Another difficulty that my colleague Justice Vogelman focuses on is the lack of a time limit, ostensibly, on the detention of an open residence center. However, as stated, we are dealing with a temporary order. The provisions relating to the residence center will remain in effect for only three years from the date of the law's commencement, i.e., towards the end of 2016 (the law passed its third reading in the Knesset on December 9, 2013). My colleague is concerned about the possibility that the temporary order will be extended, so that the temporary arrangement will remain for a longer period. To this I will reply that in constitutional review, care must be taken to establish assumptions as facts. In any event, even if there is a factual basis for my colleague's concern against the background of past experience in various cases (and there is a certain basis), it is possible to adopt the President's approach that it would not be correct to extend the validity of the temporary order beyond the date originally determined.
In his opinion, Justice Vogelman referred to the emotional and social toll that would be exacted from the infiltrators as a result of their detention in a detention center, even if it was open (paragraphs 125-127). I do not take this lightly. However, it should not be forgotten: in other Western countries as well, restrictions are imposed, even not simple, on infiltrators in custody of one kind or another. There is a recognition, almost sweeping, that not everyone who infiltrates into the country is entitled to full civil rights. In fact, the comparative law has more extreme examples than our open stay centers. In Canada There are only about 300 places in the special detention facilities, so in practice many infiltrators are held together with the general population in regular prisons (above,Global Detention Project). In AustraliaFor example, almost all detention facilities are hermetically sealed in a format similar to a prison. Only one facility allows its occupants to leave the compound unaccompanied (ibid.). The situation is even more difficult in the facilities established by the Australian government on the nearby islands: the facilities are located far from a settlement, completely enclosed by high walls, can only be left for a special reason and accompanied by a supervisor, and visitors can enter rarely and subject to restrictions (for a critical approach on the subject, see:Amnesty International, Offending Human Dignity - The Pacific Solution, ASA 12.9.2012). In the United States, Asylum seekers are held in conditions similar to prisons and are run by prison guards (Sadhbh Walshe, Expensive and Inhumane: The Shameful State of U.S Immigration Detention, in The Guardian (3.12.2012)). In the UK The condition of the facilities is also "subjected" to much criticism, and many of the facilities operate in the form of prisons for all intents and purposes (Asylum Aid, Detention Conditions: United Kingdom, available at: http://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/united-kingdom/detention-conditions).