Earlier this month, British Home Secretary Priti Patel announced that “the United Kingdom and Rwanda have signed a joint new migration and economic development partnership.” Patel cited Rwanda’s track record of settling large numbers of refugees on its borders, while also framing this new partnership as a move to combat human trafficking, as Britain claims that the prospects of being sent to Rwanda will deter some refugees from illegally entering the U.S. Rwanda has already been paid $156 million for a five-year trial run of the arrangement, with additional payments to come for each migrant that it takes from the UK.

Critics have slammed both the UK and Rwanda for the deal. Former British Prime Minister Theresa May says she opposes the plan because of “legality, practicality and efficacy” and thinks that it may lead to an increase in human trafficking. Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, the leader of the Anglican Church, condemned the plan, saying that “sub-contracting out our responsibilities, even to a country that seeks to do well, like Rwanda, is the opposite of the nature of God.”

Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah paraphrased the position that the British government is taking by implementing this policy: “We are going to pay a poorer country to take human beings we don’t want,” Attiah writes of the plan. Meanwhile, various human rights agencies point toward Rwanda’s long history of abuse, including the jailing and murder of opposition figures and police killing of refugees. These organizations fear that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda under the new plan will be subjected to harsh detention conditions.

Since 2001, Australia has increasingly sent refugees to offshore sites in other countries, including Papua New Guinea, the Republic of Narau and New Zealand. Beginning in 2015, Israel implemented a “voluntary” resettlement program for asylum seekers, many of whom came to the country from countries such as Eritrea and Sudan in East Africa. The Israeli program gave asylum seekers three choices: return to the country from which they fled, remain in Israel and be jailed or accept a cash payment and a flight to a third country, with Uganda and Rwanda believed to be the available destinations.

Britain’s move may be part of a larger trend. Reuters reports that Denmark is now in negotiations with Rwanda about sending its asylum seekers to the East African country as well. Such a move is generally prohibited by European Union rules, but Denmark’s status within the EU exempts it from certain rules, including those on asylum processes. Denmark has previously tried but failed to succeed in making similar deals with Tunisia and Ethiopia, among other countries, and has spent the last year laying the groundwork for such a deal with Rwanda.

Despite criticism of the deal, the UK and Rwanda appear determined to go through with their plan. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson defended Rwanda from criticisms of its human rights record, calling the country extremely safe and suggesting that criticisms of the country were based on “stereotyping.” Rwandan President Paul Kagame also spoke out against criticism of his country’s part in the deal. “We are not trading humans beings, please. This is not the case,” Kagame argued during a virtual meeting for Brown University. “We are actually helping.”

British lawmakers recently defeated a bill that would have put the plan up to a vote and increased financial transparency concerning the scheme. Thus, despite concerns for asylum seekers caught in the middle of this new policy, the plan appears to be on track.