Quote Originally Posted by Eric Cartman View Post
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?
Not necessarily, because that could lead to very high numbers, as there are an awful lot of political opponents or people otherwise eligible for asylum in many countries who may wish to make Britain home.

Without some kind of rules and sensible management, the situation quickly becomes totally unsustainable and the public lose faith, especially when they are facing financial crisis of their own.

In answer to your question, I think this is a pretty unprecedented situation that requires a pretty unprecedented solution. I would support the UK taking more from warzones or proper channels. It's the means they arrive and our inability to do anything about it that is the issue

It amazes me how people see no issue at all. Naivity causes a lot of it I guess, and the fact a lot of people want the current govt to fail so are content for any crisis to help do that.