The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. Leviticus 19:34.

I have watched, bemused and amused, as Bermudians debate the question of the status of long term residents. It is an unimpressive spectacle.

The issues are relatively simple. There are, broadly, only four possible objections to granting permanent status to long-term residents, as follows: 1.

Environmental protectionism: recognising that Bermuda is a tiny place and has no more room to house more permanent residents.

2. Economic protectionism: ensuring career options for those who already have Bermudian status.

3. Racial protectionism: addressing or redressing racial imbalances between white and black people in Bermuda.

4. Xenophobia: a disgraceful inability to embrace foreign people, culture and ideas.

Of these four points, the only legitimate reason for failing to accommodate the long-term residents is that Bermuda is full to capacity There is virtually no open space in these little islands. The little open space which remains probably should be preserved. This is an excellent reason for maintaining a very restrictive immigration policy in relation to both work permits and status. Yet the government is inclining to the concept of Permanent Residential Certificates and I do not perceive significant objection to that compromise. Apparently, then, the physically capacity of Bermuda is not a primary concern of the government or of those who oppose the granting of status.

As for economic protectionism, this is very difficult to justify in any modern environment but particularly in Bermuda. Your own avarice may disable many of you from comprehending this point. but the plain fact is that the economic "pie'' is large enough to feed many more mouths than it presently feeds, without threat to those presently having status. A Bermudian -- of any race -- has better opportunities in this land than his or her counterparts virtually (if not absolutely) anywhere else in the world.

As for accomplishing some political objective to do with racial imbalance, in my experience Bermudians (including black Bermudians) are already given enormously favourable treatment, as compared to that available to foreigners (including white foreigners) working for the same employer and having the same or superior qualification. It is no longer true (if it ever was) that foreign workers are preferred over Bermudians either by immigration policy or by Bermudian employers. Racial imbalance exists in Bermuda but the connection between it and immigration policy appears to be remote.

In any event, it is difficult to see why lifting the moratorium on granting status would produce adverse racial consequences. Applications would be accepted or rejected on a case-by-case basis in a manner consistent with whatever racial and other criteria were established by the government. There is racism in Bermuda and the legacy of slavery creates complicated social dynamics which will survive for many generations. However, there is no reason to think that conferring status on a few dozen people -- among whom apparently there would be a significant number of blacks -- would exacerbate the racial problem. As much as you, reader, feel compelled to see every issue exclusively in terms of black and white, the colour spectrum includes many other colours perceptible to the human eye. Some of them are dazzlingly brilliant. Yet you fail even to detect them.

Hence I draw the conclusion that most of the views expressed during the public meetings come down to simple and small-minded xenophobia. Even Rolfe Commissiong, who seems thoughtful and intelligent in his weekly commentaries on other topics, has stooped to this level in his commentary which appeared in the Bermuda Sun on 29 September. Can it be, as Commissiong suggests, that the long-term residents have insisted on status as a matter of right? Most of them are reluctant, for fear of reprisal, even to speak; much less do they make demands! Commissiong betrays his distorted perception of the problem when he characterises the long-term residents as evil conspirators whom he contrasts with "ordinary decent'' Bermudians. This is an example of the polarisation which results when you insist on seeing only two colours when in reality there exists a vast spectrum.

One of the ironic products of the debate is that is makes Bermuda appear far less attractive as a place to live, either temporarily or permanently, or to visit. Commissiong writes that those who have been vocal at the public meetings represents the majority of black Bermudians. I hope he is wrong.

Rather than expressing "sophisticated and mature'' views, as Commissiong implies, these spokespeople leave the impression that Bermuda is a parochial and regressive society, a society in which the foreigner, if he is white, resented, even hated, on purely racial grounds and made a scapegoat for wrongs committed by others with whom he has no connection whatsoever. This is unfair discrimination which I pray will not be embraced by fair-minded Bermudians of any colour.

BORN NON-BERMUDIAN Warwick Appeal to the elderly September 28, 2000 Dear Sir, Please allow me this opportunity to make an appeal to your readers, in particular, those individuals who are sixty-five years and older who are long-term residents. Age Concern is interested in collecting data on individuals that are sixty-five years and older who are listed as long-term residents. Please contact our office in the Russell Eve Building, 21 Church Street at 295-7525.

CLAUDETTE FLEMING Executive Director Age Concern An easy target September 29, 2000 Dear Sir, Yesterday I watched a Traffic Warden giving out tickets to several motorists in Par-La-Ville pay-and-display car park at 5.05 p.m. She walked along each row of the car park handing out ticket after ticket to cars, most of whom will have had tickets until 5 p.m.

I then watched as motorists arrived just a few minutes later to discover their cars had been ticketed and were understandably very frustrated.

While I accept these cars are officially illegally parked, surely some common sense should be used here? Most people using that car park who work until 5 p.m. will buy a ticket until 5 p.m. (or eight hours after they arrive in the morning), rather than 5.05 or 5.10.

Giving out tickets in this manner seems a little petty.

I think Hamilton's Traffic Wardens should check their priorities. How about giving tickets to the people who constantly double park on Reid Street, Queen Street and Church Street waiting for friends, picking up videos, fast food etc. Surely these people are worthy of a ticket ? DISGRUNTLED MOTORIST Warwick Does the FCO know? October 3, 2000 Dear Sir, To judge from Minister Paula Cox's enthusiasm for the recent meetings on Long term Residents -- which have revealed facets of the Bermudian character on which all our leaders would do well to reflect carefully -- and the Premier's comments about taking the Constituency boundary issue "to the public'' the Progressive Labour Party seems to be of the mind that shrill meetings carefully packed with their supporters are a more reliable way to claim "endorsement '' of their initiatives than the ballot box or due constitutional process.

Until Independence comes, responsibility for ensuring constitutional "fair play'', observance of democratic norms and indeed maintenance of law and order rests with the Governor and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Comments to date from Government House on the constituency boundary issue are in direct line of descent from other notable British attempts over the past 100 years to shirk confrontation. We can only hope that the FCO and the House of Commons will realise before too late the contingent liabilities which Britain may face if new, untested and potentially unfair processes take hold in "a far away country'' towards all of whose people it still has a real and important duty of care.

DEBATER Smith Parish An abuse of process? October 2, 2000 Dear Sir, Whilst clearly beautiful, I would like to know what sort of licence was issued for the truck on the front page of your September 29 edition. I personally find it hard to believe that this vehicle is going to be used in any genuine commercial capacity. Given the investment of time and money how could the owner possibly consider risking damage through the conveyance of block, cement, sand, tools, lumber or any other items associated with the building industry? This appears to be yet another example of the abuse of commercial vehicle licences. If you spend any time on our very crossed roads you will frequently be met by what appear to be very large and expensive play things. How many places in Bermuda need the power of a V8 and the flexibility of four wheel drive? Even our largest building sites are tiny. How much off-road driving can one really do in our beautiful island? I am really amazed by the huge white Mitsubishi SUV with the illegal window tint frequently going along North shore. This looks like another commercial vehicle that has not done a day of work in its life. If it is the intention of Government to allow two vehicles per household then they should legislate for it. The condoned abuse of the licence process smacks of favouritism and dare I say it "corruption''.

Our roads are crowded enough without these monsters. Who is checking to see if these "trucks'' are being used for the purpose for which they are licensed? PUSHED AGAINST THE WALL Hamilton Parish