Advantages And Disadvantages Of Straight Line Assimilation

Throughout history, migrants had to meet a specific standard of living, particularly satisfying the means of society, in this case, assimilation. However, throughout time, assimilation developed numerous critiques which allowed integration to overtake this basis. Assimilation, according to the straight line classic assimilation theory, is the ongoing fact that individuals need to assimilate into the receiving country to a core culture of white Anglo Protestant, which will allow them for uncomplicated movement. Under these circumstances, assimilation is unidirectional. On the other hand, integration states that assimilation is not necessary for manageable movement in the receiving country. For instance, integration states that it is not necessary to leave one’s culture behind to pursue success. Integration, compared to assimilation, is multidimensional in nature. It allows for immigrant groups to establish

This specific theory is an alternative to straight line assimilation. It is a combination of straight line assimilation including the ethnic disadvantage model. It suggests that there are three possible paths of integration that the children of immigrants might undertake. Either upward mobility, downward mobility, or horizontal mobility. For instance, let’s take into consideration Pedro Flores. His children will fare in the United States based on their racial background, as well as their parents’ socioeconomic background. Flore’s children seemed to take part into the horizontal mobility, although that path disappeared when they migrated to California. Due to this example, we could definitely conclude that this theory does indeed work in real life. On the other hand, in this scenario, I would argue that a possible limitation could in fact include gender differences and how that impacts immigrant integration. In addition, how could the government intercede to accommodate full