Shakira: How & Why She’s So Very Wrong

Shakira, of Colombian and Portuguese cit­i­zen­ship, was inter­viewed on CNN for her thoughts on the Arizona immi­gra­tion issue. She dropped the fol­low­ing state­ment on Constitutional law:

Let’s get this out of the way: Wrong. Very wrong. Really, really wrong.

How Is Shakira Wrong ? (Simplified):

The Constitution is a doc­u­ment that frames and lim­its the United States Federal Government. Over time many por­tions of the Constitution have been applied to the States.

The Constitution spec­i­fies exis­tence of U.S. cit­i­zen­ship. The exis­tence of this stip­u­la­tion cre­ates a divi­sion between cit­i­zens and non-citizens. A dif­fer­ence exists.

Amendment 14 Section 1

All per­sons born or nat­u­ral­ized in the United States, and sub­ject to the juris­dic­tion thereof, are cit­i­zens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priv­i­leges or immu­ni­ties of cit­i­zens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any per­son of life, lib­erty, or prop­erty, with­out due process of law; nor deny to any per­son within its juris­dic­tion the equal pro­tec­tion of the laws.

Citizenship involves a degree of own­er­ship of the gov­ern­ment, includ­ing the pro­tec­tion and reser­va­tion of spe­cific rights. Notice: “No State shall make or enforce any law with shall abridge the priv­i­leges or immu­ni­ties of cit­i­zens”. The Constitution is specif­i­cally pro­tect­ing the priv­i­leges or immu­ni­ties of citizens.

What of non-citizens? Notice: “nor shall any State deprive […] with­out due process of law; nor deny to any per­son […] the equal pro­tec­tion of the laws.” All con­sid­er­a­tion of all peo­ple is within the con­text of the law. What does Federal law say? Enter the coun­try legally. An ille­gal immi­grant is, by def­i­n­i­tion, not abid­ing by U.S. law. An ille­gal immi­grant is, by def­i­n­i­tion, vio­lating U.S. law. Does the Constitution pro­tect their rights? Certainly. How? By the appli­ca­tion of the law.

The law exists in unity. Protections and lim­i­ta­tions work in unity. Therefore, both the pro­tec­tions and the lim­i­ta­tions of the law apply to ille­gal immi­grants on U.S. soil (and there­fore under the juris­dic­tion of the Constitution). They are alive on U.S. soil, so their rights are pro­tected by the law. Jointly, they vio­late the lim­i­ta­tions of the law, so they are pun­ished by the law.

Why Is Shakira Wrong? (Simplified):

Shakira’s con­cept of con­sti­tu­tional the­ory is very alien for many of us. There’s a rea­son for that: she’s, legally, an alien. Shakira is Colombian. Latin American con­sti­tu­tional the­ory is very dif­fer­ent from United States con­sti­tu­tional the­ory! In the U.S., the Constitution is a doc­u­ment that frames and lim­its our gov­ern­ment and our fed­eral government’s laws. The Constitution is the foun­da­tion for the law. The Latin American stan­dard is dif­fer­ent: in Latin American nations, the con­sti­tu­tions (remem­ber, sim­pli­fy­ing!) are the law! The U.S. Constitution is a sta­ble doc­u­ment that is dif­fi­cult to tex­tu­ally change but under­goes detailed inter­pre­tive shifts. Latin American con­sti­tu­tions are unsta­ble doc­u­ments that are much sim­pler to tex­tu­ally change. Regime changes are often paired with changes, and often full-scale replace­ments, of con­sti­tu­tional doc­u­ments. A Latin American unversed in U.S. con­sti­tu­tional the­ory can­not be expected to have a solid under­stand­ing of the degree of dif­fer­ence. Frankly, how­ever, all that does is pro­vide a bit of con­text for Shakira’s bla­tant ignorance.

Reality: Shakira’s coun­try, Colombia, allows U.S. cit­i­zens to enter Colombia and stay for 60 days as a tourist. If  a U.S. cit­i­zen stays for longer than 60 days with­out per­mis­sion then that U.S. cit­i­zen is fined and pro­hib­ited from leav­ing Colombia until the fine is paid. Why is Shakira demand­ing that United States law not apply to immi­grants with­out also demand­ing that her own coun­try lift restric­tions on immigrants?