My2cents. I agree to simplify opposition to illegal immigration as "xenophobia" is narrow minded. But to ignore xenophobic rhetoric in anti immigration politics is narrow minded and risks allowing a distorted understanding of the role immigrants legal and illegal play in the economy and society that prevents us from addressing real legal issues of documentation and the necessary movement of people and ideas in the 21st century world. You are right that there are logical reasons why a small, developing nation would not welcome scores of illegal immigrants and promote an anchor baby state. However the reality is that this small developing nation has spent years depending on an economy with a hunger for cheap labourers whose babies cannot be faulted for desiring the opportunity to participate in the development of this country. What do you think? Is there any truth you can see in that argument?

Ouch a2z! Ok I give, there is perhaps an unwarranted acidity in my comment and an arrogrant tone. For that I apologise. sincerely. Though, i'd argue, your response exceeded the toxicity of mine and makes the undue assumption that I am male and a regular contributor to tribune242 comments. Also there is some irony in the fact that you suggest my comment was threatening but feel free to use profane slurs and call people "gay." No hard feelings getting dramatic on these threads is always fun.

I should give Nicole more credit but I let passion get the better of me. In all honesty on a second reading there are some good points in the article about making space for difficult conversations and not jumping the gun on the x - word. Political Correctness can indeed go to far. Also her acknowledgment that the hatred of foreigners comes from the fact that Bahamians are treated often as second class citizens in our own country rings very true. BUT there remains some serious assumptions and oversights.

The first being failure to acknowledge that human rights in the Bahamas are still fragile therefore ongoing discussion about human rights is needed. Many people on Nicole's side of the argument shut down people with a human rights perspective by calling them " Haitian Sympathizer" "unpatriotic," " not a real bahamian" having much the same effect she laments of people who call those on her side " xenophobic". The second erroneous assumption is that the rights of foreigners and the rights of nationals are separate and opposed to one or the other. You can have a society where fundamental protections serve the well being of all, rather than one group over another believe it or not. The third assumption I see as incorrect is the ideas that rights and privileges follow lines of nationality - I would argue they rather follow lines of class, political connection and money.

The reason people cry fascism when they see views like Nicole's is because historical analysis of some of humanities darkest events (apartheid, jim crowism, rwanda 1994, ethnic cleansing in former yugoslavia in the early 90s, Germany in the late 30s,) unveil uncannily similar language. The atrocities commited during these historical events were often carried out by ordinary people. What disturbs me is the slippery slope from the rhetoric found in Nicole's writing and in contemporary politics. But those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.

Nicole Burrows...man oh man - I fried you on facebook before...probably one of the most epic intellectual defeats I've seen in Bahamian internet dialogues. Im surprised you are going back to this.... Really? I mean just read what youv'e written. Critically examine the premise of your article. Send it to one of your college professors...ask for their honest feedback. oh boy....youre lucky I'm too busy to hang you out to dry in the comments section here. But since your into dissecting big words i've got one for you to ponder. myopic! Myopia describes the intellectual space your writing occupies. You tell people what they want to hear, to make them feel validated in their tiny world view, To make them feel victimized and provide a comforting faux moral high ground. The sort of thing the readers of British tabloids enjoy. This doesn't seem so harmful until one actually gets a grip on the GLOBAL reality that impacts our lives in real ways, with real consequences that require real analysis and demand of us more more critical thinking than a 4th grade geography class. As an op ed writer you have a moral responsibility to do better.Period.

Apalling! The twisted thing about this is that the DNA are running on a progressive change platform...so far almost everything I hear from them is backwards, ignorant and offensive. I further demand explanation from the journalist and the editor of the paper as to why the have printed this right wing religious propaganda, with no criticism or presentation of the other side of the issue. I thought the tribune was supposed to be an intelligent news paper. This is some of the most irresponsible journalism I've seen in my life. What is truly sick and twisted is this man having the NERVE to call himself a social activist. Deeply disturbing!