Although ICE claims to have improves state of LGBTQ immigrants in detention since President Obama’s zero tolerance policy for sexual abuse in detention facilities, it is still quote unnecessary to put them in detention. ICE has improved in areas such as having a Risk Classification Assessment Procedure in place. ICE claims that is it a useful tool to help individual officers obey to the department's priorities and properly implement prosecutorial discretion”. It also tells the agent how to detain an immigrant. In fact, one of the standard questions to be asked is “ask the individual if he/she fears any harm in detention based on his/her sexual orientation or gender identity” (Lind, 2015). However, this evaluation is useless because many LGBTQ immigrants do not disclose their orientation or understand the questions that are being asked. According to Centre for American Progress, the reality is far from what has been portrayed by the ICE because “in 81 of the 104 cases last year, where an immigrant said he or she feared being put in detention because of sexual orientation or gender identity, ICE detained him or her anyway” (Lind, 2015). Taking the detention of LGBTQ immigrants into account, this seems to be a definite example of such a system overrun by errors in preconceptions. The fact that immigrants don’t have rights, or can be manhandled in however which way the agents of the ICE deem fit, is an obvious by-product of the deep-seated nature of citizenism and its ideals. Both marginalization and flawed immigration policies which lead to such marginalization are both responsible for and direct consequences of
Although ICE claims to have improves state of LGBTQ immigrants in detention since President Obama’s zero tolerance policy for sexual abuse in detention facilities, it is still quote unnecessary to put them in detention. ICE has improved in areas such as having a Risk Classification Assessment Procedure in place. ICE claims that is it a useful tool to help individual officers obey to the department's priorities and properly implement prosecutorial discretion”. It also tells the agent how to detain an immigrant. In fact, one of the standard questions to be asked is “ask the individual if he/she fears any harm in detention based on his/her sexual orientation or gender identity” (Lind, 2015). However, this evaluation is useless because many LGBTQ immigrants do not disclose their orientation or understand the questions that are being asked. According to Centre for American Progress, the reality is far from what has been portrayed by the ICE because “in 81 of the 104 cases last year, where an immigrant said he or she feared being put in detention because of sexual orientation or gender identity, ICE detained him or her anyway” (Lind, 2015). Taking the detention of LGBTQ immigrants into account, this seems to be a definite example of such a system overrun by errors in preconceptions. The fact that immigrants don’t have rights, or can be manhandled in however which way the agents of the ICE deem fit, is an obvious by-product of the deep-seated nature of citizenism and its ideals. Both marginalization and flawed immigration policies which lead to such marginalization are both responsible for and direct consequences of