Originally Posted by
Eric Cartman
Isn't the obvious alternative just to make the legal route better? The fact that the vast majority of people entering illegally would obtain asylum status legally should tell you that the legal system is too slow or too hard to access. So speed it up or make it easier to access. Does this policy fix that? If not then all you are ensuring is to reduce the number of asylum seekers we take as a country.
The reason people use hyperbolic language to describe the policy is because unfortunately in relative terms, this is an extreme response and for a lot of people, crosses into uncomfortable territory. Which begs the question, how extreme would Patel's policy need to be for you to think it wasn't 'worth trying'? Presumably you have a line over which we shouldn't step. What if this deterrent doesn't work, how would you step it up a notch?