Respond to this discussion using the , which you read in the discussion preparation.
At Issue:
Whether the Department of Homeland Securitys decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy is judicially reviewable, and whether DHSs decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
Finding:
The Department of Homeland Securitys decision to wind down DACA is reviewable, and its decision is in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
After reading the complete case, do you agree or disagree with the Court’s ruling? Why?
What argument(s) would you have used to convince the Court to come to an opposite conclusion? Provide rationale and support from course readings for your answer.
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
Response to the Court’s Ruling on DACA
Introduction
The recent ruling concerning the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy raises significant legal and ethical questions. The court’s finding that DHS’s decision is reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and that it was unlawful has sparked a heated debate. I largely agree with the court’s ruling, as it underscores the importance of following established legal processes when implementing policies that significantly affect individuals’ lives.
Agreement with the Court’s Ruling
Judicial Reviewability
I concur with the court’s determination that DHS’s decision to wind down DACA is judicially reviewable. The APA provides a framework for reviewing agency actions, ensuring that decisions are made transparently and with public input. DACA has had profound implications for over 700,000 individuals who depend on its protections, and any changes to such a policy should undergo scrutiny to ensure compliance with procedural requirements. The court’s ruling reaffirms the principle that executive actions must be subject to oversight, especially when they have far-reaching consequences.
Violation of the APA
The court’s conclusion that DHS’s decision was in violation of the APA resonates with me, as it emphasizes the necessity for agencies to follow proper procedures, including providing notice and an opportunity for public comment before making significant changes to existing policies. As highlighted in our course readings, the APA was designed to foster accountability and transparency within federal agencies. The abrupt winding down of DACA without adequate justification or adherence to these principles contravenes the intent of the APA.
Counterarguments to Convince the Court Otherwise
While I support the court’s ruling, if I were to advocate for a different outcome, I would focus on two main arguments:
Executive Discretion in Immigration Policy
One could argue that the DHS possesses broad discretion when it comes to immigration policy, including the ability to terminate programs like DACA. Proponents of this view might assert that immigration enforcement is inherently a matter of executive authority and that agencies should have the flexibility to adapt policies based on changing circumstances or national interest.
Rationale
Supporters of executive discretion might cite historical precedents where administrations have adjusted immigration policies without extensive public involvement. This argument posits that, given changing political landscapes or security concerns, DHS should be able to make swift decisions in the interest of national security or fiscal responsibility.
National Interest and Security Concerns
Another potential argument could focus on national interest and security concerns, suggesting that winding down DACA could be justified if it aligns with broader immigration reform goals or addresses perceived threats. Advocates might contend that prioritizing stricter immigration enforcement is necessary for national safety.
Rationale
In this context, one could argue that the DHS’s decision reflects a legitimate concern about immigration policy coherence and national security. If framed as a necessary measure to ensure comprehensive immigration reform, this argument could potentially sway judicial interpretations in favor of allowing DHS more leeway.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while I agree with the court’s ruling on the reviewability and legality of DHS’s decision to wind down DACA based on the principles of judicial oversight and adherence to the APA, I recognize that arguments exist that could support a different outcome. Emphasizing executive discretion and national interest may resonate in certain judicial contexts; however, the need for accountability and transparency in policymaking remains paramount, particularly when it impacts vulnerable populations like DACA recipients. Ultimately, safeguarding democratic principles should guide decisions made by federal agencies.
