Colombian pop star Shakira expressed her concerns about the immigrant experience in the United States, stating that it often involves living in "constant fear." During an interview with the BBC, she emphasized the need for unity and humane treatment of all individuals, regardless of immigration policies. Shakira, who moved to the U.S. at 19 and is currently on her "Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran World Tour," did not specify which policies she found inhumane nor did the BBC inquire about her views on public opinion regarding immigration enforcement under former President Donald Trump.

Recent polling indicates a shift in attitudes towards immigration among voters, with many expressing support for Trump's approach to deporting undocumented immigrants. A CBS News poll revealed that 56 percent of Americans approved of his deportation program, while a Morning Consult poll showed that 51 percent agreed with his handling of immigration issues. These statistics highlight a significant change in voter sentiment since Trump's political rise in 2016, particularly among immigrant voters who have increasingly shifted their support from Democrats to Republicans.

Original article

The provided text is replete with various forms of bias and language manipulation, which will be thoroughly analyzed below.

One of the most striking biases present in the text is its overtly liberal or progressive stance on immigration. The text begins by quoting Colombian pop star Shakira, who expresses her concerns about the immigrant experience in the United States, stating that it often involves living in "constant fear." This framing immediately sets a sympathetic tone towards immigrants and implies that they are victims of a system that perpetuates fear. The use of emotive language such as "constant fear" creates a sense of pathos, which nudges the reader towards empathy with Shakira's perspective. This emotional appeal is a classic example of virtue signaling, where an individual or group presents themselves as morally superior by expressing concern for a particular issue.

Furthermore, the text does not provide any counterbalancing views or criticisms of Shakira's statements. This omission creates a narrative bias that reinforces a one-sided interpretation of immigration issues. The text presents Shakira's views as fact without providing any alternative perspectives, which can be seen as an example of confirmation bias. By selectively presenting only one side of the argument, the text creates an illusion of neutrality while actually promoting a specific ideological agenda.

The text also exhibits cultural and ideological bias through its implicit critique of former President Donald Trump's immigration policies. While Shakira does not explicitly mention Trump's policies, the context suggests that she is criticizing his approach to deporting undocumented immigrants. The use of phrases such as "inhumane treatment" and "living in constant fear" implies that Trump's policies are morally reprehensible and perpetuate suffering among immigrants. This framing reinforces a negative stereotype about Trump supporters and their views on immigration enforcement.

Moreover, the text contains racial and ethnic bias through its selective focus on immigrant experiences in the United States. By highlighting Shakira's concerns about immigrant experiences in America, the text implicitly marginalizes other groups who may face similar challenges elsewhere in the world. For instance, refugees fleeing conflict zones or economic migrants from developing countries may also face significant challenges during their journeys to new countries. The text's exclusive focus on immigrant experiences in America creates an implicit hierarchy among different groups facing migration-related challenges.

The economic and class-based bias present in the text is also noteworthy. By emphasizing Shakira's concerns about immigrant experiences without providing any context about her own socioeconomic background or wealth status, the text reinforces an elite perspective on social justice issues. This framing ignores potential conflicts between economic interests and social justice goals, creating an impression that social justice activism can be pursued without considering economic constraints.

Linguistic and semantic biases are also evident throughout the text. For instance, phrases such as "humane treatment" create euphemistic language that obscures agency behind complex policy decisions. Similarly, passive constructions such as "many expressing support for Trump's approach to deporting undocumented immigrants" obscure agency behind public opinion polls while reinforcing negative stereotypes about Trump supporters.

Structural and institutional biases are also present through implicit defenses of systems authority or gatekeeping mechanisms within institutions like government agencies responsible for immigration policy-making processes remain uninterrogated). Confirmation bias becomes apparent when sources cited reinforce narratives directed toward preferred interpretations rather than questioning assumptions made within those narratives themselves; this phenomenon occurs especially concerning data-driven claims presented throughout article content without critically examining underlying methodologies used generate statistics cited thereupon. Framing narrative biases become clear upon analyzing story structures employed within article content—metaphor usage ordering information presented all serve purpose nudging readers toward preferred interpretations rather than encouraging critical thinking regarding complex issues at hand