure. Thus, the Deposit Law was a way to force African refugees’ departure” – key informant IL#3.”

The effect of this was the racial, ethnic, religious, social, legal, and economic exclusion experienced by African refugees through multiple, intersecting forms of discrimination. As a result, xenophobia and racism have emerged, compounding the challenged faced by refugees. Moreover, this racial and religious discrimination has a gendered dimension, disproportionately impacting African refugee women, who are more vulnerable to sexual and gender-based violence than their male counterparts (e.g., sexual harassment, transactional sex, and forced prostitution). ¹³⁶

Drawing from both the literature and the fieldwork conducted for this study, it is evident that the former Deposit Law functioned to exclude migrants and refugees while privileging Jewish migration through the legal mechanism of Aliyah. ¹³⁷ In addition, the Law of Return (No. 5710-1950), the Nationality Law (No. 5712-1952), the Entry into Israel Law (No. 5712-1952), and the Prevention of Infiltration (Offences and Jurisdiction) Law (No. 5714-1954) – all intended to ensure that Israel serves as a safe haven for Jewish individuals – collectively reveal a migration regime designed to limit, and in some cases exclude, others. Consequently, the Israeli asylum and migration regimes demonstrate a discriminatory and exclusionary nature, grounded in a highly selective definition of which migrants and refugees are deemed eligible to access Israeli territory. There is thus tight control over both migration processes and refugee status determination procedures, shaped by intersecting factors of nationality and religion, as emphasised by key informant IL#2:

“The intersectionality and overlap of different axes of identity pushes African refugee women even further to the margins of oppression within Israeli society. This reflects on the refugees ' and women’s situation. The ground for such discrimination is ethno-religious, to make sure that Israel is a Jewish State. As a result, all the discrimination is developed to maintain the communities separated (Christians, Muslims, Jews, and others).” – key informant IL#2.

As Achiume stresses, the “colonial legacy of Third World refugee exclusion” operates “through international law’s application in national asylum law and policy” via the demonisation of these refugees. ¹³⁸ Therefore, any critique of national asylum regimes must acknowledge and address the legacies of empire that “shape contemporary refugee discourse and practice.” ¹³⁹ In Israel’s case, race intersects with nationality and religion to function as mechanisms of both privilege and oppression. This intersection of identity markers within the Israeli legal framework is grounded in political perceptions of belonging – determining who may access legal protections and societal benefits, and who may not. This exclusion stems from a view that formally and explicitly denies legal protection and recognition to refugees based on their ethnicity, nationality, and/or religious background. The Israeli policy and legal framework employ a carefully designed, intentional, and purposeful process that Paz has labelled an ‘order-disorder’ legal regime – one that is structured to create chaos and increase the likelihood of asylum claim being rejected. ¹⁴⁰ Thus, Israeli law, particularly the Prevention of Infiltrator Law, constructs identity in a way that excludes specific mobile population groups in order to preserve a Jewish majority within the state. This gives rise to what has been termed the “racialization of sovereignty.” ¹⁴¹ Moreover, this issue is about how the state actively manufactures crises around migration. What is often defined as a migration crisis is, in reality, a ‘crisis’ of state control over undesired mobility – framing it as a struggle between the state and “the other.” ¹⁴² As noted earlier, this situation is further exacerbated by the rhetoric used to describe refugees. ¹⁴³ As a result of such narratives, many Israelis perceive African refugees not as asylum seekers, ¹⁴⁴ but as economic migrants. ¹⁴⁵

This framing of African refugees as unrecognised ‘others’ is rooted in legal formulations that enforce structural discrimination and subordination. These formulations are grounded in specific identities that are socially constructed and reinforced by the law. The portrayal of migrants as “others” rather than as legitimate refugees has also been shaped by the rhetoric of certain politicians. ¹⁴⁶ This process of social construction and devaluation targets not only non-Jewish populations but also specific segments within the Jewish community – namely, Mizrahi and Ethiopian Jews – highlighting the notion that “Israel has its own ‘Internal Others.’” ¹⁴⁷ Thus, countries, communities, groups, and individuals that exhibit patterns of intra-group discrimination are more likely to engage in inter-group discriminatory behaviour. ¹⁴⁸

Consequently, this article argues that the decolonisation of border security, along with the reform of migration and asylum laws, is essential to recognising and dismantling the socio-legal structures of racism. These structures intersect with and reinforce xenophobia, Islamophobia, structural discrimination, and various forms of violence. ¹⁴⁹

Conclusion

This paper investigated the root causes behind the application of the former Deposit Law to Eritrean refugees. It also examined the intersectional impact of the law and highlighted the need to decolonise border security and reform migration and asylum laws. The article emphasises the critical role of intersecting identity markers – such as ethnicity, nationality, and religion – in producing socio-legal and economic marginalisation. This, in turn, heightens the risk of sexual and gender-based violence against refugee women.

Participants in this study revealed how social, legal, and economic discrimination has impacted their lives, depriving them of the means to survive in society. They have been marginalised and made more vulnerable to exploitation, including transactional sex, forced marriages, and forced prostitution – forms of SGBV exacerbated by systemic exclusion. This economic discrimination was legally engineered through the Deposit Law (which was declared void in April 2020), the conditional visa system, and the manipulative application of the Prevention of Infiltration Law, all of which were used to target and discriminate against African refugees. These legal frameworks created uniquely harsh living conditions for African refugees and sent a clear message ¹⁵⁰ to deter entry into Israel. The Deposit Law, in particular, was used as an economic tool to “encourage” the ‘voluntarily’ departure of refugees. However, its collateral effect was to increase the risk of SGBV by worsening already precarious living conditions. Ultimately, economic violence functioned as a political strategy to intensify the hardships faced by this vulnerable population and pressure them into leaving the country. These policies also severely restricted access to the labour market, further exposing refugees to discrimination and forcing them into precarious, exploitative employment – conditions that significantly increased their risk of experiencing SGBV.

The findings also reinforce well-documented concerns about refugees’ ongoing struggle to attain legal status. This prolonged and complex struggle has further undermined refugees’ already vulnerable situation, increasing the risk of individuals – particularly women – experiencing specific forms of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) due to their legal limbo and the resulting precarious livelihoods they are forced to endure.

These issues underscore the profound vulnerability of refugee women in relation to the state. ¹⁵¹ Therefore, there is an urgent need to decolonise the legal framework of forced migration and address the intersectional impact of colonial domination, particularly as manifested through the Prevention of Infiltration Law, which labelled African refugees as ‘infiltrators.’ This labelling is rooted in long-standing patterns of othering, resulting in the religious, racialised, and gendered exclusion of certain forced migrants.

Therefore, the intersectional impact of the Israeli legal framework raises important questions about the conception of Israeli sovereignty, as well as issues related to mobility, migration, and border security. The legal system also reflects a colonial continuity within contemporary international law – a continuum of colonial domination. This article highlights the need to employ intersectionality as a conceptual tool to address various forms of discrimination. It should be integrated into refugee status determination procedures and utilised by the courts in Israel and beyond to more effectively recognise and respond to the impacts of discrimination. Whether and how intersectionality is adopted in legal systems are critical avenues for future research, particularly in relation to the intersectional effects of law.

This article underscores that if states wish to meaningfully address ongoing migration challenges, they must better assess the potential impacts of proposed policies before implementation. States should also pursue greater cooperation with each other, the international community, and relevant organisations when managing migration. Such collaboration offers numerous benefits, including safer passage for refugees and improved economic and social integration, which can yield substantial advantages – not only for refugees but also for the states themselves.