Sovereignty, according to Max Webber, is the exclusive right to exercise authority over a geographical area. In this sense, the Supreme Court on Tuesday disassociated the State of Israel from its sovereignty in a decision made by the Interior Ministry, stating that refugee status should be granted to a Ivory Coast family, on the grounds that its daughters would be exposed to coercive women in their country of origin.

The Supreme Court has thus created a new reality in which every illegal stay can claim that he fears the word of women in his country of origin, and therefore is entitled to humanitarian status, social rights and naturalization. Beyond this, a great incentive for more waves of immigration from all over the region has also been created in parallel grounds, such as fear of murder for family dignity or a forced diaper.

The verdict was based on puzzling incorrect legal arguments. One of the conditions under the Refugee Convention for Recognition of Emissions is that the cause of application is the one that led the person to flee his country. In the case in question, it is a pair of infiltrators who came to Israel without children, and it is not the issue of women's word that led them to emigrate. Another condition is that the country of origin does not provide protection, but in fact in Ivory Coast (for which the hearing is closed), a law prohibiting the word of women and even imprisonment is enacted. The Court completely ignored the requirements of the treaty and the fact that these were not refugees by any international standard.

The Court has also adopted the UN Commission directive as if it were Israeli legislation. The UN Commission is a radical and unacceptable body, but the outcries of the state that these are illegal, have not been heard, as the "common sense" instructs, according to the ruling. But perhaps, worst of all, the court reversed the burden of proof. That is, it is not for the asylum seeker to prove that he deserves refugee status but for Israel to prove that it has found absolute safety in the African continent without fear of a woman's word.

Throughout the judgment, many figures were mentioned, but one information was missing and, most important of all, the proportion of women's word that was enforced contrary to the parents' position. In his absence, the court relied on the general proportion of a woman's word that could not be taught to parents, such as those in the judgment, who refused to make a woman's word.

The central feature of the ruling is the gross irresponsibility of the separation of the judiciary and the legislature, of immigration policy and of the future of the State of Israel. From the legal point of view, this is a wrong judgment, in terms of policy it is a collapse of Israel's borders and democratically it is a trampling on the Legislature in favor of a progressive judicial revolution at the expense of the future and character of the State of Israel.

The border of the State of Israel is made of legislation, not wire. It is the law that gives meaning to the arbitrary position of the border fence. When the Supreme Court repeatedly refuses to respect the legislation of elected officials in the field of immigration, it dismantles the elected level by its sovereign power, and destroys the barriers to immigration that each state needs to preserve its character, heritage and assets. There is no escaping the mobilization of elected officials, the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Justice in order to apply for further hearing.

Attorney David Peter is an investigator in the legal department at the Ecclesiastical Forum