HARRY Mead (Echo, August 13) is rightly aghast that a Bangladeshi double murderer is allowed to settle here on the basis of his right to family life. But the odd murderer is only a small part of the problem.

Even before considering the effect of family sizes well above replacement rate, there is the potential for minority groups to double their numbers in every generation through family reunion. There is the entitlement and financial incentive for each individual to import a spouse.

The answer is not that families shouldn’t be united; it is that there is generally more than one country in which this could be done. For an international marriage we need to consider which country the couple has the greater aggregate affinity with. If a British and, say, an Indian citizen are to marry, and both are of Indian descent, then this would clearly be India.

We should also be looking to avoid this two-way traffic of reuniting partners producing a net inflow to the richer country.

Otherwise it would be blatant economic migration.

If we are to have ongoing immigration, then it should be of those who most benefit our collective interest.

John Riseley, Harrogate