The people have voted in the referendum, but what did the people mean? asks Priya Rajsekar
This Monday morning, as I took my first post-referendum walk down the road, to my chagrin I realised that Ireland had changed. Instead of smiling "white" faces, and friendly, helpful people, I saw a lot of Yes votes.
So, when a bystander remarked that my baby looked gorgeous, I did not smile my best smile for her. I wondered whether she had voted Yes or No on the citizenship referendum and ignored her, hurt by what she may have done.
Even the familiar bus driver, who had on so many earlier occasions held my baby as I folded the buggy, got the cold shoulder for the same reason. I placed the baby on the bus seat, dashed to fetch the buggy and ran back to him, hoping he had not fallen off. The bus driver looked on perplexed, wondering what happened to the nice lady who always expressed her gratitude and exchanged pleasantries with him.
It is not my fault. How was I supposed to know who had voted Yes and more importantly, for what reason? Common sense told me that since four of five people had voted in favour of the referendum, the helpful bus driver and the friendly "baby-admirer" were probably one of the Yes men and women and worse, ones with anti-immigrant feelings.
The outcome of the referendum on citizenship came as a blow. Not because a vast majority the people had voted Yes but because it confirmed fears that many who voted Yes were not judging the merits of the referendum proposal but were instead expressing their frustration and anger over the presence of non-nationals.
An article in the Sunday Times (June 13th), titled "McDowell calls for apology as public speaks with one voice" threw some light on the motivating factors.
The high turnout for the referendum, where almost 80 per cent voted Yes, was explained through an RTÉ exit poll. According to the report, a third of the Yes voters polled were reported to have said that they "were motivated by anti-immigrant feelings", 36 per cent felt the country was being exploited by immigrants, and 27 per cent felt Ireland had too many of them.
Sure, the people have given their verdict and the amendment's supporters have been flaunting their trophy for all to see. But, on the flip side, isn't there a possibility that this is a pyrrhic victory?
Till the moment the referendum statistics were made public, xenophobia existed simply as a theory or a sporadic media report.
In all probability, it was an embarrassing secret that a majority of the people preferred not to divulge. Most immigrants probably dismissed its very existence and went about their lives doing their best for their symbiotic relationship with Ireland.
But now the numbers are there for all to see and many people are reported to have given voice and vote to their "anti-immigrant" sentiments. Will a non-national be able to carry on living normally after this? Will an Irish man or woman be able to win the trust of a non-national after this? It will be extremely difficult.
Because the way a non-national will look at it, if four of five people effectively voted him out of the country, chances are his boss, his neighbour, his best friend and his family doctor, to name a few, belonged to the Yes club and probably to that section that voted against immigrants and not necessarily to plug a citizenship loophole. The Government has succeeded in getting mass support to keep the "citizenship tourists" at bay. However, in the process, has the size of the collateral damage exceeded that of the gain?
The Irish Times (June 14th) quotes the Minister for Justice on the RTÉ exit poll.
"I am very, very suspicious of that exit poll. People might have said immigrant and meant refugee. They invented the categories after they had received the replies. It was not scientific."
In a way, the Minister has hit the bullseye of the problem. People were asked to vote on an issue they were not fully informed about. Many did not understand the categories and circumstances under which a non-national can enter the country and how many make significant contributions to its growth and prosperity.
The Minister for Justice has also stated that the legislation to follow would make Ireland the most "immigrant friendly" country in the EU. But is there anything that can be done to assuage the pain of rejection that every immigrant has been subjected to? Can an assurance be given that, without a trace of doubt, every vote cast was solely to determine the automatic rights to citizenship of children born to non-national parents? The referendum has, in a way, made it acceptable to openly admit a dislike of non-nationals. It is now a subject of dinner time conversations and media discussions. How will it affect the minds of children? Will they be able to treat non-national children as their equals? Will these children get a fair deal?
The people have given a definitive verdict. But many immigrants have been left wondering what the verdict is about.
In several ways, the whole issue of the referendum has hurt the pride of immigrants. What about those who have made homes here and burnt the boats that would have taken them back?
Where do the doubts raised by this referendum leave them? Are they expected to desensitise themselves and go back to being nurses, software professionals and architects as if nothing has happened?
For them, life in Ireland may never be the same again.
Priya Rajsekar is an Indian journalist currently living in Ireland