WRONG
Kinyarwanda is the language most widely spoken in Rwanda.
English is hardly spoken
Oh Rwanda
- Thread starter ^woody^
- Start date
WRONG
Kinyarwanda is the language most widely spoken in Rwanda.
English is hardly spoken
Sponsored Links
Just like at some holding hotels, school classes and in the queues at the doctors and elsewhere - and this is in England!
yeah welcome to modern life where people travel
Motties claim that Rwanda is ok because the speak English is not true and whether people speak English at your doctors surgery or not has no bearing on that argument
As I've said in other threads on similar topics, if the experts are to be believed, these amounts of transient people are going to pale into insignificance in decades to come. Apparently, if the negative consequences of global warming come to pass, tens if not hundreds of people are going to be displaced from their homelands. They'll all need to go somewhere.
Sponsored Links
English is an official language in Rwanda - they'll get by. You claim the numbers that stay in France, Germany, etc are far higher than those that stay in the UK. Remind us Notch, what's the main language spoken in France, Germany and etc? Do any of them have English as an official language?
Last edited:
Africa is a big place. As is Russia.
Meanwhile, in good ol Blighty, Mr and Mrs Smith, having worked all their lives and paid all their taxes and NI, find that their pensions are massively reduced, they can't get seen at the doctors or treated at the hospital, their grand kids get no attention at school, their kids can't get a social housing place, the local services are cut to the bone and the whole dream of a nice future and retirement is gone because hordes of free loading illegal chancers have drained all the money and contributed nothing.
I know it isn't some people's favourite paper but the Guardian has a summary of Australias version of this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-nauru-australias-dumping-ground-for-refugees
Since it's the template for what were now apparently planning it's well worth reading to see how well it went.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-nauru-australias-dumping-ground-for-refugees
Since it's the template for what were now apparently planning it's well worth reading to see how well it went.
So you acknowledge the illegals are just travelling. Just here for a holiday, put their feet up, get waited on, have a good time, and then travel on to the next holiday destination. SMH
Let's imagine all people living here under migrant and refugee status were shipped out tomorrow. Every last one of them. If you believe that's going to resolve in any meaningful/significant way the issues you allude to above, you're living under a misconception. They're an easy 'out' for people to blame. Note I'm not referring to whether or not it's right all these people are here, I'm simply referring to the economics of the whole thing.
Ship out all 'illegals' = utopian UK. Nope.
If one illegal is shipped out, the UK taxpayer saves the cost of dealing with that illegal in the immediate and longer term - and not just the financial cost remember.
Now multiply that by 400 per day.
Its just simple maths isn't it? A fundamental saving, and the money saved can be allocated to those and the use it was intended for in tbe first place.
No one is saying it solves other problems, so don't distract yourself. It frees up money and resources to those other issues.
If you assume shipping is free. But other attempts to do this have cost millions of pounds per person per year. I don't think anyone has ever claimed this will save money in either the short or the long run.
We can agree to disagree, that's fine and part of what I like about forums. I suspect if the overall costs were taken into account (e.g. to administer this) the savings wouldn't be as significant as you think, not in the grand scheme of things.
Don't get me wrong, I think the government has been next to useless around this whole thing. However purely on the economics, I'm not sure a 'ship them out' policy would bring the savings you suggest.
Well the original scheme presumably has some administration costs too and some of that will be saved. More so when the deterrent works and the numbers reduce. Do you think 28,000 would have risked their lives if they knew they would end up outside the UK? Not a chance - they'd have stayed in France!
Last edited:
It's not just the immediate cost. Its all the other associated and longer term liabilities that come with every illegal - financial and other.
And you need to remember the knock-on deterrence effect, when a prospective illegal realises that they wont be put up in a hotel and be given all the free stuff, but shipped off to a place they did not want to go to in the first place, they will think twice.
Sponsored Links
