Immigrant Academics and Cultural Challenges in a Global Environme ...

those in academia—whether or not their immediate family and friends are also illegal—cannot help finding or feeling themselves being absorbed into the category of illegal immigrants or being associated with them. The general rhetoric and prejudice directed at those tagged as illegal or dangerous immigrants easily overflows the boundary that demarcates legal from illegal. Their Otherness becomes even more accentuated. Cultural markers that further distinguish the immigrant—like a hijab, an accent, religious practices, or other such visible symbols—are likely to add to the tension and stress of the immigrant’s transculturation process.

Immigrant academics and even international students, many of whom are pursing higher degrees, occupy elite occupational positions and are upper middle class by definition. The “elite” status that is ascribed to immigrant academics by virtue of their vocation has been found to be an important factor in the kinds of attitudes displayed toward them by members of the host population. Other variables like age, sex, personality characteristics, level and type of education of the immigrant/expatriate, as well as the social status and occupational rank of members of the host community also influence host population attitudes. For example, Jones and Lambert’s survey of attitudes toward immigrants in a Canadian town in the early 1960s, where large numbers of Europeans immigrated after World War II, led them to conclude that “Canadians employed in higher-prestige occupations held more favorable attitudes toward immigrants than did Canadians employed in lower-prestige occupations” (1965, pp. 137–144). Another study that they carried out also produced the conclusion that attitudes toward immigrants also vary based on the occupations and perceived social rank and opportunity of the immigrants. They found that “[i]mmigrants in higher-prestige occupations are regarded as more acceptable for admission into Canada than those in lower prestige occupations,” but the same respondents were “less willing to use the services of immigrants employed in higher-prestige occupations than of those employed in lower prestige occupations.” The authors rightly wondered whether this was not a case where native Canadians did “not expect the immigrant to follow his occupation once he [was] admitted to Canada” (1965, pp. 137–144).