China has been more welcoming to me as an American than the UK – thanks to Theresa May’s hostile environment

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

When you say things like ‘jump the queue’, you say them not because you believe them, but because you expect the British public to not know the facts (Alamy Stock Photo)

Theresa May, I am American but I am writing to you from China. I moved here after your hostile environment forced me to leave England. I received a master’s degree from one of your country’s top universities, I speak three languages, and I have 10 years of professional experience. Yet you deemed me too low-skilled to live in the United Kingdom, all while you demonised me for having had the audacity to want to live in the country I love and consider home. A decade ago, I would never have expected to be treated better in China than in my “special relationship” cousin of the United Kingdom, but here I am.

And now you are trying to say that you made me leave because of the Romanians? No – not in my name will you continue your nationalist rhetoric.

As an American, I am grateful to have freedom of movement in what is likely to be the most diverse country in the world, both culturally and environmentally. But what I wouldn’t give to have the option to easily move to 27 other countries. That is such an astounding opportunity, for personal and professional growth, for cultural exchange, for education, for food and drink, for travel – pick your reason! I honestly cannot think of a negative aspect of having such an option.

But too often, the British – very much with your assistance – forget that it is a two-way street. They see the Europeans who have come not as humans who want to enjoy a new culture (supposedly the greatest culture, right?) but as welfare scroungers. This is even though EU (and non-EU) immigrants contribute more in taxes than they take out – thus subsidising the British usage of public services – because your government has told them immigrants are welfare scroungers. They see job-stealers because you use rhetoric like “jump the queue” when there is no queue.

As a representative of the rest of the world, let me just say how envious we are of freedom of movement, and that it is baffling to see a nation throw away such an incredible opportunity.

However, when I say we are jealous, do not misunderstand or, more likely, intentionally misquote. We are envious of the opportunity yes, but the narrative that you have helped spread that non-EU immigrants hate Europeans because they don’t have to jump through the same horrible hoops you have implemented, is nonsense.

We are well aware that British citizens are allowed to move to France, Italy, Spain or Poland. They are not allowed to move to New York, or Mumbai, or here to beautiful Shenzhen. Therein lies the difference. It’s very simple.

It is your government that blocks the rest of the world from living in the UK. Your government that chooses to treat the few who are able to come like criminals rather than human beings who love your country and want to contribute to it. The European Union, and certainly its citizens, have nothing to do with your hostile environment.

But you know all of this. When you say things like “jump the queue”, you say them not because you believe them, but because you expect the British public to not know the facts. You assume that they are uneducated on the subject.

I believe you want to sow divisions; to pit EU and non-EU against one another, to pit Remainers against Europeans while continuing to further your hostile environment against the rest of the world. You were probably surprised that the Windrush scandal got any traction, considering your government has been treating non-EU immigrants with disdain since 2010 and there had been very little backlash until this year. And now you can finally treat EU immigrants the same, as you claim the voters have given you the mandate to do. But don’t you dare use my name to do it.

Laura Lundahl
Guangdong, China

Oh, the irony

Isn’t it ironic that during the 2015 general election campaign the Tories were claiming that if Labour won the government would be in the SNP’s pocket and now, three year later, a Tory government is in the DUP’s handbag?

Gordon Whitehead
Scarborough

We need to admit our part in creating terrorists

In a highly revealing interview with the Washington Post earlier this year, Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, who is accused of ordering the murder of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi (an accusation he denies), announced that the kingdom’s funded spread of extreme Islamic fundamentalism, Wahhabism, began in the 1980s as a result of western countries asking Riyadh to help counter the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Consequently, Saudi Arabia built mosques and madrassas overseas which then unleashed the Afghan Mujahideen (Osama bin Laden), from which came al-Qaeda and Isis.

But it didn’t just stop there, Saudi Arabia and Qatar went on to finance and arm these same groups in Syria, murdering tens of thousands of people. Previously, their handiwork had been seen in overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan government through their support for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Organisation, which just happens to be an al Qaeda affiliate in Libya, and was the largest group in the Libyan transitional national government whom Nato bombed into power in that country a few years ago.

We have to understand that despite the fact that the west buys huge amounts of oil from the kingdom and that Donald Trump wants to continue with the sale of $110bn worth of arms to Saudi, despite the genocide in neighbouring Yemen, that we are just as responsible for the creation of these terrorists as Saudi is.

We’ve made a huge mistake backing the Saudis. Unless we change our foreign policy it will continue to do enormous damage to our societies.

Mark Holt
Waterloo, London

Up-Brexiting the apple cart

One of George Bernard Shaw’s lesser known plays, The Apple Cart, written in 1928 and set sometime in the future, has a strangely modern ring. The main theme appears to be an argument between King Magnus and his prime minister about the extent to which a king should be allowed to express controversial opinions. That matter is quickly overshadowed by several other considerations.

First, the cabinet is composed of ministers who have widely divergent views, which they publish freely. Further, the country is effectively run, not by the government, but by an international big business called Breakages Ltd, which sees to it that no goods are produced which do not wear out and require replacing as quickly as possible.

The real climax, however, comes when the American ambassador calls to announce that the US congress has repealed the Declaration of Independence, a move immediately recognised as a clever ruse to take over the United Kingdom. Any relevance today?

Robert Gould
Edinburgh

Loneliness will get worse without action from the government

Matt Hancock’s admirable response to the Gosport hospital report (“Lessons have been learned, will be learned and must be applied. The voices of the vulnerable will be heard”) begs the question of how the vulnerable who have neither voice nor means of communication will be heard.

Unfortunately, lessons were not learnt during the five years since the former health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, called the neglect of a million pensioners “a source of national shame”. The government now admits in its otherwise welcome loneliness strategy is “just the start of tackling this challenge” to “establish a clearer picture of the prevalence of loneliness” without even mentioning the “million pensioners left starving through loneliness”.

In apologising for the “truly shocking” findings to the Gosport victims’ families, Hancock said: “Every one of those who lost loved ones was a son or daughter, a mother or father, a sister or brother.” Sadly, however, there are no families to lobby for the neglected million elderly highlighted by Hunt as a national disgrace in 2013, nor for the million pensioners still left starving through loneliness in 2018. Hancock, who describes the 450 Gosport deaths as “not just preventable, but deaths directly caused by the actions of others”, will doubtless wish to prevent vastly more premature deaths from inaction, to further his worthy aim to create a culture where lessons are learnt.

To this end, as “Loneliness could be costing private sector employers up to 2.5 billion a year due to absence and productivity losses”, a £2.5bn funding boost to adult social care could prove a highly profitable investment and further the prime minister’s worthy aim “to eradicate loneliness in our lifetime”. Properly funded prompt action could help a million pensioners left starving through loneliness and others suffering its devastating impact, especially at Christmas, who will otherwise die unknown and unloved.

Trevor Lyttleton
London NW11

A rail service with four masters

The new rail ombudsman announced today made me think of the ancient Greek saying, “a slave with two masters is a free man”, except the rail companies now have four. We have the Office Of Rail Regulation, Transport Focus, Network Rail and now the ombudsman (funded by the rail companies) all meant to be batting for the consumer against the rail companies, but failing abysmally. Rail passengers need one strong independent body that is clearly and unambiguously for complaints against operators, not the fuzzy mess that now exists.

Ian Lowden
Kelsall