THE UK Government has described it as a comprehensive reform for a "broken system" that will tackle illegal immigration while dealing with "underlying pull factors into the UK's asylum system".

And it's the cornerstone of Home Secretary Priti Patel's new plan for immigration as she seeks to be seen as tough on migration amid soaring levels of English Channel crossings.

But to its critics, which range from refugee charities, human rights lawyers, to the United Nations, the Nationality and Borders Bill is a "cruel" and “hateful, anti-refugee bill” which will “criminalise” refugees.

It will come under renewed scrutiny in the House of Commons on Tuesday and Wednesday as it goes through Westminster's report stage.

READ MORE: SNP warn Nationality and Borders Bill will destroy lives of vulnerable people

But why is the law so controversial? Well, here are five parts of the bill opponents are saying are unnecessarily cruel.

The National: The Nationality and Borders Bill could penalise people seeking refuge in the UK via English Channel crossingsThe Nationality and Borders Bill could penalise people seeking refuge in the UK via English Channel crossings

Criminalising ‘unofficial’ ways of entering the UK

Priti Patel’s bill will create a "two-tiered" asylum system that will penalise those seeking asylum via “unofficial” means.

The UN Refugee Agency states that restricting access to asylum by introducing a two-tiered approach in which only those who come to the UK through so-called “safe and legal pathways" will deny many refugees their rights guaranteed under the 1951 Refugee Convention.

The new rules could also punish people crossing the English Channel who have not applied for the UK’s official asylum programme.

These asylum seekers could be denied access to family reunions and applications could be deemed “inadmissible” if the person has connections to a country deemed safe by the UK - even if the person has never been to the country.

This clause has been highly criticised by activists as well as lawyers, with the Law Society, the UK's independent professional body for solicitors, saying: “Allowing differential treatment of refugees depending on how they arrive in the UK would penalise those arriving via irregular means; this is incompatible with the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention 1951.”

The National: Priti Patel is seeking to raise the length of prison sentences for those arriving to the UK 'illegally'Priti Patel is seeking to raise the length of prison sentences for those arriving to the UK 'illegally'

Higher sentences for people arriving to the UK ‘illegally’

The penalty for “illegal” entry to the UK will be drastically upped if the law passes from six months to four years in prison.

Opponents say this part of the bill will “criminalise” those fleeing persecution because of the mode of passage they chose to get to the UK.

It also means anyone who helps asylum-seekers get into the UK could be liable to imprisonment, even if it is not “for gain” - such as people smugglers who exploit vulnerable refugees and migrants for cash.

The Tories say the bill will help save lives as people-smugglers persuade vulnerable groups to make treacherous journeys across the English Channel.

READ MORE: Nationality and Borders Bill will 'murder' human rights

But Amnesty International has hit out at this claim, saying: “It fails to provide any safe route to claim asylum, so will continue to force people – including those with family and connections here – to resort to smuggling gangs and perilous journeys to reach the UK.”

The National: British citizenship could be removed for those claiming asylum without noticeBritish citizenship could be removed for those claiming asylum without notice

Deprivation of citizenship without warning

A newly added part of the bill, if approved, would give the UK Government the ability to strip individuals of their British citizenship without warning.

Under the rules, the UK Government would be exempt from giving notice to people if it is deemed not “reasonably practicable” to do so, or if it is in the interests of national security, diplomatic relations or the wider public interest.

Critics are warning the change in rules would be too draconian, giving Home Secretary Patel too much power over people’s lives.

Frances Webber, the vice-chair of the Institute of Race Relations, said: “This amendment sends the message that certain citizens, despite being born and brought up in the UK and having no other home, remain migrants in this country."

The National: UK army barracks and offshore asylum processing centres thousands of miles away could be used if the law is passedUK army barracks and offshore asylum processing centres thousands of miles away could be used if the law is passed

‘Offshoring’ refugees to the ‘British Guantanamo Bay’

Instead of community resettlement, asylum seekers could be sent to places such as Rwanda for asylum processing centres.

But there are fears about sending people to countries they do not know well or have never lived in, sometimes thousands of miles away.

There are fears the UK will take a similar approach to the Australian offshoring processing centres, deemed “inhumane” by activists.

Nick McKim, co-deputy leader for the Australian Green Party urged the UK not to follow Australia through its “dark and bloody chapter” in sending asylum seekers to offshore centres.

Even the Tories' own MP, David Davis, has hit out at the law, saying it risks creating a “British Guantanamo Bay” if enacted.

“Pushing the problem to another part of the world is just a costly way of delaying the inevitable,” he said.

The National: UK asylum seekers could see their case reviewed every 30 months with limited access to the country's social safety netUK asylum seekers could see their case reviewed every 30 months with limited access to the country's social safety net

Asylum limbo with no access to public funds

Asylum seekers could soon face renewal on their claim every 30 months, while being subjected to the “no recourse to public funds” condition, preventing them from accessing social security services.

Campaigners have warned it risks asylum seekers falling in and out of being documented, increasing their chances of destitution.

READ MORE: Joanna Cherry: Tory bill will break law – and not just in ‘specific and limited’ way

The Refugee Council said: “This new approach flies in the face of the Refugee Convention, which states that the status of an asylum claim should not be dependent on the mode of entry into a country.

“It will create a group of vulnerable, precarious people, unable to plan for their futures in the UK or start to integrate. They will also have limited family reunion rights so will be kept apart from their children and spouses.

“This cruel approach will not stop people arriving in the UK. It will, however, cost more as people will be waiting in limbo for months before their claim is heard, or as they cruelly move through the court and prison system.”

A Home Office spokesperson said: “Our New Plan for Immigration will overhaul the broken asylum system and reduce many of the historic pull factors by making it firmer on those coming here through parallel illegal routes and fairer for those using our safe asylum schemes.

“The UK has a long history of supporting refugees in need of protection.

"Since 2015, we have resettled more than 25,000 refugees through safe and legal routes direct from regions of conflict and instability - more than any other European country.

“Individuals should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach – rather than making dangerous journeys to the UK facilitated by criminals.

"That is why we have rules in place to make asylum claims inadmissible where people have travelled through or have a connection to safe countries.”