Shabana Mahmood’s proposal that asylum seekers must now wait 20 years before applying for citizenship, with reviews every 30 months (Shabana Mahmood warns Labour MPs ‘dark forces are stirring up anger’ over migration, 16 November) brought to mind my Hungarian aunt, a Red Cross nurse who sought refuge in Britain in 1947. She had been sacked by the Nazis in 1942 for helping her Jewish friends, and then fell foul of the Soviets in 1946 for helping friends deemed to be “class enemies”.

After retraining, she became a health visitor, later lecturing in health visiting at the Polytechnic of North London. She was immensely proud of her British citizenship gained in 1955, but her underlying sense of insecurity was profound. Suffering from dementia, she was admitted to hospital in 2001 after a heart attack and became very agitated and upset. “I am a British citizen,” she cried. “You have no right to detain me. I have a British passport!” Nothing I or the doctor said could reassure her.

That asylum seekers today, even those with skills that can benefit our society, will have to live with uncertainty and the constant fear of deportation for 20 years appals me. That a Labour government also proposes weakening our commitment to the European convention on human rights beggars belief. No wonder Tommy Robinson was so triumphant on X. Has any thought been given to the impact on foreign residents in the UK who will feel their existing status will inevitably come under threat, as Reform UK has already suggested, and take their much-needed skills elsewhere?

I doubt Reform UK’s potential or present supporters will be persuaded to vote Labour by this craven capitulation to racist rhetoric, but I’m 100% certain that it will drive lifelong Labour supporters like me to find another home for our votes.
Tessa Byars
Cambridge

I was heartened to read Stella Creasy’s piece (ICE-style raids on Britain’s streets: that’s all Labour’s brutal asylum reforms will achieve, 17 November). The obfuscating and intentional doublespeak swirling around the emotive cauldron ingredients of “immigration”, “illegal immigration” and “small boats” has been intentionally leveraged into mainstream political and media jargon by Reform UK, big tech algorithms, and thence into the baying mob. That the government is cowing to this, at best, semi-manufactured “public opinion” is deeply worrying. Added to this, the state’s stripping of immigrants’ jewellery to pay for processing their applications has the whiff of something deeply unsettling. What next: spectacles, boots, hair?

In 2024, around 30% of the nursing staff and more than a third of doctors working in the NHS were non-UK nationals. To see this in action, I would point any reader to the Netflix documentary series Critical: Between Life and Death, which follows life in London’s main trauma hospitals. We are daily enriched by, and should feel deeply indebted to, the many people of colour in this and other sectors of our society.
Quentin Cowen
Laxfield, Suffolk

Re your editorial on Labour’s asylum plans(17 November) , I fear that the government may have succeeded in its plans to make this country less attractive to immigrants. Unfortunately, it has also made it a lot less attractive for everyone else as well. The great enshittification proceeds apace.
Helen Haddon
Milton Keynes

The good news is that the government has finally decided to introduce a wealth tax. The bad news is that it only applies to asylum seekers (Asylum seekers’ jewellery could be seized to pay for processing costs, says Home Office minister, 17 November).
Martin Stott
Oxford