The US should not be allowed to shirk its responsibility towards refugees

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

A Syrian refugee woman outside the entrance to a refugee tent (PA wire)

Refugees often bring with them creative energies, innovations and ideas, and host communities are enriched by their plurality of political, social and cultural mosaic and civic life. It is imperative for governments to come to grips with the colossal magnitude of the refugee crisis and share responsibility.

No country – irrespective of its wealth – can accommodate millions of people in need of shelter, water, security, employment, education, medicine and healthcare. But it is unfair for the US (one of the wealthiest countries on earth) to ban refugees from specific Muslim countries or give special preferences for Christian minorities. We cannot shirk our responsibilities to offer succour to the wretched and vulnerable and to address the root causes that force refugees to flee their homes.

Dr Munjed Farid Al Qutob
London NW2

Why are we still trying to force a nonexistent ‘special relationship’?

Trump’s election has been a profound and alarming shock to the world, so why does the UK wish to develop a “special relationship” with such a man? Trump will use any trade deal with the UK to his benefit and to our detriment.

As soon as we have lost the protection of the European Customs Union, Trump and his henchmen will take Mrs May and Boris Johnson to the cleaners. For the UK to embrace this man is a disgrace – we should all be ashamed of our nation.

For him to be invited on a state visit to be entertained by our Queen must make us all wonder what we have come to. Mrs May’s return from Washington can be likened to Chamberlain’s return from Munich, only this time we are putting our trust in an evil man who will do even longer-lasting damage than the man Chamberlain shook hands with.

Martin Deighton
Suffolk​

The US’s misogynistic stance on abortion cannot be likened to Britain’s

I fear that Siobhan Fenton is absolutely right about the misogyny that remains deeply endemic in society on both sides of the Atlantic. However there is, I believe, a fundamental and qualitative difference between our two cultures on the issue of abortion.

So far as I am aware there are no siren voices in mainland Britain seriously arguing for abortion to be outlawed. As I understand it the recent challenges by Maria Miller and Jeremy Hunt were about revising the time limit for abortion in the context of foetus viability, not the acceptance of the principle of abortion.

As science progresses there will always be legitimate debate about the rights, if any, of the unborn child, their primacy over the mother's, and balancing the two. However this should not be confused with our long-accepted principle that abortion is not a crime per se.

Peter Webb
East Sussex

Why is no one angry about Trump weighing in on Brexit?

Does anyone else remember the howls of protests from the Leave campaigners when Obama made comments on the dangers of leaving the EU?

There is silence from David Davies, Liam Fox and Ian Duncan Smith after Trump congratulates Britain for leaving, which smacks of double standards.

Rod Hartley
Preston

Brexit could be devastating to expats with families

Theresa May without realising it may find herself set on a course of action that could destroy the lives of tens of thousands of British expats and families. Her current mantra is “no deal is better than a bad deal”, but the question is, better for whom? Certainly not British expats in Europe with EU National families, or EU expats in Britain with British families.

My fear is that as a result of May’s recent talks with Trump and the distant possibility of a deal on trade, she could be emboldened to actually believe that “hard Brexit” is an acceptable option and leave the EU without having reached an agreement.

Such an approach could separate families living abroad or effectively stop British citizens from coming back to the UK if they wished to stay with their families. If it all goes wrong May could find herself the first British Prime Minister in history who sacrificed thousands of her own people and their families on the altar of the anti-immigration sentiment that is Brexit.

Anonymous expat
Address supplied

Since when did 37.4 per cent of the electorate become the overwhelming “will of the people”?

I feel strongly that this phrase, used as a statement of fact, should be much more widely challenged by the media and MPs.

Susan Hawkes
Lymington

Thank you for publishing the Brexit bill in full – one of the shortest and most eloquently phrased suicide notes in history.

Terence A Carr
​​Prestatyn

The silver lining of the Mexican wall

After hearing and reading all the information concerning the infamous Mexican wall, I think the Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto is being a little too quick off the mark and a bit naive. He should agree with the building of the wall and the one major benefit that comes with it: it would help keep the “Trumpster” out of Mexico. A price well worth paying. Every cloud, as they say...

David Higgins
Somerset