We decided to post a comment to an article on the Gypsy problem in Parkdale: http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1159031–fiorito-the-roma-of-parkdale-yin-and-yang
The author, Joe Fiorito, spent a week writing about the lamentable community support of Canada’s new-ish Roma (Gypsy) refugee population. An interesting report overall, as it gives us a glimpse into what kind of people are destined to replace Canadians.
Our original comment posted to the Toronto Star piece follows:
Put your money where your mouth is
I wonder how many sympathetic people like Mr Fioriti would be willing to sponsor a refugee for immigration to Canada.
Of course, this means paying out of pocket for all the community support he has so lovingly described, as well as any medical or legal cost incurred by these new Canadians.
The problem with individuals like Mr Fioriti is that they are very keen on Canada becoming a caregiver for people who have been born in countries that have unfortunately been unable to provide an attractive standard of living, however do next to nothing in regards to the altruism they so proudly proclaim. Either adopt a immigrant/refugee (and their family) and pay our of pocket for all cost and problems associated with their presence in Canada and cease putting the burden on the general taxpayer. Then we can talk of your humanitarian benevolence.
Mr Fioriti’s heart is warmed by the “plight” of these people and goes about the issue with a smug satisfaction that he stands on a moral high plane, but yet expects Canadian society in general to deal with any problems associated with this population influx.
If he or any pro-immigration proponents would accept to be fiscally responsible for these newcomers, he would have a leg to stand on. As it is currently, however, people of his ilk are glad to feel emotionally rewarded by helping out the less well-off from the entire planet, yet expect everyone else to shoulder the effort.
Put your money where your mouth is, sir, and the same goes to all bleeding hearts.
This was posted at about 11am on the 11th of April and was awaiting moderation. It did not appear immediately.
After about 4 hours of waiting for the comment to be approved by The Star, the following non-sequitur comment of quite different substance was posted:
It’s incomprehensible that the Tories are cutting funding for programs while Canadians can’t even get their human rights respected.
We need to do more for the Roma people instead of buying useless planes.
It was approved in under twenty minutes.
Only after an email inquiring about the comment approval process was sent to The Star did our first initial comment appear, about 36 hours later.
A good insight into how the editorial and comment boards are managed…