Sir, Current ideas on immigration control (letters, February 9) are focused on picking talent to meet short-term needs, and on restricting sponsorship of relatives.

If this policy had been in place in 1955, my “economic” migrant father, who was sponsored by my uncle to enter the UK from India, would not have earned many “points” and would not have been admitted. As a consequence Britain would not have benefited from his energy and from that of his children and grandchildren, and would have been short of three doctors (one academic), two pharmacists, an engineer (and businessman), a lawyer, a social worker, a teacher, a business studies academic, an optometrist, a businessman and a housewife/ businesswoman.

Such success is a result of driven, ambitious and energetic migrants, whose values often extol hard work, personal loss and self-improvement, since they are willing to make the massive sacrifices that migration requires of those who are not guaranteed a well-paid job on arrival. They instil their values in their offspring.

“Economic” migration offers individuals new opportunities at relatively little loss to their country of origin. To woo highly skilled people from poorer countries is, arguably, more exploitative and unethical.

Yours faithfully,
RAJ BHOPAL,
6 East Castle Road,
Edinburgh EH10 5AR.
February 9.

From Mr Alured Darlington

Sir, The sentencing guidelines for using a false passport have recently been doubled to a period of between one year and eighteen months’ imprisonment, even on a guilty plea. This is the Court of Appeal’s response to the need for greater vigilance since 9/11.

Last week I represented three such offenders at Isleworth Crown Court. Two were young Ukrainian women and one a man from Pakistan. All were of good character, all were seeking new and better lives for themselves and/or their families in Canada, and all, to my untrained eye, were a million miles from being a terrorist suspect.

The Crown Court judges were more merciful than I had dared to hope, but as each offender was led to the cells I could not help but consider the futility and needless cruelty of these guidelines.

If they are supposed to be a deterrent none of the three offenders, who spoke no English, could possibly have known of them. If they were terrorists prepared to risk their lives, any increase in prison sentences would not deter them.

Could not the courts find a less unjust way to fill our prisons than this kneejerk reaction to the terrorist threat?

Yours truly,
ALURED DARLINGTON,
Veja & Co Solicitors,
593 Uxbridge Road,
Hayes, Middlesex UB4 8HR.
February 14.

Explore Letters

• Feedback