In “Should immigrants assimilate?”, Alejandro Portes and Min Zhou address the pressure to automatically assimilate that continues to hound second generation immigrants. They weigh the costs of this automatic assimilation and the effects of evident discrimination of a second generation immigrant that follows if assimilation is refused. Mary C. Waters’ article, “Debating Immigration”, acknowledges the inconsistencies of public debate and credible studies dealing with second generation immigrants and their assimilation. Waters’ argument widens the scope of Portes and Zhou’s take on the process of assimilation by providing a positive perspective and hindsight on the topic.
Waters takes into account Portes and Zhou’s argument on how a second generation …show more content…
With evidence of numerous case studies of various racial groups with a range of backgrounds, resources, and experiences, Portes and Zhou find that “these factors influence decisively the outlook of second-generation youth” (33). By using such a powerful word as decisively, Portes and Zhou suggest that this is the main influential factor of a second generation immigrants assimilation. Waters places less priority on this factor, reasoning that debates in the news are like Portes and Zhou’s argument, which “often focus on problems… and often miss important topics” (236). While the problems focused on are prevalent in today’s society, arguments like this are narrowed into a corner, focusing on one specific attribute of a second generation immigrant’s process of assimilation. By failing to step back and look at the topic from a varying perspective that recent sociological studies provide, debates like Portes and Zhou’s will continue with a dated perspective that ignores other, more recently significant …show more content…
Portes and Zhou provide evidence for this claim with an ethnographic study of Punjabi Sikhs at Valleyside high school from 1980 to 1982 by M.A. Gibson (28). While Portes and Zhou’s evidence is focused on specific ethnic groups, Waters’ evidence focuses on a current misconception of the public: language assimilation. Waters reasons that “some linguistic assimilation can happen too rapidly” (240) and utilizes various studies done by other sociologists including Portes and Zhou that find a positive correlation between a second generation immigrant’s “fluent bilingualism and academic achievement” (240). These studies were all produced between 1996 and 2003, which is fourteen to twenty one years after the evidence Portes and Zhou utilized in their article. While Portes and Zhou provided specific evidence of the benefits of selective assimilation, Waters’ evidence on language assimilation can be associated with every second generation immigrant regardless of ethnic identity. Waters supported Portes and Zhou’s claim with recent, widespread evidence which overall strengthens the credibility of Portes and Zhou’s claim due to Waters’ benefit of
Waters takes into account Portes and Zhou’s argument on how a second generation …show more content…
With evidence of numerous case studies of various racial groups with a range of backgrounds, resources, and experiences, Portes and Zhou find that “these factors influence decisively the outlook of second-generation youth” (33). By using such a powerful word as decisively, Portes and Zhou suggest that this is the main influential factor of a second generation immigrants assimilation. Waters places less priority on this factor, reasoning that debates in the news are like Portes and Zhou’s argument, which “often focus on problems… and often miss important topics” (236). While the problems focused on are prevalent in today’s society, arguments like this are narrowed into a corner, focusing on one specific attribute of a second generation immigrant’s process of assimilation. By failing to step back and look at the topic from a varying perspective that recent sociological studies provide, debates like Portes and Zhou’s will continue with a dated perspective that ignores other, more recently significant …show more content…
Portes and Zhou provide evidence for this claim with an ethnographic study of Punjabi Sikhs at Valleyside high school from 1980 to 1982 by M.A. Gibson (28). While Portes and Zhou’s evidence is focused on specific ethnic groups, Waters’ evidence focuses on a current misconception of the public: language assimilation. Waters reasons that “some linguistic assimilation can happen too rapidly” (240) and utilizes various studies done by other sociologists including Portes and Zhou that find a positive correlation between a second generation immigrant’s “fluent bilingualism and academic achievement” (240). These studies were all produced between 1996 and 2003, which is fourteen to twenty one years after the evidence Portes and Zhou utilized in their article. While Portes and Zhou provided specific evidence of the benefits of selective assimilation, Waters’ evidence on language assimilation can be associated with every second generation immigrant regardless of ethnic identity. Waters supported Portes and Zhou’s claim with recent, widespread evidence which overall strengthens the credibility of Portes and Zhou’s claim due to Waters’ benefit of