Quote Originally Posted by JamesWales View Post
No it isn't. Calling a burglar a burglar is legitimate. Calling everyone a burglar isn't. It is perfectly legitimate to object to the current state of affairs, and think it's a policy worth trying. As usual, the language of those who oppose it is hyperbolic and defamatory to mask an absence of any viable alternative.

Why is it BS? This isn't kindergarten, or some lecture theatre where rich lecturers preach theories to rich students. This is real life. Adults should be able to discuss a policy and come up with solutions.

The current situation benefits rich migrants from safe countries over those perhaps more in need from warzones. It enriches criminal gangs who rarely use their proceeds for good causes and places a significant burden on the UK taxpayer to house, feed and process a presumably almost limitless number of people.

So yes, offer an alternative solution if you are so determined that this policy is wrong.
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?