Madam, - While I found the result of the referendum greatly disappointing, the outcome was never really in any doubt. The vast majority of people who voted Yes were not interested in the legal or procedural arguments over the need for a constitutional amendment rather than a legislative one. What they wanted to say to the establishment was one of two things:
1. There are too may foreigners in the country; or:
2. There are too many illegal foreigners in the country.
Does this make them all racists? Definitely not. Was a significant proportion of them motivated by race alone? Definitely yes.
But is this surprising given the utter mess this Government has made of both the immigration and asylum issues? The only encouragement I took was that Michael McDowell was quick to outline his plans for substantial legislation on immigration. I hope we will soon have a proper immigration policy that has planned targets but also treats legal immigrants as human beings and potential citizens of the State, not as a temporary solution to labour shortages.
Having said that, there has to be deportation of illegal immigrants and there has to be a quick and fair process for processing asylum applications. The problem up to now is that legal immigrants, illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers have been thrown in to a big group called "non-nationals" by the Government, the media and others.
This is grossly unfair to everyone and especially the tens of thousands of hard-working immigrants who pay their taxes like everyone else and who have contributed greatly to our economic success. - Yours, etc.,
KEVIN WINDLE,
Glencairn Heights,
Dublin 18.
Madam, - I regard the outcome of the referendum as the most depressing event in this country in my lifetime.
Those who advocated a "Yes" vote appeared to base their argument primarily on a fear of being "swamped" by immigrants. Irish people, through the generations, have "swamped" other countries where we have often thrived and generally been made feel welcome.
It is interesting to observe a sample of the people who supported and opposed the proposed change to the constitution. Those who advocated a No vote included, for instance, several prominent Protestant clergymen, Sister Stanslaus Kennedy and Father Peter McVerry SJ. Sad to say, the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin had nothing to offer. - Yours, etc.,
CARL de BLACAM,
Richmond Park,
Monkstown,
Co Dublin.
Madam, - In view of the citizenship referendum result, it appears that messers - sorry, Messrs - Ahern and McDowell will have to prepare for yet another election.
As almost 80 per cent of the electorate have indicated that St Patrick, with no Irish ancestor whatsoever, is clearly unqualified for the job of patron saint, it is surely time to select another incumbent.
Just to prove how welcoming we still are as a nation, might I propose one of the potentially draft-dodging Americans who have recently rediscovered their Irish grannies in order to obtain Irish passports? No Minister has accused them of abusing the system - they are, after all, most likely to be Caucasian. - Yours, etc.,
MARIE ALTZINGER,
Sweetmount Drive,
Churchtown,
Dublin 14.
Madam, - On the follies of government-by-referendum, a Sunday Telegraph editor once wrote that causes which channel popular anger and resentment, such as the restoration of hanging, would, if put to "the people", win in a canter.
One effect of such polls is that they pit the general electorate against its liberal intelligentsia, with unknowable consequences for civil society. Which is why responsible governments don't hold them.
Our ruling coalition, in pursuit of an electoral stunt that didn't come off, have done just that. - Yours, etc.,
PÁRAIC MARREN,
Glasanaon Court,
Finglas,
Dublin 11.