How the UK's Rwanda plan mirrors immigration policies in Australia, Israel and Denmark

Categories: UK NEWS

The government's announcement that it plans to send asylum seekers illegally entering the UK to Rwanda has outraged many from politicians and charities to the Church of England.On Tuesday Labour MP Yvette Cooper said the plans are an "unworkable and desperate" attempt by Prime Minister Boris Johnson to distract from partygate and Theresa May said she did not support the policy on the grounds of "legality, practicality and efficacy".The Church of England joined the criticism, with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, describing the plan as "the opposite of the nature of God".

The UK will reportedly pay Rwanda £120m and refugees could be sent to east Africa within weeks.The government has defended the policy, with Ms Patel stating in the Commons the current dispersal system is "unfair" and overwhelmed, with local authorities sharing the burden "disproportionately". Meanwhile Mr Johnson said it was the "morally right thing to do".The policy has received a great deal of backlash but it is not revolutionary, with Denmark, Israel and Australia having implemented similar mandates in recent years.

The UK's international ambassador for human rights, Rita French, expressed "regret" that Rwanda was not conducting "transparent, credible and independent investigations into allegations of human rights violations including deaths in custody and torture".The reported cost for the UK scheme would, in theory, provide a major boost for its economy, but more alluring is improving its international reputation.The policy, according to Amnesty International UK's refugee and migrant rights director, Steve Valdez-Symonds, would help improve Rwanda's status globally."Politicians and journalists are speculating about what else is going on behind the scenes that sweeten the money. It's also about local alliances and political leverage."