The asylum "issue" is being exaggerated by right-wing media to distract from the many bigger problems that have either been caused by or exacerbated by the Tories mis-management of the UK.
This is a distinction without a difference, as you well know.
> a comparison which is justified.
And yet you're unable to actually make such an argument. The argument, of course, isn't the point. The point is associating your political opponents with Nazis.
> The asylum "issue" is being exaggerated by right-wing media to distract from the many bigger problems that have either been caused by or exacerbated by the Tories mis-management of the UK.
The Tories were elected in large part to address immigration issues, remember? Who convinced you that enacting their platform is somehow nefarious?
> Personally, I think that refugees need to be shown some empathy and kindness.
The ones who are safe and sound in France or Germany, who're affected by this new law? Why do they need your empathy when they're in a safe third country? Is this refusal of empathy sufficient to brand someone a Nazi?
> If people are crossing the channel to apply for asylum, then I don't see how it can be determined that they are illegal.
Intentionally circumventing legal entry points when entering a given country is generally illegal.
> It's not possible to apply for asylum from outside of the UK, so they can only apply once they hit our shores and yet Braverman is branding them all as "illegal"?
The UK doesn't grant asylum to people who travel to the UK through a 'safe third country'[0]. Why would sneaking across the channel be made any less illegal by making an invalid asylum claim?
> The immigration services have been completely stripped back by the Tories, so a lot of the statements are a result of their toxic-environment policy on immigration.
Tories were elected to implement immigration reform. What makes it toxic?
> Honestly, the asylum issue is a right-wing dog whistle and it's not actually a big problem with the UK.
The Tories are in power and this issue matters to their constituents. Waving it off as a "dog whistle" assumes bad faith which is, in my experience, a poor substitute for understanding the other side's arguments.
Also, "It's not that big of a problem" is an odd formulation. You acknowledge that there's a problem, but don't want it solved? Help me understand this mindset.
[0]https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility