Assimilation in America

Assimilation in America The idea of American assimilation continues to divide opinion in the USA. In charting its progression in the country's popular imagination, Giuntella (2017) notes that even if assimilation could be said to have endured in the country as an idea, this endurance has had a confusing quality about it. In the following sections, this paper argues that the notion of assimilation in America is as equally supported as it is opposed in the country. In following this argument, there will be a consideration of the various views that have been aired with regard to the assimilation issue. This interrogation will then be followed by an examination of the merits of both sets of arguments.

Within the increasingly polarized American society, questions regarding immigration have become controversial. There are mainly two factions in this debate. The first faction argues that there are valid reasons to loosen the country's restrictions on immigration restrictions. On the other hand, the other faction argues that strengthening the country's immigration restrictions has the benefit of securing the country's economic, security, and cultural concerns. From these two groups, it is possible to argue that the question of assimilation is mostly related to cultural concerns.

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from ace-myhomework.com

In particular, those who argue for stricter restrictions are particularly concerned by the fact that when immigrants move to the USA, they exhibit a reluctance to assimilate to American society (Giuntella, 2017). The fact that many immigrants show an unwillingness to speak English and to build their homes in places that are culturally heterogenous proves that assimilation is not a priority for them. On the other hand, those who call for looser restrictions argue that, after the colonization of Native Americans, the USA has always been a country of immigrants. As such, welcoming immigrants into the country is a way for the country to remain true to its roots.

Pardo (2018) notes that there are three main ideologies that have been used to explain how America came to be a nation of immigrants. These conceptual models are Angloconformity, the melting pot, and cultural pluralism. Under Anglo-conformity, the people that emigrate into the country are either expected or intentionally adapt their habits to align with those of the White, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant majority. In adapting their behaviour to align with that of the dominant majority, immigrants then show that they are willing to participate fully in the American way of life.

The second conceptual model is the melting pot. Under this model, a particular society goes from being heterogeneous and becomes homogenous (Pardo, 2018). The different elements found in such a community melt together with the most dominant culture. To understand the distinguishing aspects of the melting pot conceptual model, there is a need to consider its opposite. The alternative to a melting pot would be a situation where homogenous society becomes more heterogeneous through the incorporation of foreign elements with different cultural backgrounds. In this alternative to a melting pot, the dominant culture is usually at risk of getting subsumed or overshadowed by the foreign cultural elements.

The third conceptual model is cultural pluralism. Under this model, a society achieves cultural diversity by allowing various cultures to maintain their unique qualities. In this arrangement, multiple cultures with unique aspects combine to form a larger culture that is richer because of the unique elements found in the society's diverse range of cultures. Cultural pluralism is often said to be the most progressive of models when it comes to questions regarding immigration (Pardo, 2018).

In making sense of the current debate regarding American assimilation, and understanding of how the three models operate is critical. Indeed, the factions that either argue for assimilation or against usually base their arguments on one or all of the outlined models.

Those who argue for stricter immigration restrictions argue that there is something inherently dangerous about the concept of the melting pot. For this faction, the key concern is that in the process of creating a melting pot, the people who were first to call themselves American will lose sight of what made them uniquely American. In other words, by advocating for melting pots, the cost will be seen in the loss of distinguishing aspects about Americans (Shaw-Taylor & McCall, 2020).

Shaw-Taylor and McCall (2020) argue that when immigrants come to the USA, they are entering into a contract that guarantees them uninterrupted stay in the country if they agree to abide by three precepts. The first precept is that they will speak the English language. Secondly, they agree to live by what has to be known as the Protestant work ethic. As per the logic of this work ethic, the expectation is that one will not only be self-reliant, but will also be hardworking and morally upright. Thirdly, an American immigrant was expected to take particular pride in their American identity. In being proud of America, the immigrant would be expected to show that they were willing to abide by America's democratic and egalitarian principles.

The faction that opposes the idea of a monocultural USA argues that assimilation cannot be based on New England settlement ideals. For this faction, the world is moving towards mass globalization. Therefore, any person who calls for increased homogenization is essentially going in the opposite direction from which the world is going (Shaw-Taylor and McCall, 2020). In applauding American cultural diversity, this faction argues that, because the USA is a country of immigrants, there is no distinguishing national culture that sets it apart. They also note that, in the beginning, the USA was settled by French, German, Irish, and Norwegian populations.

Nee and Drouhot (2020) argue that assimilation as an ideal is faulty because, essentially, the USA is caught in an identity crisis. These authors imply that the need for immigrants to assimilate is contradictory because there is no distinct identity to which they have to conform. In their view, this need to incorporate has created mass confusion in American society while also perpetuating the identity crisis which the country faces. Furthermore, this author maintains that everyone is always fighting the battle between assimilation and authenticity. As such, cultural pluralism will allow people to be authentic as opposed to trying to achieve impossible standards of assimilation.

The views offered by people asking for stricter immigration policies can be traced to the identity crisis in which most people find themselves in the 21st century. Faced by a world that contains more choices, faster communication, faster transportation, and more globalization, there is an anxiety for people to hold on to their identities. Thus, in asking for immigrants to assimilate to the dominant culture, the need is to retain a semblance of purity in a world that is becoming less tribal and more expansive (Lee & Zhou, 2015). The other concern that people have is that, without assimilation, then the state's resources will go towards people that are not necessarily committed to the country's ideals. In this case, in taking a conservative stance, the aim is to

ensure that a country's resources prioritize people that consider the USA as their primary country.

On the other hand, the views offered by the people who argue for looser restrictions demonstrate that assimilation is inherently multidimensional. As such, one should not expect that an individual's process of assimilation will be similar to another individual's assimilation process.

Instead, there should be the recognition of the fact that assimilation is not a single coherent process. In the usual case, assimilation will involve economic, cultural, social, and political aspects. In the current immigration discourse in the USA, the main frame of reference is usually cultural assimilation (Lee & Zhou, 2015). However, even where one can be said not have assimilated into American culture, there may have been economic and political assimilation. In this way, then, the fact that someone lives in the USA means that assimilation will inevitably occur. The challenge is where the process of cultural assimilation is prioritized.

In sum, it could be argued that the question of assimilation in the USA – particularly as it is conceptualized by Homeland Security – has to be approached using a broader lens. While assimilating to the culture of the place to which one is emigrating may be beneficial, it should not be made out to as being compulsory. Furthermore, as the world moves towards globalization, there is a case to be made about improving multiculturalism and cultural pluralism. Ultimately, the most essential thing is to ensure that Americans find a way of occupying the world in a manner that is open and inviting. Indeed, with the gains being made in the field of technology, a more connected world is more likely to be rule than the exception.

References Giuntella, O., & Stella, L. (2017). The acceleration of immigrant unhealthy assimilation.

Health Economics, 26(4), 511-518. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3331 Lee, J., & Zhou, M. (2015). The Asian American achievement paradox. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Nee, V., & Drouhot, L. G. (2020). Immigration, opportunity, and assimilation in a technology economy. Theory and Society, 49(5), 965-990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-02009414-0 Pardo, F. (2018). Urban Diversity and the Scope of Multiculturalism. In Challenging the Paradoxes of Integration Policies (pp. 19-23). Springer, Cham.

Shaw-Taylor, Y., & McCall, L. (2020). Immigration, assimilation, and border security.

Bernan Press.