The Boston Globe published an editorial on February 24 titled "Congress should pass Central American aid package."  The author presents his or her opinion that the cause of many young undocumented immigrants flooding into the U.S. is violence and economic instability in the "Northern Triangle” – Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Obviously from the title, the argument is that America needs to send funds to Central America to deter those people from leaving their countries. In the author’s words, “The more economic success comes to the region, the less incentive there is to migrate.” The funds would incidentally reduce spending on border patrol.
         My first concern with this editorial is that the author fails to establish that the unrest in these countries is truly the “source” of our immigration problem. Surely the readers of the Boston Globe possess differing viewpoints. Based on that one assumption, the entire argument may fall short for some people.
         In contrast, the author presents other information very persuasively. He or she includes numerous links to outside sources which support his or her claims. Proving the high number of youth in the Northern Triangle countries effectively backs up the point of funding education and job creation. Including the opinions of Jason Marczak and Adriana Beltran, both authorities on U.S. and Latin American relations, adds credibility to the foreign policy angle. Perhaps the best selling point for a skeptic of the proposed aid package is the emotionally appealing idea that this one is different because it focuses on community strengthening.
       Another major issue of alarm is the vague description of where the money is actually going. My concern is that the author does not explain or include any links to the actual content of the proposal. After all, who exactly will receive the aid funding? It can be assumed that if the money finds its way into the hands of the same people who managed Plan Colombia and the Merida Initiative, which were both unproductive failures, the results will be no different this time. Naturally, we don’t want to support Central American aid that is doomed to have no net effect on those countries or our own.
       In my opinion, the magnitude of the author’s oversights in this editorial overbears the supportive evidence. While no doubt the piece is well researched, the author neglects to include valuable information that directly relates to the legitimacy of this proposal. I disagree that sending aid to the Northern Triangle will resolve the issue of mass immigration. Of course we need to do something to help these children, but this is not the solution. 

     On February 13, the New York Times published an article titled "Obama Signs Suicide Prevention for Veterans Act Into Law". The story is that a young veteran, Clay Hunt, returned home after serving and struggled with PTSD, eventually taking his own life. The unfortunate truth is that this law is going into action for the very reason that Hunt's tale is not isolated. In the article, the author claims that some people estimate 22 U.S. veterans kill themselves each day. Offering multiple new ways for homecoming military members to gain help, this law is one step toward ensuring they have access to the effective healthcare that they need. 

     The reason this article is worth reading is because the bill passed unanimously in both houses of Congress. I believe our lawmakers are sending us, the American people, a very clear message: it is not their job alone to help our veterans when they need someone. As he was signing the bill into law, President Obama called upon Americans to become involved in aiding our veterans. Perhaps we can prevent those 22 deaths if we all pay attention and take action. The new law is named in honor of Clay Hunt.