It should be made quite clear to every asylum seeker when they arrive that if they commit any crime which carries a prison sentence they will be sent back to their country of origin regardless of the circumstances of their asylum after they have served their sentence. The United Kingdom really should get tough with the criminal element that has arrived at it's shore and stop being known as a "soft touch" nation. Jean Kaye, Boynton Beach, Florida, USA

If a judge and jury convict an illegal immigrant of a serious crime such as rape, GBH or murder the sentence should not be prison here in the UK, but immediate deportation back to where the criminal boarded the boat/airplane/lorry prior to arriving in the UK. It would then be up to the country of original embarkation to decide on their actions - thus making such countries accountable for their own immigration control. Eileen Weatherill, Corfe Castle

It is hard to generalise hence each case will have to be considered on its own merit. A country may be unsafe for some but if the prisoner concerned will not receive capital punishment then there is no reason why he/she cannot be deported. However, under no circumstances should foreign prisoners be granted indefinite leave to remain here. They should be given leave for one year at a time followed by a review. This way whenever the country becomes "safe" they can be deported. Vinay Mehra, Purley

Surely the longer-term consequences of not returning criminals to their place of origin is that the UK will slowly fill up with undesirable alien residents. If countries overseas cannot be trusted, then they should not be regarded as sovereign entities. Why should we allow a citizen of an unreliable country to reside permanently in the UK, while at the same expressing no concern for the citizens of such a country who cannot escape? Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines

Yes, prisoners should be deported to unsafe countries. It seems to me that, in whichever country you are, you should behave yourself and not break that country's laws. This is simply courtesy and good manners. This is even more the case if you have fled for your life and have applied for asylum in the other country. A person's country of birth may be unsafe but, as far as I am concerned, this should be yet another reason why you should not be breaking the laws of another country. James Phennah, Solihull

This is clearly not a straightforward question. For more serious offences, eg: burglary, drug offences, sex offences and murder, the answer is quite simply, yes they should be deported (or detained if the receiving country refuses to co-operate). We should not have to tolerate such behaviour or the possibility of repeat offending. In less serious offences there should be a points system, say three strikes and you are out. I grow increasingly tired of human rights legislation being used against us in these circumstances. Obviously, very minor fixed penalty offences such as parking should not be taken into account. That would be manifestly unfair. I also grow increasingly concerned about the threat to our security unless tighter controls are enforced efficiently. Such risk will never be eliminated but with the present system in such disarray, would be terrorists must be having a huge laugh at our expense. I think Labour should realise and quick that this issue will be a big vote loser for them if improvements are not implemented in a timely fashion. Paul Eccles, Reading

There is no way that the Justice system will allow criminals to be sent back to repressive regimes. By committing a crime an illegal immigrant guarantees themselves permanent residence in the UK. Margaret Wilson, Glasgow

I must confess to ignorance as to the criteria on which applications for asylum are treated, but it seems to me that one could take guidance from the answer to a simple question. If a person seeking asylum in the UK from an oppressive regime abroad admits to previous convictions for crimes of violence, will this affect his application? If the answer is yes then we should have no qualms about sending such a person home should he be convicted of such crimes in the UK. If the answer is no then we should accept that a record of violent crime has no bearing on the process of asylum/deportation. Christopher Lai, Paris, France

I don't think that it's unreasonable to expect visitors/immigrants/refugees to behave themselves in the country which has given them a home. Some of the people in question have committed very serious violent crimes and appear to be very able to look after themselves anyway. Why should Britain take in people who show no desire to obey the law, despite claims that they might not be treated all that well upon their return? We have enough violent criminals of our own as it is. Perhaps the reason they left in the first place was that their behaviour wasn't tolerated there either. Why is this our problem? There are repressive regimes all over the world (some might argue there are plenty in Europe), so are we to take absolutely everyone who claims they'll be shabbily treated upon their return, whether it's true or not? I say "no." Steve Lee, Gillingham

It would be spectacularly myopic to impose blanket legislation to deport all foreign convicts. But that said, an effective threat of deportation for repeat or serious offences may prove to be some form of deterrant. Simon Clark, London

I would suggest that by committing a crime in Britain, foreign prisoners have nullified any rights they may have otherwise accrued as asylum-seekers. Send them back regardless and let us concetrate our concern on genuine asylum-seekers who wish to integrate legally into our society. Peter Whitcombe, Horley, Surrey

I, too, would like to be free from risk of "human rights abuses", such as muggings, rape, murder. It's an abuse of the State's hospitality to come here and commit crimes. Sending them back whence they came will free up our prisons so we can start giving homegrown criminals proper sentences. Amy Allen, Manchester

Tony Blair has conceded that nobody knows how many illegal immigrants are in the country. Now we have been told that unemployment has risen to 1.59 million during the quarter January to March 2006, I think we ought to know whether the unknown numbers are included in the new unemployment total. Kenneth Elkins, Whyteleafe, Surrey