Refugees would be an asset to the UK

PERHAPS C Croft should review his definitions of ‘economic migrants’ and ‘refugees’ (May 17). Priti Patel’s parents and ‘Lord’ Lebedev would surely be termed as economic migrants, and anyone from Syria or Ukraine (amongst many other countries) would be refugees, however they arrive here.

Now, as the bulk of Ukrainian refugees arrive here via Poland should they be obliged to stay in Poland as the French should appear to be required to keep their migrants? If not, why the difference? I can’t believe it’s colour or religion – or is it? There seems no other answer.

If allowed asylum more quickly, refugees would almost certainly support themselves and with our ageing population would be an asset, they shouldn’t need much support with time. It would also cut out the need for smugglers, which apparently is the object of the Rwanda exercise.

Our failing NHS is down to Tory cuts, lack of housing, education, increasing national debt and poverty is down to Tory policy failure not refugees.

The Chancellor has just recently decided he is British, not American, and his wife has just decided to start paying UK tax on her £11m pa income ‘voluntarily’ and as someone sympathetic to poverty ‘he will see how inflation pans out’ before deciding, if at all, what he will do to help those struggling to survive... but rejoice, because he’s promised a 2p decrease in income tax in two years’ time, by coincidence, just before the next general election, what foresight!

The latest possible terrorist to face jail is Welsh born and bred, the founder of National Action, so they don’t all come from abroad.

Finally, yes worldwide action should be agreed for refugees, to be given sanctuary more quickly, if their homeland is ever restored as say Poland after the Second World War, they may want to return home.

We might even miss them as we’re missing all the Europeans kicked out after Brexit.

D Slater Badminton, Gloucestershire