AIC Submits Legal Opinion Opposing PIBA’s “Surveillance Law”: Read Now
This morning, one day after the opening of the Knesset’s winter session, the Israeli Association for International Couples (AIC) submitted its official legal opinion opposing the “Surveillance Law” – a legislative proposal that would grant the Population and Immigration Authority (PIBA) far-reaching new powers to monitor, track, and investigate couples applying for legal status in Israel.
What is the Surveillance Bill?
The proposed law aims to dramatically expand PIBA’s authority to investigate and conduct intrusive surveillance on international couples undergoing the gradual process.
These powers would allow inspectors to enter private homes (with a warrant), demand access to photos and information from anyone, question neighbors, employers, and other acquaintances, conduct surveillance in public spaces, and more. According to PIBA, refusal to cooperate with these investigations “may result in the rejection of the application,” placing couples under constant pressure and threat.
If you haven’t yet read our detailed explainer of the proposal and its risks, you can find it here.
How Does PIBA Justify This Law?
Alongside the bill, PIBA published a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) – a 32-page document intended to present (and convince of) the reasoning behind the proposal, its expected benefits, and the alternatives considered.
PIBA’s stated objective is to be able to verify the authenticity of relationships and shared centers of life through evidence-based, factual assessment (a.k.a, surveillance). They argue that this will:
- Protect Israel’s character as a Jewish state from a demographic perspective;
- Prevent significant costs to Israeli taxpayers resulting from granting social benefits and health insurance to ineligible foreigners;
- Reduce state expenses related to legal appeals, petitions, and associated legal fees;
- Improve service efficiency and prevent delays in processing applications for status;
- Bring world peace (this was not in their text but it illustrates well the overall tone of their claims).
Unsurprisingly, PIBA’s analysis report is one-sided, misleading, and has serious flaws, as AIC demonstrated in its opinion paper:
AIC’s Legal Opinion: Disproportionate, Unconstitutional, and Unjustified
In its detailed submission, AIC warns that the Surveillance Bill represents a severe and unjustified infringement on fundamental rights – particularly the rights to privacy, family life, and equality before the law.
Click here to read AIC’s comments to the bill (Hebrew)
Click here to read AIC’s comments – English Translation
The opinion paper is grounded in legal, constitutional, and practical analysis, and highlights five core flaws in the government’s proposal:
1. Prevalence of the Phenomenon
PIBA’s own data shows that “sham relationships” are a marginal phenomenon in Israel. Only a small number of cases involve suspicion of fraud, and even fewer result in proven deception. According to statistics PIBA shared, in the year 2022 (while the inspection unit was still active) they claimed to have found only 47 cases of fraudulent relationships, out of 39,000 files that were active back then.
AIC then explained in length that the reason for these insignificant numbers of fraudulent applications is clear: the current policies for partner immigration are strict and harmful, aimed at deterring international couples from attempting to legalize the foreign partner’s status in Israel.
In its current state, we claimed, the gradual process already makes fraudulent status acquisition attempts unprofitable, and virtually impossible.
2. Extreme Handling Times and Appeals
AIC also stressed that PIBA hasn’t shown that delays, the rise of appeals, and inefficiencies in the gradual process have anything to do with dishonest relationships, and that their claim on this matter was completely unbacked by evidence.
AIC then listed and demonstrated a great variety of different causes for delays in the gradual process, such as: intentional stalling by PIBA; lack of response to couples’ inquiries; wrong implementation of the procedures by clerks; demand for document presentation in cases when the document is objectively unattainable; demand for new additional “by surprise”, at a late stage of the process; and many more. We summarized that these systemic administrative failures cause major delays and judicial processes, not only matters of relationship honesty.
3. Comparative Analysis: PIBA’s Proposal vs. the World
AIC argued that the enforcement powers proposed by the Population Authority are unprecedented among democratic nations. Citing the authority’s own comparative review of immigration systems in the United States, Canada, and Australia, AIC noted that home visits were found uncommon, search powers limited, and no country grants the kind of covert investigative authority or access to couples’ personal devices that Israel is now seeking.
AIC also criticized the Population Authority’s reliance on the UK as a model for strict immigration control, noting that PIBA’s reference to the U.K. is misleading and taken out of context. The British partner immigration system is streamlined and digital, typically completed within 60–90 days, with multi-year visas granted upfront and not even an interview required under the standard procedure. AIC argued that in Israel, where couples already face a lengthy and invasive process, PIBA cannot claim the same balance.
4. Failure to Explore Less Intrusive Alternatives
PIBA’s “all or nothing” approach overlooks practical and proportional alternatives – such as improving interview methods, training clerks in behavioral assessment, creating an independent oversight committee for extreme cases, or permitting investigative tools only under judicial authorization. AIC also noted that PIBA’s own claim in the explanatory notes – that these practices would apply only to cases raising suspicion – does not appear in the wording of the law, which subjugates every single couple to the risk of surveillance.
By failing to propose or examine any less intrusive or rights-infringing means of achieving its stated objectives, the proposal does not satisfy fundamental constitutional and regulatory standards.
5. Severe Threat to Protected Human Rights
AIC presented the threat to human rights at length. By granting the Population Authority sweeping investigative and surveillance powers over couples, the proposal threatens the right to privacy, protected under Israel’s Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and the Privacy Protection Law. AIC highlighted that these powers not only intrude into the most private aspects of individuals’ lives but also extend to third parties and minors, creating a constant climate of exposure, fear, and control.
Beyond privacy, AIC emphasized the law’s severe impact on family life and equality. Families, including children, could be monitored, subjected to intrusion, and exposed to potential manipulation by third parties. The constant threat of surveillance and the risk of deportation for non-cooperation undermine the security, intimacy, and autonomy at the core of family life. Moreover, the law imposes a separate, more intrusive legal regime on applicants compared to other citizens, violating equality before the law. AIC stressed that these extreme infringements on human rights cannot withstand constitutional review.
What Can I Do to Help Stop This?
The Surveillance Bill is currently at the first stage of public consultation – The moment when public voices matter most. This phase concludes on October 20th, at 23:59.
Every comment submitted on the official government legislation website will be reviewed by the legal drafting team. You don’t need legal expertise or elaborate language just state clearly that you oppose the bill and that it violates your right to privacy and family life, as an international couple in Israel.
📢 We want to show numbers! Help us reach at least 50 public comments on this bill! Let’s show that international couples stand together in defense of their basic rights.
Update: The public comments phase has finished. Thanks to you, we’re reached 68 comments, with impactful testimonies! Thank you to everyone who made a difference!
👉 Click here to read the comments that international couples submitted to the bill
What’s next?
Once the public comment period closes tonight, lawmakers will review the submissions and amend the bill as they see fit. The government will then decide when to advance the bill for further parliamentary review. The next stage would be the Knesset Interior Committee – a body currently hostile toward international couples and chaired by a member of the Otzma Yehudit party.
We are also glad to share that other major civil society actors have joined the fight. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), together with the Privacy Clinic at the Tel Aviv University Law School, has submitted an extensive legal opinion emphasizing the grave threat the proposal poses to the constitutional right to privacy. AIC maintains contact with these organizations and others to coordinate efforts and ensure a united response once the bill advances further.
If you believe in this fight, help us keep going – become a monthly donor to AIC today. Exposing PIBA’s legislation attempts, writing legal opinions, and building coalitions takes time and work. We can’t sustain this fight without your support. Every shekel counts.
