Annotation on Navigating Genres by Kerry Dirk

     This essay gives a lot of different examples on what a genre really is, it goes into explicit detail on genres. The main point of this essay is simple: She wants to show the reader how knowledge of genres goes far beyond a simple discussion of types. "My purposes are to expand your definition of genre (or to introduce you to a definition for the first time) and to help you start thinking about how genres might apply to your own writing endeavors. But above all, I hope to give you an awareness of how genres function by taking what is often quite theoretical in the field of rhetoric and composition and making it a bit more tangible." (250) And she does all this, she also talks about how she had to do research on how essays are suppose to be written when they are pointed towards students reading them. How the writer is suppose to seem more as a coach then a authority figure, because everyone knows that students ("younger" ones) relate better to people talking to them when that person is informing them by not speaking down to them, but instead by being at the same level and encouraging them.
     Kerry Dirk uses a lot of different quotes for references, and they are from credible sources such as, Mary Jo Reiff, a professor who studies rhetoric and composition, Anne Freadman, a specialist in genre theory, Amy Devitt, a professor who specializes in the study of genre theory, Carolyn Miller, a leading professor in the field of technical communication.
     "In other words, knowing what a genre is used for can help people to accomplish goals, whether that goal be getting a job by knowing how to write a stellar resume, winning a person's heart by writing a romantic love letter, or getting into college by writing an effective personal statement." (253) this paragraph from this essay is one of the many great description on how knowing what a genre is used for and utilizing it for what its worth can benefit anyone. Kelly Dirk points out that people participate in many different genres daily. For example, telling a joke or uploading a witty status on Facebook. She points out that all genres matter because they shape our everyday lives. "And by studying the genres that we find familiar, we can start to see how specific choices that writers make result in specific actions on the part of readers; it only follows that our own writer must too be purposefully written" (254) this quote goes back to my utilizing a genre for what its worth can be beneficial.
     She gives some rules that tell writers exactly what to do and not to do while writing to relate rules there are with genres. Similarities within genres help us to communicate successfully, knowing what a genre is because you've seen it before and other people use it for the same thing kind of gives a norm for that genre. Kelly Dirk writes, "Imagine the chaos that would ensue if news broadcasts were done in raps, if all legal briefs were written in couplets, or if your teacher handed you a syllabus and told you that it must first be decoded." those situations happen differently and almost the same way every time because the similarity makes it simpler to read. "In language, too much variation results eventually in lack of meaning: mutual unintelligibility" (Devitt, "Genre" 53) a very help full quote she uses.
     I believe she does a great job with informing others how to use and what are genres. She gives many examples and has great references. She backs up her statements with many credible quotes and she depicts other quotes or parts of articles to give even more in depth information on genres.

Research log 5

Griswold, Daniel. "Willing Workers: Fixing the Problem of Illegal Mexican Migration to the United States." CATO Institute. Web. 15 Oct. 2002


In the first paragraph the auther gives some statistics such as that there are an estimated eight million or more people that live in the United States without legal documents, and that number is growing by an estimated 250,000 a year. This was also in 2002, think how high those numbers could be now, and unless some of the United States Illegal Immigration policies have worked, that number as probably increased to close to twenty million plus would be my guess. Some key claims of the author is that the demand for low-skill laborers have increased and because there is no legal way for immigrants to come into the United States to fill that gap, the number of illegal immigrants has gone up. So if there was a way to prevent illegal immigration but at the same time allow more immigrants in that meet certain standards, we should do it.

“Legalizing Mexican migration would, in one stroke, bring a huge underground market into the open. It would allow American producers in important sectors of our economy to hire the workers they need to grow. It would raise wages and working conditions for millions of low-skilled workers and spur investment in human capital. It would free resources and personnel for the war on terrorism.” This comment from the article to me is a big skeptical idea. Legalizing Mexican migration would do these things, but it also would throw off the population of the United States, make it harder for Americans to get job, It would create more cultural diversity but at the same time, what makes some one think that if you bring a huge underground market into the open, that those criminals will stop what they are doing. If anything they will find other, worse ways to do it. We have ways to stop the underground market at this time, maybe not proficiently, but if we could do it proficiently we wouldn’t have that problem.

There will always be pro’s and con’s to the different ideas on Illegal Immigration, if there weren’t any con’s to an idea then we would probably be using that policy at the moment. I just enjoy bouncing off different ideas and gaining more perspectives on this issue. I stay strong to my beliefs and opinions, and I believe everyone else is entitled to theirs, but taking in these different ideas will only help me persuade others to agree on my ideas.

I’ll go from here and start working on my annotated bibliography sense I have all my five research logs finished. I’ve never done an annotated bibliography before so this should be pretty interesting. But I believe I have enough research and information on my issue and that I am ready for this project.

Research Log 4

"Backfire at the Border: Why Enforcement without Legalization | Douglas S. Massey | Cato Institute: Trade Policy Analysis." The Cato Institute. Web. 14 Oct. 2011.

The author’s purpose of this piece is to bring to the reader’s attention that an enforcement only policy to stop illegal immigration isn’t going to work, and that is true in my opinion. Some other claims the author makes is that the cost to U.S. taxpayers of making one arrest along the border increased from $300 in 1992 to $1,700 in 2002, an increase of 467 percent in just a decade. Which if that is true, that is a huuuge increase and something needs to be done about it. Because there are less arrests and more deaths, it’s costing taxpayers more because they have to pay the law enforcement that are protecting our borders. So if we were able to come up with another policy other than enforcement, that would greatly help tax payers and help illegal immigration prevention.
Some great key concepts that Mr. Massey discus’s is “Congress should build on President Bush's immigration initiative to enact a temporary visa program that would allow workers from Canada, Mexico, and other countries to work in the United States without restriction for a certain limited time. Undocumented workers already in the United States who do not have a criminal record should be given temporary legal status.” And I think this idea is genius, I’m all for getting rid of illegal immigrants, but if that illegal immigrant has no criminal history (other than being in the U.S. illegally of course) they should give him a temporary legal status, maybe not amnesty, but a temperate citizenship granted to work for a certain amount of time then go home. If they want to comeback then they could come back legally and go through the process like they should. This idea is a more peaceful way to slow down illegal immigration and I believe it would work because instead of taking illegal immigration on with just force, a peaceful and helpful or beneficial for the illegal immigrant policy would probably work.
I reacted to this claim positively and if it was brought to a vote, I would support it and heed others to support it as well.
I chose this source by using google scholar and looking up enforcement on illegal immigration, and after scrolling down and reading other articles I chose this one because one it wasn’t a 35 page pdf and that it was clear and to the point. Also because of its percpective on illegal immigration perspective. It wasn’t just against preventing it, or for enforcing prevention as strictly as possible, it was a clear minded view on it. I want to know if there are any laws like the author talks about out there yet, or if there are some in the process in the making. I could go from here and get another article on against preventing it because I only have one or two articles on it at the moment. I want to get as many perspectives on Illegal Immigration as possible, I still hold my opinion on getting rid of illegal immigrants as fast as possible, and if that means granting more visa’s to immigrants from Canada, Mexico, and other country’s temporarily then I’m all for it.

Research log #3

Hurlbert, Stuart H. "Immigration Control and Biodiversity in North America." The Social Contract Spring 2011: 21-22. Print.

Mr. Hurlbert’s purpose or one of his purposes in this article is to talk about population, and how it has increased in size because of the amount of immigrants, illegal and legal, that are coming into the United States is increasing. He says in the article that 10-20% of the U.S. population is immigrants. Some of his main claims in this piece include a stabilized population, habitat and wildlife issues along the border, and biodiversity. He uses quotes from earlier articles and other authors such as Garret Hardin, Beck, R., and L. Kolankiewicz., Hidinger, L, and Hurlbert, S.H. A lot of his claims are based from reading these writers works, he has his opinion but uses quotes from credible sources to support his “ideas” or main claims.

Some key phrases or concepts in this article would include a stabilized population, which the United States would of achieved by now if it wasn’t for the growth rate of its population from the constant and growing flow of immigrants, illegal and legal. A stabilized population to me is where we can control our pollution and consumption of certain things.

He uses a quote from Garrett Hardin (1989), “Never globalize a problem if it can possibly

be solved locally.…We will make no progress with population problems, which are a root cause of both hunger and poverty, until we deglobalize them.… We are not faced with a single global population problem but, rather, with about 180 [now 200+] separate national population problems. All population controls must be applied locally; local governments are the agents best prepared to choose local means.” This is a very different perspective on this situation which I have never even thought of, instead of making a problem bigger, make it smaller instead, and let it be handled in smaller portions. Instead of the government trying to stop illegal immigration as a hole, let the local communities do their part in preventing it, lawfully that is. But I mean if communities are going to complain about things not being done, let the local council or whatever runs the community come up with a plan to stop it in their area. If more communities would do that, then it would greatly decrease illegal immigration and stop the over populating of the United States. All the communities would have to do is come together and find a middle ground where the majority agrees upon something such as reporting anything they know. There has to be some communities out there that are mad of the side effects of over population that could be prevented. I mean it sounds inhumane not letting anyone and everyone into the United States, but you must think about the long term effects, the effect of increase of pollution, habitat destructions, and over populated areas. Cities could become to populated, there could be a HUGE increase in homeless people because there are fewer and fewer jobs out there because were letting anyone into the U.S.

I chose this article to do my research log on because it was a different way to look at immigration, not just illegal immigration or the pro’s and con’s of the laws against it, but a bigger issue that no one really thinks about when they hear the word immigration. It’s kind of like an issue that if we don’t take care of, one day it’ll stab us in the back and we won’t even see it coming. I can go from here, well I can, but I am going to go from here and go into why we see it racist or discriminating to be anti-illegal immigration towards some races, but not towards other races. That seems like a great point to bring up because it seems to me like a double standard.

Research log number 2!

Harris, Craig, Alia B. Rau, and Glen Creno. "Arizona Governor Signs Immigration Law; Foes Promise Fight." The Arizona Republic 24 Apr. 2010. Print.

     The author's purpose of this piece was to give a perspective of what was going on when the Senate Bill 1070 became law at 1:30 p.m. The author gives quotes from the opposing and supporting side of this bill which Gov. Jan Brewer says the law represents another tool for the state to "work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix - the crisis caused by illegal immigration and Arizona's porous border." The author goes into detail on how long it'll take for the law to go into effect, what the opposing side said towards the law, and how they promise to do everything in their power to change it. The author also talks about how the people supported it, what they thought about the bill and how they were glad that it was signed, that it was a great day for Americans.
     The author had a lot of quotes from both view points on this topic. The author's purpose of this piece wasn't to persuade or give their view on this issue but to just discuss what actually happened and how both sides felt about it. I didn't really "react" so to speak, but soaked in what information I could. I learned how other people that supported this bill felt when it became a law. Maricopa Country Sheriff Joe Arpaio is among the supporters who believe it will give officers more tools to detain illegal immigrants. "We've got some very serious crime problems out there, and this bill does not address them. It does not give us tools to go after criminals that are part of the cartels," said Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat who is running for governor. This is one of the few parts of this piece that actually rose a reaction out of me, I don't know how close minded some one could be. How can they not see the bigger picture, majority of undocumented-immigrants have a criminal history let alone being in America illegally, also Terry says it does not give us tools to go after criminals that are part of the cartels, why doesn't it? I mean if undocumented immigrants are leading this cartel and are helping it out, and this law allows officers to detain illegal immigrants, how does that not fight such crime problems?
     I chose this source because it has a direct relationship to my essay. I specifically wrote on the Senate bill 1070 in one of the first paragraphs because I wanted to bring it up because I knew it was a very controversial law. I want to dig more into what the opposing side thought about this bill, but also I want to read more quotes of the supporting side since there were very few in this article. I could go from here and look up similar articles on the Senate Bill 1070 because i guarantee there are many more articles such as this one.

Research Log 1 revised

Miron, Jeffrey A. "The Realities Behind The Immigration Debate." The Dailey Caller 18 May 2010. Print.

            This article talks about different methods of stopping illegal immigration. Jeffrey Miron, the author of this article, goes on to explain different methods of illegal immigration prevention techniques. He gives pretty good detail on each method, but the details or explanations he gives are mainly one sided. Mr. Miron talks about what they don’t do for illegal immigration instead of bringing up the positive things that these anti-illegal immigration methods actually do accomplish. I have to admit that the points he brings up are relevant and do make a good point to a certain level. He brings up credible groups such as NAFTA and CAFTA for support on one of his points, but the rest of it from what I read is mainly his opinion or his “hypothesis” on different scenarios.

            Jeffrey Miron writes, “Most of this debate involves wishful thinking: the claim that stricter border controls or Arizona-like measures can make a real difference. The reality is that only four policies can significantly reduce illegal immigration.”, this quote from the first paragraph kind of leads into what he’s going to talk about, which is the four policies that he think can significantly reduce illegal immigration. He already begins his article off with saying the methods the government uses or want to use are wishful thinking, but that’s not all true. They are the first step in ending illegal immigration or at least slowing it down. Plans that are implanted and took into action first have to come from ideas or this “wishful thinking” to even exist.

            Mr. Miron’s first policy that he brings up is to allow more legal immigration. He thinks that the reason why we have such a bad problem with illegal immigration is because we restrict legal immigration. I agree with this policy idea to a certain point, I agree with that we could loosen up on allowing legal immigrants in, but to a certain extent. He believes we should allow all immigrants come in, but he doesn’t take into consideration that some may be convicted of violent crimes or be full blown criminals from where they are from. Why would we want to allow people with a violent history into our country, I mean you can tell me that’s inmoral not allowing immigrants in, but I can tell you that your crazy if you expect me to be okay with allowing violent criminals in. But to the contrary, a criminal is someone who is convicted of a crime, and some of these crimes could be minor such as stealing or something that isn’t as bad as it may seem when you hear criminal.

            The second policy Mr. Miron brings to the table is expand free trade. He says that if we expand free trade and make it easier for goods to travel across borders then the low-skill labor will shift from the United States to the poorer countries. This is a faulty policy, he’s correct that making it easier for good to travel across borders will allow immigrants to stay in their country and work their instead of in America, but that doesn’t mean that working in their country will be good. Foreign employers could use fear tactics on their workers, pay them less, or abuse them. But those claims are all skeptical and the only way of knowing what would happen is to actually try it out, but by then if it doesn’t work out we’d be screwed.

            The third policy or whatever you may call it because at this point in the article he gives up on calling these “policies” policies. And he has a good reason to because they are becoming more into the category of “wishful thinking” which is starting to make him sound like a hypocrite.  He started off and saying that the reality is only the four policies that he talked about in his article would stop illegal immigration, when the REAL reality is, that every idea is “wishful thinking”. But that’s not a bad thing because that’s where great ideas and great things come from is wishful thinking. So my reaction is, or well opinion for that matter, is don’t try and say you have the correct answer to ending illegal immigration and at the same time say that the other ideas aren’t as promising as yours, because you start to sound ignorant near the end of what you are trying to implement.

            I chose this source because it kind of brings out the other side of illegal immigration. It gives good detail on the other side of my argument and I believe it is necessary to know the other side of your argument so you can cripple it. But not only that, if you learn about the other side you can describe why your side is correct compared to your “opponent”. Also if you don’t know the other side of your argument, you’re in for a crude awakening when they start bringing up ideas that are in favor of their side and all you can do is sit there with your tongue tide. I might want to know a little more of the opposing side to my argument, because this is just one perspective to pro illegal immigration or in other words allowing more immigrants into our country. I could go from here and include in my essay a little more about why Americans should support the prevention of Illegal Immigration and the laws passed to stop it, because these ideas in this article show how faulty the opposing argument really is.