All around the globe, the assimilation of immigrants differs from region to region, continent to continent. One thing in common though, they all come down to similar controversies. Much controversy and debate aroused around what has become the center of debate and advocacy: human rights. In A Year of Living Dangerously, Francis Fukuyama (2008) argues that there must be a sense of unification among immigrants and citizens from the concerned home-country, and a method similar to the United States’ approach to assimilating immigrants, which Fukuyama claims to be successful. Fukuyama, however, is mistaken to claim that the United States’ approach to assimilating immigrants has been a successful one, in social terms. Fukuyama (2008) argues that the biggest challenge in achieving democracy is to assimilate citizens in a manner that would not provoke anger from either the immigrants or “right-wing populists” (p. 269). A bigger problem yet, is to impose a new national identity on the immigrants to enable them to connect with other citizens of different religions, ethnicities, and backgrounds into “a common democratic culture” (p. 270). He suggests that this could be achieved much like how the “American creed has served to unite new immigrants to the United States” (p. 270). These statements show that Fukuyama fails to recognize the flaws in the immigration assimilation method. Immigrant assimilation is assessed by four benchmarks: socio-economic status, geographic distribution, the attainment of a second language, and intermarriage. Although some immigrants do fulfill the four benchmarks with success, most immigrants do not. Most immigrants face hardships in trying to promote themselves to a higher socioeconomic status. That main underlying reason is because most immigrants arrive to the U.S as low-skilled laborers; the tools they have to elevate their socioeconomic